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 Oct 18th 2008, 03:00 PM
It is a terrible shame that the American people don’t know more about the barbarism that has been committed in their name, that our news media has done such an dismal job of informing them, and in short, that this isn’t considered within our country
I’m sure that the Sarah Palin types would become hysterical at me for posting this. Their sensibilities are much too frail to contemplate the idea that a President and Vice President of their own party have brought great shame upon their country. But the fact is that those people are part of the problem rather than the solution. They would rather sit passively by and turn a blind eye to atrocities than acknowledge that their country could be less than perfect.

There are a multitude of reasons why George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should have been impeached long ago. And there is probably no better list and discussion of those reasons than Dennis Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment. Each of those articles is very serious and probably justifies impeachment even when considered alone. But in my opinion, the most important reasons can be found in articles XXVII through XX, which include the indefinite detention of prisoners without charges, torture, kidnapping and rendition of the kidnapped for the purpose of being tortured, and the imprisonment of children. This post explains some of my reasons for feeling that way.


How the detention of our first “War on Terror” prisoner led to the suspension of habeas corpus

There is perhaps nothing more basic to our system of justice than habeas corpus, which grants the right of prisoners to challenge the right of government to hold them in detention. According to Article I, Section 9 of our Constitution, a person’s right to habeas corpus cannot be suspended “unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it”. Well, our country has not been in rebellion or under invasion for more than a few hours since George W. Bush took office, and yet he has suspended habeas corpus indefinitely for the first time in our ancestral history since it was first enacted in 1215. Though it has often been pointed out that Abraham Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus during his Presidency, Lincoln did it on a much smaller scale and with the consent of Congress, and as a state of rebellion existed at the time, he did it on an emergency basis.

John Walker Lindh was an American citizen who converted to Islam as a young man. Consequently, he felt it his duty to go to Afghanistan to help the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance in the summer of 2001, which he did. This was at a time when the Taliban was not an enemy of the United States, which in fact had recently given them $43 million. Shortly after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in December 2001, Lindh and others of his unit turned themselves in to the U.S. Army, following a battle in which an American intelligence officer was killed.

Jane Mayer, in her book, “The Dark Side – The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals”, describes how Lindh was treated after being taken into American custody:

Lindh was often kept blindfolded, naked, and bound to a stretcher with duct tape… For days, Lindh was … left cold and sleep-deprived in a pitch-dark steel shipping container. The physician described Lindh as “disoriented” and “suffering lack of nourishment”, adding that “suicide is a concern.”…

Nonetheless, Lindh was interrogated repeatedly… When noting the right to counsel, the agent acknowledged, he ad-libbed, “Of course, there are no lawyers here”…

In order to escape his confinement, Lindh signed a waiver of his right to counsel and “confessed”, and subsequently the U.S. Justice Department charged him with ten counts of mostly terrorism-related crimes.

But at Lindh’s trial, numerous incidents of procedural misconduct came to light, and subsequently Lindh’s lawyer obtained a plea bargain whereby Lindh pleaded guilty to one non-terrorist related crime (rendering services to the Taliban) in return for the government dropping the other nine counts. Mayer describes the lessons that the Bush administration learned from its first prosecution of a “terrorist”:

What John Walker Lindh taught the Bush Administration was that open criminal trials under the strict rules of the American legal system were not worth the risk (of embarrassment to the Bush administration that is). In the future, enemy prisoners would have to be held safely outside the reach of U.S. law, where they could by questioned without legal interference and tried under rules more favorable to the prosecution – if they were tried at all.


Documented examples of our torture of prisoners

The Center for Constitutional Rights wrote a book called “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.” One of the four articles of impeachment recommended in the book deals with human rights abuses, including torture. Numerous examples and sources are cited in the book. Here is a partial list:

 Often held in solitary confinement, some for more than a year
 Punched and kneed, shackled and repeatedly picked up and dropped, resulting in serious injuries.
 Strangled and had lit cigarettes put in their ears.
 Beaten, deprived of sleep, exposed to temperature extremes, and subject to sexual and religious humiliation.
 Threatened with rape and other torture, execution, and harm to their families.
 Suffered debilitating psychological effects.
 Prisoners were regularly beaten; one was beaten with a chair until it broke, and was kicked and choked until he lost consciousness.
 Beaten with a broom, liquid chemical poured all over him, and sodomized with a police stick while MPs threw a ball at his genitals.
 One detainee witnessed the rape of a teenage prisoner.
 Detainees were left naked, hooded, and chained to the doors of their cells.
 Boys were stripped and cuffed together facing each other.
 Detainees being placed in a pile and told to masturbate, then being ridden like animals.
 Prisoners were placed in solitary confinement with poor air quality and extreme temperatures.
 Electrical wires placed on his fingers, toes and penis and being threatened with electrocution.
 Being urinated on.
 Dogs were placed in the cell of juvenile prisoners and permitted to “go nuts.”
 Continuously shackled, held naked, and intentionally kept awake for extended periods of time.
 Being forced to kneel or stand in painful positions for extended periods.
 Doused with freezing water in the winter.
 Interrogators play on their prisoners’ phobias, such as fear of rats or dogs…
 Isolated in constantly lit cells about 5 x 10 feet, let out for 10-20 minutes per week to exercise, with virtually no contact with family or outside world

Numerous additional examples, from the FBI, a the Guantanamo Bay Muslim Chaplain, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the journalist Seymour Hersh, and former President Jimmy Carter can be found in this post.


Homicide in our torture camps

Rush Limbaugh and other right wing idiots have belittled evidence of torture by claiming, even when the photographic evidence at Abu Ghraib was publicized, that U.S. treatment of its prisoners is no different than fraternity “hazing” of pledges.

However, a 2005 analysis of 44 autopsies reported by the ACLU, of men who died in our detention facilities, exposes those claims for the lies that they are. That study found 21 of the 44 deaths evaluated by autopsy to be homicides:

The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.

Keep in mind that that study involved only a small fraction of the total number of detainees dying in the largely secret U.S. prison system since September 11, 2001. We will probably never know for sure the full extent of these barbaric homicides.


The scope of our detention, interrogation and torture program

Estimates of how many prisoners have disappeared into the Bush administration’s Gulag system cannot be precise because of the secrecy. Estimates have varied from 8,500 to 35,000. An AP story estimated around 14,000:

In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law.

Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had put the blame on Dick Cheney for much of the administration’s “torture guidance”, claims that the number of “disappeared” approximates 35,000.


Lack of concern about the guilt or innocence of our victims

Though we have repeatedly been told that our prisoners in George Bush’s “War on Terror” are “the worst of the worst”, the facts tell a very different story from that: Major General Antonio Taguba, charged with investigating the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, said that “A lack of proper screening meant that many innocent Iraqis were being detained (in some cases indefinitely) and that 60% of civilian prisoners at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society. And the International Red Cross said that between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.

A study of our Guantanamo Bay detainees, using our government’s own records, sheds further light on George Bush’s fake “War on Terror”. The study found that 60% of our detainees at Guantanamo were thrown into prison for an indefinite period of time without charges or trial merely because they were claimed to be “associated with” a group or groups that our government asserts to be a terrorist organization. And only 8% were deemed to be associated with al Qaeda.

But what is even worse is that all the evidence points to the fact that the
Bush administration just doesn’t care that most of its victims are guilty of little or nothing. This is clear from the experience of a CIA intelligence analyst who was summoned to Guantanamo Bay to discover why the CIA was able to obtain so little useful information from its detainees. Jane Mayer describes what he found:

He concluded that an estimated one third of the prison camp’s population of more than 600 captives… had no connection to terrorism whatsoever. If the intelligence haul was meager, his findings suggested, one reason was that many of the detainees knew little or nothing… Many, he felt sure, “were just caught in a dragnet. They were not fighters… They should not have been there…. By imprisoning innocent Muslims indefinitely, outside the reach of any legal review", he said, “I thought we were going to lose a whole damn generation” in the Arab world… Guantanamo was making the world more dangerous…"

The report made its way to the highest ranking national security lawyer in the White House, John Bellinger, and the top terrorism expert at the NSC, John Gordon. Bellinger and Gordon became alarmed at the report of the CIA analyst, so they scheduled a meeting with White House Council Alberto Gonzalez. But when they arrived at the meeting, David Addington, Chief Council to the Vice President, was also there. Mayer describes the meeting:

ADDINGTON: No, there will be no review. The President has determined that they are ALL enemy combatants. We are not going to revisit it!

GORDON: This is a violation of basic notions of American fairness… Isn’t that what we’re about as a country?

ADDINGTON: We are not second-guessing the President’s decision. These are ‘enemy combatants’. Please use that phrase. They’ve all been through a screening process. There’s nothing to talk about.


The purpose of our torture program

Then what could the purpose of our detention and torture program be? Detainees are rarely charged or tried for crimes. There appears to be very little concern with the guilt or innocence of our prisoners. Little information of any significant use is obtained from our detainees. And the Bush administration has been repeatedly warned that, far from making Americans safer, their policies are putting us all at greater risk for terrorist attacks.

One major clue to the purpose of the Bush detention and torture program is its use of a program called SERE, an acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape. The theoretical purpose of the program was that by subjecting U.S. soldiers to near torture-like conditions, they could be programmed to resist breaking under torture by the enemy and revealing national security secrets. But in actual practice, the program was “reverse-engineered” to become a blueprint for torture of our prisoners. Mayer explains the significance of that:

The SERE program was a strange choice for the government to pick if it was seeking to learn how to get the truth from detainees. It was founded during the Cold War in an effort to re-create, and therefore understand, the mistreatment that had led thirty-six captured U.S. airmen to give stunningly FALSE CONFESSIONS during the Korean War.

Speaking of false confessions, one of the first “high value” detainees captured in our “War on Terror” was Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The first to interrogate him was the FBI, who used standard interrogation techniques – i.e. without the use of torture or any other harsh treatment. It worked great. Al-Libi opened up and gave the agents “specific actionable intelligence – information that could save American lives.”

But there was just one problem. Al-Libi refused to admit to any ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. But no problem. Al-Libi was taken away from his expert handlers at the FBI and given to the CIA. They tortured him, but al-Libi tried to explain to them that he didn’t know enough about the subject to even make up a good story. So they sent him to Egypt for more torture, whereupon al-Libi admitted to ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Mission accomplished! Al-Libi’s “confession” became an integral part of the Bush administration’s case for war against Iraq – even though intelligence agents warned Bush that the “confession” was unreliable.

I’m sure that there are other purposes for the Bush/Cheney torture program as well. Undoubtedly, it provides a degree of intimidation against domestic enemies of the Bush administration, which in turn has a dampening effect on protest movements. Maybe the physical intimidation factor even influences Congressional votes. It serves the political purpose of making it appear to some that George Bush actually has something useful to contribute to our country. And I don’t doubt that there is an element of sadism behind it as well.


The source of our torture program

So who’s behind all this? For anyone who has any doubt that George W. Bush is behind this program, rather than it all being the result of a few “bad apples” at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, I recommend reading Philippe Sands’ “Torture Team – Rumsfeld’s memo and the betrayal of American Values”.

The most obvious contribution of George W. Bush was when he declared in a signed order on February 7, 2002, that “none of the provisions of Geneva apply” with regard to his “War on Terror”. That was a remarkably irresponsible action, overturning more than half a century of international law designed to introduce some civility and decency into the way that wars are prosecuted. And as Sands shows, that assertion by George Bush set the framework for all subsequent legal advice and rulings by White House, Justice Department, and Pentagon lawyers. Any subsequent “legal” ruling by the federal government had to take into account that George W. Bush, by the stroke of his mighty pen, had trashed more than half a century of international law.

Other major points in Bush’s February 7th memo that violated U.S. and international law and our Constitution included:
 The U.S. must treat prisoners humanely only “to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity.”
 The CIA and other non-military personnel are exempt even from the above limitation concerning military necessity.
 Limitations on torture do not apply at all to non- U.S. citizens outside the U.S.

An article in the New York Times by Scott Shane, David Johnston and James Risen described the extent to which these policies were unprecedented in U.S. history, and yet of little or no value in combating terrorism:

The Bush administration had entered uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.

Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or more effective.


A terrible shame

It is a terrible shame that the American people don’t know more about this, that our news media has done such an dismal job of informing them, and in short, that this isn’t considered within our country a national scandal of monumental proportions. That we have tolerated such activities means that we have truly become a barbarian nation, in many ways.
Discuss (26 comments) | Recommend (33 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
9037 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.