Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Time for change's Journal
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion
Sat Feb 09th 2008, 09:52 PM
if Congress believes that our Constitution contains the laws that hold our country together and make us a nation of laws rather than a nation of men, then common sense demands that they impeach. So does common decency. It is not only our Constitution
As a government employee I’m required to fill out a several page form every year in order to show that I don’t have any conflicts of interests which may interfere with the honest performance of my job. In theory, so are all U.S. government employees who have jobs that are potentially subject to conflicts of interest.

The purpose of the extensive rules governing potential conflicts of interests for U.S. government employees are explained concisely in the first paragraph of this document:

As an executive branch employee, you have the opportunity to use your talent and expertise to do work that benefits the public. Sometimes, though, your government work may benefit you or your family personally…. In these circumstances, the public could be concerned that you will be motivated by considerations other than your desire to do what is best for the public as a whole.

In no area of policy is it more important for government to prevent conflicts of interest than in those dealing with issues of war and other disasters. To do this, an ethical government must ensure that its employees who are involved in making war and disaster related decisions do not have financial interests that could cause them to profit from war or other disaster. Failure of government to adequately address such a situation could lead to the hiring and retention of government employees who promote war or other disaster for financial gain – i.e. war profiteering.

War profiteering is an abominable act. Those who engage in it should be removed from office immediately – and then prosecuted. High government officials who willfully and repeatedly allow war profiteering to occur under their supervision should also be removed from office.

With that in mind, let’s consider some examples of the actions of several Neocons in the George W. Bush administration or who contracted to do work on behalf of the Bush administration. The following examples are taken from Naomi Klein’s book, “The Shock Doctrine – The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”, where the issue of war profiteering is discussed in great detail.


Some examples of war profiteering by Neocons working in or connected with the Bush administration

Donald Rumsfeld
Among holdings representing conflicts of interest that Donald Rumsfeld refused to divest himself of when he became Secretary of Defense in 2001 was $8 million to $39 million worth of stock in Gilead Sciences, a company that Rumsfeld previously chaired and which held the patent on an influenza vaccine known as Tamiflu. A Senate ethics committee tried to get Rumsfeld to comply with the rules, but he refused.

George Bush’s “War on Terror”, as well as the accompanying Iraq War, which Rumsfeld so aggressively promoted, contributed greatly to a rise in the value of Gilead stock. So did the July 2005 purchase by Rumsfeld’s Pentagon of $58 million worth of Tamiflu and the purchase of $1 billion worth of Tamiflu by the Department of Health and Human Services shortly thereafter. As a result of all these things, by the time Rumsfeld left office his millions of dollars worth of holdings in Gilead stock had increased by 807 %, providing him with a profit of millions or tens of millions of dollars.

Dick Cheney
When Dick Cheney became Vice President in 2001 he refused to let go of 189,000 shares of Halliburton stock, though he repeatedly proclaimed that he had done so.

With the onset of war in Iraq, which Cheney had lobbied for constantly for two and a half years, Halliburton received billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts. That made the Iraq War the single most profitable event in Halliburton’s history. Due largely to those no-bid contracts, the value of Halliburton stock has risen by more than 300 % during Cheney’s time in office so far.

Furthermore, Halliburton was found guilty of over-billing our government $1.5 billion, and several billions of dollars allocated to the reconstruction of Iraq went missing. Yet, no meaningful investigation has ever been conducted by the Bush administration to hold the perpetrators accountable.

James Baker III
James Baker, the man who headed George W. Bush’s theft of the 2000 election, was appointed by Bush as special envoy with respect to Iraq’s debt. That meant that Baker was responsible for persuading numerous governments to forgive Iraq’s crushing foreign debt.

At the time that Baker received this assignment he was a partner in the Carlyle Group (which also received billions of dollars as a result of the Iraq War). Though Baker never mentioned this publicly, Naomi Klein obtained a confidential memo that demonstrated a serious conflict of interest for Baker with respect to his new government assignment and his partnership in the Carlyle group. At the same time that he was supposed to be convincing governments to forgive Iraq’s debt, the Carlyle group was involved in an effort on behalf of their client, the nation of Kuwait, to collect several billion dollars in debt from Iraq.

And not only that. The memo that Klein obtained indicated that Baker played a key role in collecting the debt from Iraq. Furthermore, to secure the contract with Kuwait, the Carlyle group emphasized the influence that Baker had with the Bush administration, and required Kuwait to invest $1 billion with them.

After Klein exposed the deal in The Nation, the Carlyle Group backed out of it. But the damage was already done because they had already been successful in forcing Iraq to pay $2.59 billion to Kuwait, money that was desperately needed to ease Iraq’s humanitarian crisis and help rebuild their country. In addition, Baker was completely unsuccessful in his “efforts” to ease Iraq’s debt burden, the job that the Bush administration paid him to do.

George Schultz and the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq”
George Schultz was a former Secretary of State in the Reagan administration. In 2002 he headed the “Committee for the Liberation of Iraq” at the request of the Bush administration. In that capacity he wrote editorials such as “Act Now: The danger is immediate – Saddam Hussein must be removed”, to whip up enthusiasm for the invasion of Iraq.

At the same time, though he never disclosed this to his readers, Schultz was a member of the board of directors at Bechtel, which stood to gain huge profits from a war with Iraq. And indeed, less than a month after the start of the war, Bechtel was awarded a $680 million contract for the reconstruction of Iraq. They ended up making $2.3 billion on Iraq reconstruction, even though they never came close to finishing the job they were hired to do.

Also of note is that Lockheed Martin was intimately involved in creating and running the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. And they too made huge profits on the Iraq War.

Henry Kissinger
Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor for the Nixon administration, was probably more intimately involved with the Bush administration than any other outside advisor, meeting regularly with both Bush and Cheney.

After September 11, 2001, Bush picked him to head the 9-11 Commission, to investigate the circumstances of the 9-11 attacks on our country. When the families of 9-11 victims asked Kissinger to produce a list of his corporate clients, in order to ascertain if he had conflicts of interest with respect to his new position, he refused. Rather than produce the list he stepped down as the chair of the Commission, though Bush did not ask him to step down or to produce the list of his corporate clients.

Richard Perle
Richard Perle was tasked by Donald Rumsfeld to chair the Defense Policy Board for the Bush administration.

Two months after the 9-11 attacks Perle created a private defense and security company called Trireme Partners. He used his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board to argue for a preemptive attack on Iraq – a role that previous chairmen of the DPD had probably never done. At the same time, he used his title to solicit investments in his new company, according to an investigation by Seymour Hersh.

Perle also convinced Boeing to invest $20 million in his new company. In return, he used his influence to procure a $17 billion tanker deal for Boeing. The tanker deal itself eventually became one of the biggest scandals in Pentagon history. Donald Rumsfeld later claimed that he couldn’t recall any of the details of his role in the $17 billion contract.

Perle’s profiteering eventually caught up with him, and he was pressured into resigning as chairman of the DPD.


A few words about the Project for a New American Century

As has always been the case throughout the history of the world whenever crimes against humanity are perpetrated, our current leaders disguise their true intentions behind a veil of gobbelygook. A blueprint for how this is done can be deciphered by an examination of the “statement of principles” of the group known as Project for a New American Century (PNAC), from which the Bush/Cheney administration takes its ideology. Relevant portions of that “statement of principles” are as follows:

We need to … challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values … We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Further insights into PNAC’s goals and motivations can be seen from their document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, written long before the 9-11 attacks on our country.
The primary theme of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is that our military must be much stronger than the militaries of any nation or combination of nations that might oppose our ambitions, in order that we may “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”, “boldly and purposefully promote American principles abroad” and maintain an “order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity”. More specifically, we now have new “missions” which require “defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East” by “deterring or, when needed, by compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests and principles”.

In case anyone missed it, these statements are a declaration of imperialistic intentions. They virtually define imperialism. Furthermore, they indicate a call for war crimes – pure and simple. How else would one characterize “compelling regional foes to act in ways that protect American interests…”?


War profiteering?

Naomi Klein notes that nothing enrages Richard Perle more than the suggestion that his advocacy for war “is in any way influenced by the enormous profitability of war for him personally”. When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer reminded Perle of Seymour Hersh’s article about his conflicts of interest, Perle blew up and compared Hersh to a terrorist. Then he told Blitzer, “I don’t believe that a company would gain from a war…. The suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.”

Klein notes the absurdity of Perle’s statement that corporations don’t reap financial gains from wars. Yet, she says that even the most committed critics of the Neocons tend to portray them as ideologues, motivated by a commitment to American supremacy rather than motivated primarily by personal financial gain.

It is time, however, that we lose our reluctance to look at the situation realistically and call them what they are. Klein says of the distinction between the Neocons’ militant nationalistic ideology and plain war profiteering:

This distinction is both artificial and amnesiac. The right to limitless profit-seeking has always been at the center of Neocon ideology. Before 9/11, demands for radical privatization and attacks on social spending fuelled the Neocon movement… at think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage and Cato.


Consider the consequences of failing to hold war profiteers accountable for their crimes

To be honest about it, this isn’t the first time in world history or American history that war profiteers have led a nation into a disastrous war for their own personal gain. Nor was our invasion of Iraq the most disastrous war to ever befall the world – yet. And war profiteers often or usually get away with their crimes without having to pay a price. So, if our country fails to take action against these war profiteers it won’t set a whole new precedent in doing so, because the precedent has already been set.

But on the other hand, the Bush administration is the most blatantly criminal presidential administration that our country has ever suffered through. His invasion of Iraq was completely unnecessary and irresponsible. The fact that Iraq posed no threat to us and Bush/Cheney knew that it posed no threat to us means that it was a war crime. Furthermore, George Bush and Dick Cheney lied to the American people and to Congress in order to justify that war. As such, they violated the separation of powers in our Constitution and usurped Congress’s power to declare war. Congress was wrong to give George Bush the power to use his own judgment to make a unilateral decision on whether or not to invade Iraq. But they did not declare war. He did. Congress merely left it up to his judgment. They should have known better. They should have known that George Bush would abuse that responsibility – as indeed he did. Now they have the opportunity to partially amend their mistake, by making George Bush and Dick Cheney accountable for their criminal actions.

I don’t want to get into a semantic argument about whether or not our Constitution requires that Congress impeach Bush and Cheney and remove them from office. One could argue the letter of the Constitution either way. But our Constitution has been willfully violated by those two criminals countless times. If Congress fails to take action now, they are so much as saying that our Constitution is nothing but the worthless scrap of paper that George Bush has said it is.

Therefore, if Congress believes that our Constitution contains the laws that hold our country together and make us a nation of laws rather than a nation of men, then common sense demands that they impeach. So does common decency. It is not only our Constitution and our nation that is at stake. War profiteering is one of the worst crimes known to man – for reasons that I don’t think I have to explain. It is a terrible crime against humanity. If the world doesn’t draw a line in the sand with regard to these kind of crimes before too long, given current weaponry, technology, and pending environmental catastrophes, it is not likely that world civilization will last much longer.
Discuss (60 comments) | Recommend (38 votes)
A summary of my DU posts
Time for change


The good majority of my DU posts consist of one of six general subjects: The need to remove from office the current cancer upon our nation; election fraud; the tragedy of the Bush administration; my ideas on the liberal values that we all hope will some day replace the values that our current government runs on; historical events that I believe cast light upon our current situation; and other political ideas.


The need to remove Bush and Cheney from office

In 2006, John Conyers wrote a 198 page report, documented with 1,401 references, titled “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. The title of his report reflected the primary reasons why George Bush and Dick Cheney must be removed from office: They have made a mockery of our Constitution – the foundation for the rule of law in our nation – by consistently violating it. Our Constitution, if we can keep it in fact and not just in name, makes our nation much more than just a democracy. By providing protections for minorities and the powerless, our Constitution adds civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not.

Aside from the continuing damage that Bush and Cheney can do to our country in their remaining time in office, including their potential to involve us in ever expanding new wars, failing to remove from office the most lawless presidential administration in our history will set an awful precedent in our nation – a precedent for doing away with our Constitution. Providing in our Constitution a mechanism for impeachment and removal from office was of utmost priority to our Founding Fathers. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles…”

Many arguments have been put forward against impeachment. This post answers those arguments. Some opponents of impeachment mistakenly advocate the view that the impeachment of public officials requires evidence of the commitment of an actual crime – and would not be justified by such things as gross violation of the public trust, corruption, negligence, or incompetence. Leaving aside the fact that such an interpretation would leave our nation subject to rule by people who would do great and possibly irreparable harm to it, the preponderance of evidence flatly contradicts that interpretation.

Others claim that we don’t have enough evidence to proceed with impeachment. I argue here that the current evidence for impeachment is so abundant, arguing that we need more sets the impeachment bar at an absurdly high level.

Others argue we don’t have the votes for impeachment – which implies that we must not bring individuals to trial until we have counted the votes, rather the using the trial to get the votes. Such an argument ignores the likelihood that votes will accumulate as Americans watch the impeachment trial and become intensely exposed for the first time to the many outrageous crimes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it also ignores the fact that Senators who refuse to vote for conviction will probably be putting their seats in jeopardy.

But perhaps the most urgent reason for moving to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as possible is that their continuing refusal to be bound by the laws and the Constitution of our nation raises the spectacle that they may be planning a coup d’etat. Why else would they go to such lengths to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law in our nation? We must preempt them by moving as quickly as possible on this.


Election fraud

The DU apparently was born as a result of the 2000 November-December election fraud that began the long nightmare that is the George W. Bush administration.

I went to bed on Election Day 2000, shortly after Bush was announced as our new President, feeling as if the end of world civilization was near at hand. My wife woke me up a couple hours later to tell me the good news that the announcement of Bush’s Presidency had been temporarily cancelled. Thus began a period of 36 days that I followed more intensely than any other news event of my life – ending in the infamous and disastrous Supreme Court decision that marked the beginning of our long road to dictatorship.

My son (EOTE) joined DU in January 2001, a few days after it began, but I did not, for reasons that now escape me. I did, however, do a lot of writing about the 2000 election, including a desperate plea to my Maryland Senators, to please demand a real recount of the 2000 Florida vote. And I also contributed an article to DU on that subject, in my son’s name (I did not use my own name because I was a federal employee and I was afraid that I could get into trouble for writing such an article), in the spring of 2001.

The fraudulent 2004 Presidential election is what brought me into DU. I had worked as a volunteer in the Kerry/Edwards campaign, I had followed the presidential polls obsessively, and by Election Day 2004 I was about as confident as I could be that John Kerry would be our next President. Thus, the reported results of that election were both profoundly disappointing and difficult for me to believe, as they were for the great majority of DUers.

I immediately began an effort to acquire as many election statistics as I could, in a feverish and desperate attempt to prove that the election was a fraud, which I hoped would aid in its overturning. In late November I had my son post an analysis that I did of the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official election results (Note: My son supplied the title, which I feel is too strong, which you can see if you read the article). And finding that it was awkward to have my son post my articles, I joined DU a few days later.

Since then I have posted dozens of election fraud related threads, a small number of the most important of which I have included in my journal.

In particular, I have come to believe that the main mechanism by which the 2004 election was stolen was the massive and illegal targeted purging of Democratic voters in Ohio, especially in Cleveland. This thread contains a great amount of evidence to support that contention.

In addition, I believe that there is good evidence that says that large numbers of votes in Cuyahoga County were deleted by its central tabulator, as explained in this thread, which also discusses an early 2006 partial audit of Cuyahoga County. And, I think that the death of Raymond Lemme, who while investigating Clint Curtis’ sworn allegations of vote switching computer programs, was found dead in a Georgia hotel room, just a couple weeks after telling Curtis that he had traced the corruption “all the way to the top”, is extremely suspicious to say the least. Here is my explanation of the controversy over the discrepancy between the 2004 exit polls and the official 2004 vote count. And here is a summary of several reasons I have written about for believing that the 2004 election was stolen.

Finally, here are my ideas for preventing another stolen election in 2006 and 2008.


The tragedy of the Bush administration

The fake war on terrorism

I believe that a crucial requirement for a good understanding of the Bush administration’s actions since September 11, 2001, is the realization that its “War on Terrorism” is nothing but a colossal fake. Only with that realization do numerous Bush administration characteristics and actions make sense, including: Its disinterest in Osama bin Laden; its great urge to rush into a war with Iraq at any cost; its utter contempt for international law and the rest of the world; its succession of no-bid contracts for its wealthy friends; its lavish tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens and corporations during ‘time of war’; the Dubai port deals; and, its attempt to turn our democracy into a dictatorship.

With that in mind, I wrote in this post about the main reasons why I believe that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. There are many reasons why I believe that now, but the initial and still most important reason is the utter failure of our military, the mightiest military that the world has ever known, despite repeated warnings and more than ample time on 9-11 itself, to protect its own capital city.

Abuse of the human rights of prisoners for no apparent purpose

To me, the most sickening and disgraceful aspect of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” is its complete lack of concern for human rights, demonstrated among other ways by the indefinite confinement, without trial or even bringing of charges, of thousands of prisoners of war, and its frequent use of torture. I have discussed this issue in several OPs, starting with this one. Here I describe the issue as seen through the eyes of a U.S. Army Muslim Chaplain who had ministerial responsibilities for hundreds of our prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who witnessed the severe and daily abuse of his charges over a period of several months, and who eventually was imprisoned himself when it was felt that he was making too many waves over what he had seen. Here is my summary of what the great journalist Seymour Hersh had to say on this subject, based on his numerous high level sources. Jimmy Carter felt so strongly about this issue that he broke the unwritten rule against ex-Presidents criticizing sitting Presidents, with one of the most scathing attacks on this policy that I have ever seen. And Senator Richard Durbin was the victim of continued public verbal abuse from the right for daring to make public how our government was treating its prisoners.

Lying us into war

It is evident to most informed people that one of the biggest motivations for Bush's "War on Terror" was to provide a justification for the invasion of Iraq. Seymour Hersh’s excellent account of how the Bush administration manipulated and twisted intelligence in order justify a preemptive war against Iraq is a must read for anyone who still supports this administration and thinks that the Iraq war was necessary. And as for Bush's excuse that we are now fighting that war for the benefit of the Iraqi people, Democrats should start talking about how the Iraqi people actually feel about us being in their country.

Just how bad are Bush and his cronies and how much danger do they pose to American democracy?

George w. Bush and his administration and fellow travellers in today's Republican Party are about as bad as they come. They are anti-science ignoramuses. They are chicken hawks. They have no consciences. They are torturers. They are cowards. They are evil. And I doubt that there are any moral boundaries beyond which they will not go to get their way.

I think that in the interest of preserving our democracy, we should be aware of the similarities between the Bush administration and Hitler’s Nazis (which I wrote about even before the revelations about Bush’s warantless wiretapping), and understand that if we aren’t vigilant, yes it CAN happen here too.


Moral values that separate us from today’s Republicans

It makes me so mad to hear people ridicule what they consider to be “liberal values” and compare them unfavorably to the wonderful moral values of George W. Bush and his Republicans friends. In the vast majority of cases these people don’t even have a vague idea about what liberal values really are. They have simply been conditioned by our corporate media over several years or decades to believe that liberals encourage irresponsibility, are ‘soft’ on national defense and ‘law and order’, and are wild spenders. These ridiculous myths about liberals have in turn encouraged the Democratic Party to disavow the liberal label and in some cases to veer way to the right. I submit that, rather than running away from the liberal label we should be proud of it, and we should challenge those that seek to disparage it. And to further make this point I posted a tribute to several historical and current political leaders who have been unafraid to speak out loudly for what they believe in, and I suggested an answer to those Republican morons who accuse liberals of hating America.

Let's take a look at some of the specific moral values that separate Democrats from Republicans:

Republicans like to pretend that they're more moral than us because they're more "religious"

Many of those who disparage liberals are fundamentalist Christians who repeatedly invoke the name of Jesus Christ, and who believe that the superiority of their moral values to those of liberals and Democrats is proven by their repeated references to Jesus. Don’t these people understand that Jesus was a liberal, whose moral values were much closer to those of the Democratic Party than to those of the Republican Party, with whom they align themselves and vote for? Isn't it an astounding paradox that the Republican Party has usurped for their own purposes one of the most liberal religious leaders in world history, while at the same time showing nothing but contempt for liberals and liberal principles?

The movement for privatization of government functions

One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the privatization movement. In the name of “freedom” and “self-reliance”, the leaders of this movement advocate the freedom of powerful corporations to destroy our environment and to run our elections, our schools, our social safety net programs, and our prison system, as well as every other program which has long been considered a legitimate function of government. The fact that government is elected by the people to serve public functions, whereas the purpose of private corporations is to make profits for their investors, is either totally lost on these people, or else they simply feel that the above mentioned programs should be run for profit rather than for service.

Al Gore alluded to this issue in his great film, "An Inconvenient Truth", where he discussed the unholy alliance between government, private industry, and the press, whereby a corrupt government, in exchange for legal bribes from the industries they are supposed to control, propagates false information and policies that are favorable to those industries instead of the public that they are elected to serve. I discuss my own personal experience with that unholy alliance, where the FDA withdrew an about to be published scientific article I had written, under pressure from a manufacturer who stood to be economically hurt by the information in that article.

The need for a free and independent press

Another great threat to our democracy is the ownership of our country’s news media by a very small group of wealthy individuals who have strong ties to the Republican Party, and whose motivation in providing “news” is to maintain satisfaction with the status quo, rather than to report what is important and true. Two prime examples of corporate media shills and pseudo-journalists who pretend to be real journalists are Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Bill Moyers explains how this situation threatens to destroy our democracy, and how this came about through the dismantling of rules and regulations which were meant to prevent the monopolization of our news. And Robert Parry explains why he started his web site to help combat the misinformation we get from our corporate media.

Health care

Liberals, and most other decent people, believe that people should be entitled to decent health care. That is why, prior to the "pro-life" administration of George W. Bush, infant mortality rate in the United States had been steadily declining for several decades. But shortly into the Bush administration, due to the starving of women and infant health programs for federal funds, infant mortality rate began a steady rise. Nor do Republicans care much about veterans' health, as indicated by the rejecting of this much needed veteran's health bill in the U.S. Senate by virtually a strict party line vote.

An enquiring mind

One of the many tricks that our corporate media uses to squelch alternative viewpoints is to label anyone who substantially disagrees with their “correct” version of the news as “conspiracy theorists”. Well, I have news for them. The views of us “conspiracy theorists” are usually much more closely aligned with reality than is most of the trash that we hear from the corporate news media these days, such as the stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which were used to justify our illegal preemptive invasion of that country. We “conspiracy theorists” believe that it is not only the right of American citizens to challenge the corporate news media story lines, but it is our responsibility as well, as good citizens who care about our country.

The dignity of all human beings

Perhaps the most important value held by liberals is a belief in the dignity of all human beings – hence the 19th century movement by liberals to abolish slavery. Here is one of my favorite stories on that subject.

A summary

And here is a post where I talk about all the major values that separate Democrats from Republicans.


Historical events that help us understand our present

Though there is little doubt that George W. Bush is by far the worst president we’ve ever had, our past history is at least partly responsible for preparing the way for this tragedy. The history of our nation is full of examples of failures to live up to our ideals. In addition to our long history of slavery and our near extermination of the Native American population of our present day country, we began a long history of overseas imperialism beginning in the late 19th Century. The long standing history of extreme hostility to socialism by the elites of our country has been responsible for much of this imperialism, as well as domestic repression against labor unions and others who would speak out against the status quo. The usurpation by our Executive Branch of the war making powers given to Congress by our Founding Fathers did not originate with George W. Bush. And the attitudes fostered by our long history of slavery are still with us today, especially in the areas of our country where slavery thrived for so long.

Today, as the transgressions of George Bush and Dick Cheney threaten the existence of our nation as we know it, we would do well to recall how the German nation was led into tyranny more than six decades ago. The parallels between Hitler’s war on terror and George Bush’s war on terror are extraordinarily striking in my opinion. And the better able we are to recognize the danger, the more likely we are to take steps to prevent a similar fate.


Political ideas

Republicans have 3 great advantages in elections against Democrats, whereas the only advantage that the Democratic Party has is that its policies are meant to serve all Americans, rather than just the select few. In addition to electoral fraud and huge sums of money donated to the GOP by their corporate masters as legalized bribery, Democrats have to contend with a multitude of news media whores.

But those advantages are not sufficient for a Party that has nothing of value to offer to our country. So, when we suggest investigation of their corrupt deeds they call us conspiracy theorists. When we suggest policies such as making basic affordable health care available to all Americans they accuse us of class warfare. And when we criticize the rampant corruption at the highest levels of government they accuse us of "hating America". And when none of that works they try to scare us by telling us that if we don't give them unlimited power over us we risk being killed by terrorists.

If there was ever a presidential administration that needed to be impeached, this is it. Grass roots efforts are under way to accomplish this, and we can all help. Our Democratic leaders need to seriously consider and talk about this. And they must be united and avoid inter-party warfare.
Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
8478 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.