Still Standing After All These Years

Today is Unsolicited Opinion's 8th blogiversary.  I started posting on June 1, 2004 and have been at it ever since--1,444 posts in 2,922 days, one every other day for eight years.  I can't say that it amounts to a hill of beans.  This blog hasn't ignited any revolutions or broken any major stories.  What it has done is given me a chance to not only speak out but also to clarify my thoughts.  By itself, writing requires thought and organization but putting those words out for public consumption provides even more discipline.  

So eight years later I'm still at it.  When I began, GW Bush was running for a second term and I was hoping that John Kerry, what ever his faults, would make him a one-termer.  That did not happen. Even more disappointing has been to see how little changed when Democrats captured both houses of Congress and the presidency.  I would have been surprised in 2004 to think that I could be even more cynical about politics and policy but eight years later I have less expectation for progressive change than I had back then.  Clearly blogging has not made a difference there.

Maybe the best part of the entire exercise has been meeting (mostly online but a few in person) interesting people who share my values.  When I get too cynical, I can at least remind myself  that I am not alone

So in honor of today's occasion, I am re-posting one of my initial pieces.  The specifics are dated but the conclusion in the final graph still sounds like America in the age of Obama.  The legacy of Bush-Cheney survives.



Bush Lies

Earlier this year Bush supporters were outraged that a MoveOn.com contestant dared illustrate similarities between Bush’s words and those used by Adolf Hitler. It was a mini-firestorm of outrage and accusation that soon gave way to the next controversy. I haven’t forgotten it, though, mainly because the similarities are too frighteningly similar. I don’t think Bush is a Nazi. He’s no Adolf Hitler. But he and his administration may be as dangerous to America’s security and civil liberties as the Nazis were in Germany.

The cabal that stole the presidency in 2000 has lied, manipulated public opinion and made every effort to expand government’s ability to spy upon Americans and limit time honored liberties. And that’s just at home. Internationally, the Bush Administration is the ultimate rogue state. But unlike the rogue states and terrorist organizations that Bush claims to protect against, the US is able to assert its will against all others, at least in the short run, creating major mayhem in the process. The world did not want Gulf War II but we invaded Iraq anyway. Iraqis may have been pleased to be rid of Saddam Hussein, but our ill conceived occupation has failed to restore their security even as it heaps insult and hostility on them. Much of the world sees the U.S. as dangerous these days.

But what most bothers me and reminds me of Hitler’s Germany is Bush’s manipulating the public. Josef Goebbels knew the power of the Big Lie. And the Bush Cartel has used that weapon extensively. Bush tells the lies that Americans want to believe. We invaded Iraq only in self defense. Weapons of mass destruction are still to be found in Iraq. Only opponents of democracy oppose our occupation in Iraq. The administration repeats these mantras over and over. The overwhelmingly conservative media (America’s equivalent to a state run media) amplify this message. In the meantime, reality moves in a completely different direction. Americans and Iraqis die, hostility grows and the goal of a stable, democratic Iraq grows more distant.

Not that Bush is the first American president to lie or distort the truth to fit his version of reality. Manipulating opinion goes back a long way in American history and has had a particularly egregious history since World War II. But the Bush administration seems to be more comprehensive in the scope of its ambitions to control America and the world. The world must accommodate itself to America’s needs, not unlike the arguments put forth by Germany in the Thirties. And Americans must sacrifice liberty for security. Again, I hear totalitarian echos in these words. We are engaged in a titanic struggle with evil, with The Other. Any criticism endangers our troops and weakens America in this time of peril.

It all reminds me of 1984. Permanent war. Big Brother. A cowed citizenry. Back in the 50's and 60's I always thought the threat was external. I’m older and wiser now. The danger that George Orwell warned about was not from the outside. It came from within. We’ve been at risk almost since he wrote his prophetic words but the Bush Cartel has brought us to a totalitarian precipice. I fear that Americans will not see the danger before we step into the abyss.

If You Do Random Lists

...here's a one for our unlamented newest former president.

No.23. I’m sorry I never got to thank Ken Lay for dying.

Another Fine Epitaph

From Jacob Weisberg at Slate:

Once the country is rid of Bush, perhaps we can start developing a more nuanced understanding of how his presidency went astray. His was no ordinary failure, and he leaves not just an unholy mess but also some genuine mysteries.

"Rid of Bush" has such a fine sound to it even if the truth is that his ghastly legacy will remain. America and the world will be awhile cleaning out this "unholy mess."

Good riddance. May fate reward you in proportion to the harm you caused.

CheneyBush Generic Eppitaph

By his acts you will know him.

The Bush administration appears poised to push through a change in U.S. Forest Service agreements that would make it far easier for mountain forests to be converted to housing subdivisions.

Mark E. Rey, the former timber lobbyist who heads the Forest Service, last week signaled his intent to formalize the controversial change before the Jan. 20 inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama.

My Little Reader

I read a Richard Cohen column about George W. Bush's reading list today. Normally, Ignore Cohen and stories like this about Bush but my curiosity about Bush and a reflective pursuit like reading was too much to resist. Cohen doesn't dispute the claim but dismisses Bush's reading list as an no real achievement since the titles largely reinforce Bush's worldview and ignore the wealth of books that offer differing assessments.

My first reaction is "Who in the hell keeps lists of books read?". Then I reminded myself that I keep a list of books read. I started last year, largely as a way to remember what I read. Without the list titles and authors escape me, plots and ideas are misremembered if remembered at all. So I have a list and short summary. Occasionally, I'll do a post based on something I've read.

I read regularly but don't come close to matching Bush in volume and question the whole claim. If Bush in fact read 51 books, he obviously has a lot of time of his hands. That's unlikely since he spends time working out, cycling, sleeps eight hours a night and during most working hours appears as President of the United States. I just don't buy it.

Bush may have actually looked at all the titles he claims but he would have to be far more diligent than anything in his behavior or ideas would suggest.

Of course, that means I am calling Bush and Karl Rove, the source of this claim,, liars. And that is exactly what I am saying.

Still lying after all these years.

No Surprise

'Tis good that the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is calling out CheneyBush on embedding political appointees into permanent senior civil service jobs. I can certainly agree the idea that placing people in positions for which they have no background is bad. I can agree that such action demonstrates a lack of respect for government. What I find hard to believe is that any thinking person would even use the word "respect" in the same sentence as this fucking administration

A Candidate to Enthuse About

Charlotte Dennett, a candidate for Vermont attorney general pledges to appoint Vincent Bugliosi as special prosecutor to seek murder charges against George W. Bush, et al.

It is only right and proper to do so. I wish Ms. Dennett well in her endeavor.

Why Palin?

My first reaction to Sarah Palin as VP nominee was Phyllis Schlafly, the Anti-Woman of the Right. Something about Palin’s look reminded me of Schlafly as the author of A Choice Not an Echo, her paean to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Schlafly was deceptively hard-core then, presenting herself as a simple, traditional woman at the same time she was serving as an architect for the Conservative Christian Revolution that has controlled the Republican Party and plagued the nation for the past three decades. Maybe it was Palin’s glasses; I remembered the 1964 Schlafly wearing glasses, although she’s not wearing glasses on book cover. Still, Palin has a look of steely determination to her, much more so than Schlafly of 1964. Palin is the next generation of Republican ideologues.

Reading Palin’s biography only solidified my impression. She is indeed determined, tough and opportunistic, willing to seize opportunity as necessary. Palin may well be a smart choice to bolster the Aging Hero McCain in his doddering run for the presidency. She’s clearly a risky choice but one that paid off well for McCain in shock value and stealing Obama’s thunder on the day after his historic speech. I find it hard to believe that she will appeal to many Hillary Clinton supporters but after two elections that put CheneyBush into the White House, my trust in the American electorate is limited.

Choosing Palin may well be a Hail Mary pass but I do wonder how McCain, after months of saying readiness to command was the paramount requirement for president chooses the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and half term governor of the Last Frontier to be (an aging) heartbeat from the presidency. Then it dawned on me: Sarah Palin may well be the next George W. Bush, except a GWB with determination and ruthlessness, someone more than willing to listen to experienced statesmen like…Dick Cheney. It all fits together. John McCain has made his final deal with the Hard Right, the Neo-Cons and the Fundamentalist Christians. He gives them everything they want and they will gladly support his crusade to find honor and victory for American troops by pouring them into a disastrous war .

Even if McCain lives through a full term, Palin will be valuable to Cheney and his hawks. Palin has shown much determination and skill in promoting herself and is A True Believer, just like George. More dangerous, I believe because she can think and scheme. If elected, Palin will inherit an office transformed by her predecessor into a power center and will serve an aging McCain who’s interests, ambitions and “capabilities” will leave large areas of policy open to an attractive (remember, John McCain was 40 wanting to be 25 again” when he ditched his first wife for Cindy Hensley), ambitious, skilled politician who, like W, has an expansive concept of executive authority. Cheney may retire to his favorite fishing hole in Wyoming but his many acolytes will remain in Washington, ready to assist the new executives in continuing the American Empire.

On a personal note, my worst experience in Alaska occurred in Wasilla. Maggie and I found a B&B there that accommodated dogs. It was comfortable enough on a wet mid-September night but breakfast the following morning was ugly, with hosts and another couple (very well-to-do retirees, all) trading Rush Limbaugh factoids and venom in all directions, especially ours. Now I understand that I was in Ditto Land where people don’t think. After eight days in Talkeetna, Wasilla was a rude awakening. The WP reports that Palin has an 80 percent approval rate which tells me that, for all its beauty, Alaska is as vapid as the Lower 48.

Word Dance

BushCheney's shell game of political non-accountbility is once again brought forth to bamboozle a gullible public. The NYT reports today of greater White House involvement in the destruction of the CIA "harsh interrogation tapes". True to form, though, everything is a bit vague and uncertain. We know Jose' Rodriguez actually gave the order for which he claims written legal advice; so far that document has not been verified. Besides, others also had a say. John Negroponte advised against destruction; other advise was less certain. In the end, it's a matter of interpretation and understanding, not entirely clear. Nobody's fault, really.

I find one great culprit in the quote, “There was an expectation on the part of those providing legal guidance that additional bases would be touched,” said one government official with knowledge of the matter. “That didn’t happen.” Whose expectation? What bases? "There was" is the most vague of passive constructions, indicating neither actor nor action. I learned early in my writing career that an informative sentence tells "who's kicking whom?", subject, verb, object. Clear and simple. Which, of course is why the phrase is so common in modern discourse: officials want to cover up while journalists can't quite tell. Just perfect for CheneyBush. No one ever is rally to blame. You know? Well, we do have Mister Rodriguez but he was acting in good faith and on the advice of legal staff. Time to move on.

Just like the distorted intelligence prior to invading Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi Army or firing the US attorneys. These things...well, there was a misunderstanding...These things happen. Let's move on.

If America believes these actions are consistent with the idea of accountable, representative government under law, the American Republic has accepted its first Caesar.

Destroying the tapes tells me one thing: The CIA was afraid of what they had done. On that basis alone, I conclude they knew their actions well illegal under US law and treaty obligations. They wanted to HIDE those actions. Which makes me wonder why they taped the interrogations in the first place. Hell, you'd think the CIA would remember that tapes destroyed Richard Nixon. At any rate, the CIA knew it had a "ticking time bomb" (a delicious irony in itself) on it's hands and wanted to defuse it.

As for the ticking time bombs that require harsh interrogation in order to save lives, the jury is still out.

Harbinger

No one would describe Dick Cheney as lean and hungry these days but if you look at some if the early photos (the ones where he has hair) of him in the Washington Post series, he does look determined and serious. The photos (which I can't figure out how to upload or link to) remind me of Caesar's comment to Marc Anthony in Shakespeare's play,

Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep a-nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.

Act I, Scene 2, The Life and Death of Julius Caesar

Making It Happen

In all the discussion of Dick Cheney’s interventions in policy debates and executive decisions, the obvious lesson is that Big Dick Unit of the CheneyBush presidency GOT THINGS DONE. He effectively used the most powerful presidential attribute: attention. When the president asks, everyone scurries to answer, big time. Cheney had the authority to be in on EVERY decision and Washington knew it. He made things happen just by showing up in a variety of ways. Yes, his results have been pernicious and truly evil but, remember, process is morally neutral–it works in either direction. The vice-president worked the system to get what he wanted. Remember that when you hear wails and laments about gridlock in Washington that prevents action.

Cheney mastered the process. If I were him (a chilling, depressing thought), I would take great satisfaction in the Washington Post series. I would see it as a record of accomplishment. Cheney paid close attention to the issues the concerned him most, an approach similar to Lyndon Johnson or Franklin Roosevelt, two presidents who also paid much attention to the workings of government. Like Cheney, they could reach down into government to find information and pressure points. The difference is stealth and secrecy. When FDR and LBJ set out to remake America, they were (mostly) open about what they were attempting to do. Dick Cheney led a policy revolution, fundamentally re-interpreting American values with little or no public debate. What “debate” occurred was often manipulated with lies and distorted “evidence”.

Like LBJ and FDR, Dick Cheney leaves a distinct legacy, not one that I would choose over his two predecessors, but a legacy nonetheless. Unlike LBJ and FDR, Cheney’s accomplishment is not his alone. He shares it with George W. Bush, the president who empowered him. Hence, we have CheneyBush and an America fundamentally changed for the worst.

If the conservatives’ Holy Grail for a half century has been dismantling the New Deal and Great Society, then the liberal goal in the next years will be dismantling the National Security Super State created by Dick Cheney.

I expect Congress to begin the process immediately. Yesterday’s subpoenas are a good start. I just hope it won’t take a half century.

Big Dick

The Washington Post series on Dick Cheney is a testament to the power of position, knowledge and will. The articles clearly demonstrate the locus of influence in the Bush Administration and more than justify my appellation, CheneyBush, when I refer to the president. As a long time observer of government and politics, I marvel at his ability to influence policy and effectively control the decision-making process. The George W. unit may be “the decider” but, as the Post notes, the Big Dick unit makes up the menu. Not so much a puppet master as programmer and controller.

Cheney’s influence and success are nothing new. Many others have used some variation of his approach, which combines mastery of detail with organizational leverage. It’s the kind of control a strong, successful president would exercise himself through a network of trusted, dedicated assistants. In this administration, Dick Cheney performs this function while a lazy figurehead takes all the “credit” for policies implemented in the president’s name.

I make no secret of my disdain and distrust of Dick Cheney but I cannot deny his success. He’s learned the system, has gathered a coterie of sharp, intelligent people to assist him and has outplayed virtually everyone in Washington in the past six and a half years. No mean feat. Certainly not a task for the lazy, uncertain or faint of heart.

Of course, power and success are morally neutral, their worth being subservient to the purposes to which they are employed. I can appreciate the accomplishments of Franklin Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln because of their legacies. I am less certain of Dick Cheney’s legacy, which consists largely of American aggression and contempt for the rest of the world, serious diminution of Constitutional rights and economic policies that concentrate wealth in a few at the expense of many.

Cheney is said to be wholly unconcerned with his image; he is secure in knowing that he is right. He can point to FDR and Lincoln as his companions in doing what is necessary to protect America and often reviled for doing so. Unlike FDR and Lincoln, Cheney’s actions are not a matter of necessity but rather a clear plan to change the nature of government in this nation from an open to a closed system wherein the few will decide for the many. Even worse in my opinion is that little of what he advocates actually helps this nation. Case in point: Iraq.

As I think about others who have pursued Cheney’s route to power and influence, the one model that keeps coming to mind is Joseph Stalin. That’s an ugly, brutal comparison but, like Cheney, Stalin used his position of Party Secretary to make contacts, control agendas and expand his influence. The party’s great intellect, Leon Trotsky, dismissed Stalin as a mere functionary, only to learn later that Stalin had outmaneuvered him in the battle to succeed Lenin. Cheney’s opponents have learned a similar lesson about the Office of the Vice President in the past few years.

Talking Back to CheneyBush

It always feels creepy to me when I agree with Henry Kissinger but sometimes it makes sense.

The idea for the bipartisan commission was rooted in a Jan. 6 Wall Street Journal op-ed by former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz, former defense secretary William J. Perry and former senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.). In the op-ed, they urged the Bush administration to reverse reliance on nuclear weapons as a step toward preventing proliferation. They also called for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking nuclear weapons off alert, reducing the number of nuclear forces and halting fissile-material production.

Well, Duh! You'd think that would be obvious but apparently not, if it takes a gaggle of retired officials (at least one of whom is notorious for his ruthlessness) to get attention. The attention is welcome and shows what at difference the November 2006 elections make in Washington.

A House Armed Services subcommittee voted yesterday to establish a year-long, bipartisan commission to reevaluate the U.S. nuclear strategic posture for the post-9/11 world. The subcommittee voted to pay for it by cutting $20 million from the Bush administration's $88 million request to complete design and cost studies for the first of a new generation of nuclear warheads.

Wow! Taking money from weapons production and using it to study the need for new weapons and their impact on proliferation. I see Congress awakening from a long slumber, not a little outraged by an arrogant executive, and learning how to use its authority to speak fully on major policy issues. Facing that Congress is a CheneyBush administration made careless and sloppy by six years of unfettered rule. They are still dangerous, still exercising authority, however incompetenly but I think their absolute rule is over. Americans will soon be looking into an abyss of greed, venality and mendacity, all done in our name. I look forward to America's wakening. Assuming that everyone doesn't just shrug their shoulders and switch channels.

At least for now, I can hope.

This Administration

The US Attorney firings, reports of political activity on government premises and other nefarious doings of the CheneyBush administration give me cause for a dark hope. The hope is that their corruption will burst into the light of day for all to see. From the blind arrogance of Iraq, to the stunning incompetence of Hurricaine Katrina to the cynical subverstion of Constitutional government this adminstration has ill-served America. Clearly, these people have little respect for law or ethics when it comes to seeking cutthroat advantage. These ideologues and conspirators have had six years of unchecked power with no oversight or accountability. The one thing you can always count on with unchecked power is its insatiability. Nothing I've seen about this administration suggests that it is at all imune from this iron law of human behavior. I suspect the scandals and schemes that now bedevil CheneyBush are only the first of many more.

Especially with a Congress that has rediscovered its oversight authority and is learning how to use it. CheneyBush no longer has his back covered and must suddenly answer for the actions taken under his command. He IS the commander-in-chief of EVERYTHING, you know. It's really all on him, The Decider. If events so far this year are any indication, the abuse and misuse of the public trust will be widespread. I would predict that the results will destroy what little credibility and trust the public has for CheneyBush and his henchmen, but the persistence of a 30 percent hard-core base after the waste and incompetence of the past six years, has so far confounded my faith in human nature.

This administration ain't so new.
Did pretty much what it set out to do.
Take from the many and give to the few.
And don't think it gives a shit about you.

--Cindy Lee Berryhill (1989)

Can You Understand Now?

To all Americans who in 2002 and 2003 said, "The president has information that we don't have. If he says Iraq is a danger, then I respect his judgment.":

He did have evidence that we did not. IT WAS WRONG! IT WAS DISTORTED! Your president, whose judgment you respected, started a costly war for no good reason. He betrayed you. He failed in his most fundamental duty.

To all Americans still supporting CheneyBush:

Why on earth do you still believe this administration can be trusted on anything?

The Minstrel Boy's comment to a previous post sure says it all:

the part of this that simply makes me crazy is that after being completely, absolutely, and totally wrong (if not lying through their teeth) about every single aspect of the iraq situation, anybody, anywhere, at any time will listen to bush when he says he's certain about what will result from withdrawal. he was certain about the weapons, he was certain about the operation being a cakewalk, he was certain that iraqi oil revenue would pay for the whole thing, he was certain that democracy would spring from the desert once he opened up a little irrigation, he was certain. . .