It's getting exciting. Kind of like when the Soviets shot down that Korean Airlines flight back in the dark ages of 1983. Ronald Reagan wanted to show that the Russian Bear was a dangerous animal, while the rest of the West was slouching towards detente. The Soviets handed him a grand propaganda victory. Of course, there is no Soviet Union anymore. But we've got us brand new Cold War, kids, just like when daddy was your age. This is so much better than fighting terrorists anyway.
Back in the old days, when it was West versus East, ideologies neatly divided the world. The Western hemisphere was ours, so when Soviet missiles were sent to Cuba, we very nearly had a nuclear war. We didn't think it was so bad, however, to wage a proxy war in Afghanistan, outfitting the glorious mujahideen against the dirty Commies. Or in a hundred other places in "their" hemisphere.
So what we can we do about it? Not much actually. The "strong defense" policy of the Republicans is an empty suit and the Russians know it and we know they know it. George Bush may have promised the Georgians: "The path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone. Americans respect your courageous choice for liberty. And as you build a free and democratic Georgia, the American people will stand with you." But he didn't mean it. What he meant was, "Look, we're not going to do anything to help you because we can't. I destroyed the military capability of my country in my vain attempt to create the 51st American state in Iraq. So you're on your own. What about that swimmer dude? Wasn't that like 8 medals?"
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
George Bush and Me: On the Same Team Again
I don't think I've agreed with George W. Bush, since, oh, somewhere around September 12, 2001. But, yesterday, it seemed that we were back on the same team again.
He told Fox News that Columbia University's giving a podium and a microphone to Iranian President Ahmadinejad "speaks volumes about really the greatness of America. We’re confident enough to let a person come and express his views. "
Even though Ahmadinejad is a certifiable crank with pretensions to restore the Persian Empire (this time armed with nuclear weapons) Americans shouldn't be afraid of hearing what he has to say. Truth is never afraid of lies, light is never beholden to darkness.
And, as George and I hoped, Ahmadinejad revealed to all the world just why America shouldn't be afraid of him. He said that the Holocaust should be taught as a "theory" not a fact. He said that there are no homosexuals in Iran. And he said that politicians who are seeking nuclear weapons are retarded. Really.
America is great, not because America is good (as de Tocqueville famously did not say), but because America is founded on self-evident truths. Because America is less a nation than an idea, a grand notion of human equality and justice for all. And because we will even listen to the ideas of a man as demonstrably pathetic as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Yesterday, I was proud of my President and I felt sorry for the Iranians.
But today, of course, all that changed. George W. Bush is going to veto the SCHIP reauthorization bill. George, like his alter ego Mahmoud, can't stay rational for long.
He told Fox News that Columbia University's giving a podium and a microphone to Iranian President Ahmadinejad "speaks volumes about really the greatness of America. We’re confident enough to let a person come and express his views. "
Even though Ahmadinejad is a certifiable crank with pretensions to restore the Persian Empire (this time armed with nuclear weapons) Americans shouldn't be afraid of hearing what he has to say. Truth is never afraid of lies, light is never beholden to darkness.
And, as George and I hoped, Ahmadinejad revealed to all the world just why America shouldn't be afraid of him. He said that the Holocaust should be taught as a "theory" not a fact. He said that there are no homosexuals in Iran. And he said that politicians who are seeking nuclear weapons are retarded. Really.
America is great, not because America is good (as de Tocqueville famously did not say), but because America is founded on self-evident truths. Because America is less a nation than an idea, a grand notion of human equality and justice for all. And because we will even listen to the ideas of a man as demonstrably pathetic as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Yesterday, I was proud of my President and I felt sorry for the Iranians.
But today, of course, all that changed. George W. Bush is going to veto the SCHIP reauthorization bill. George, like his alter ego Mahmoud, can't stay rational for long.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Tasering of Dissent
In George Lucas' Revenge of the Sith, Senator Amadala wryly observes, "So this is how democracy ends--to thunderous applause." Not quite, Senator, it was tasered.
The tasering of free speech occurred at a John Kerry appearance at the University of Florida on Monday, when a student, Andrew Meyer asked a series of increasingly annoying questions, including whether or not Kerry was a member of the same Yale secret society that George W. Bush belonged to. After being told that his time was up, and having his mike cut-off, Meyer refused to be quiet and was grabbed by police, who wrestled him to the floor and used a taser gun on him. You can see the video here.
Meyer was obnoxious, rude and disruptive. But he was not a threat, unless the very act of questioning is a threat. Senator Kerry, ever the automaton, proceeded to answer stumble through a answer, as if people get tasered everywhere he goes.
Whatever happened to universities being places for the free exchange of ideas?
The tasering of free speech occurred at a John Kerry appearance at the University of Florida on Monday, when a student, Andrew Meyer asked a series of increasingly annoying questions, including whether or not Kerry was a member of the same Yale secret society that George W. Bush belonged to. After being told that his time was up, and having his mike cut-off, Meyer refused to be quiet and was grabbed by police, who wrestled him to the floor and used a taser gun on him. You can see the video here.
Meyer was obnoxious, rude and disruptive. But he was not a threat, unless the very act of questioning is a threat. Senator Kerry, ever the automaton, proceeded to answer stumble through a answer, as if people get tasered everywhere he goes.
Whatever happened to universities being places for the free exchange of ideas?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
This is not About Larry Craig
This is not about Senators Craig, Vitter or Stevens. It's not about (ex-)Congressman Mark Foley or soon-to-be indicted Congressman Rick Renzi. It's not about South Carolina's Thomas Ravenel or Ohio's Bob Allen. It's not even about Alberto Gonzales. It's about hubris: the pride which goeth before a fall.
When George W. Bush ran against Bill Clinton's stand-in in 2000, he promised to “restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office” a barely veiled reference to Clinton’s Oval Office tryst with Monica Lewinski. But his code for moral rectitude was supposed to mean something more than a pledge not to seduce White House interns—he really was promising Americans that the party of values—the Republicans—would reflect the small town values of “fly-over country” the vast continental space between the Northeast and the Southwest. Those values would include faith, honesty, morality, and decency, which he claimed was lacking in the technocratically efficient but morally challenged Clinton administration.
Never mind that the prominent Republican leaders at the end of the century, like Gingrich and Livingston, had their own moral challenges, he got enough people to believe him to provide a near-win in the electoral college, and, well, you know the rest. The fact is, George Bush became President on a platform that was domestic and moral in nature. He re-captured the victory in 2004 with a platform smeared with fear and lies. “Honor and integrity” had not survived his first two years, and yet, somehow, he projected an image of small town American values that resonated with enough people to give him four more years. The only problem is, that small town turned out to be Fairview, and the Republicans lived on Wisteria Lane, where all manner of debauchery reigned.
But that’s what happens when politicians claim that a party represents moral superiority. They forget that we are all human, we are all in thrall to our own demons, and nobody can lay claim to the righteousness of moral purity. Republicans led the charge against gay and lesbian people, while the Vice-President’s own gay daughter was in a very public relationship. Republicans demanded that teens be taught sexual abstinence outside of marriage, while young pages were propositioned by a House leader. Republicans frequented prostitutes (gay and straight), got bribed, perjured themselves before Congressional committees, and snorted cocaine at wild parties. In other words, they acted like other people do. They did not have a corner on moral purity after all.
They are blaming their run of bad news on a bigoted press, out to stage a Democratic coup d'état. It is not the press, but the American people who are a snarling mob, looking for somebody to lynch. The American people, the majority of whom are honest enough to admit that they, too, are sinful, are no longer willing to believe that one party represents righteousness and the other depravity. They want somebody who can run the country, effectively and efficiently. If he or she has some skeletons rattling around, that’s of little consequence. They want a technocrat, not a theocrat; efficiency not hubris.
It’s the end of an age.
When George W. Bush ran against Bill Clinton's stand-in in 2000, he promised to “restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office” a barely veiled reference to Clinton’s Oval Office tryst with Monica Lewinski. But his code for moral rectitude was supposed to mean something more than a pledge not to seduce White House interns—he really was promising Americans that the party of values—the Republicans—would reflect the small town values of “fly-over country” the vast continental space between the Northeast and the Southwest. Those values would include faith, honesty, morality, and decency, which he claimed was lacking in the technocratically efficient but morally challenged Clinton administration.
Never mind that the prominent Republican leaders at the end of the century, like Gingrich and Livingston, had their own moral challenges, he got enough people to believe him to provide a near-win in the electoral college, and, well, you know the rest. The fact is, George Bush became President on a platform that was domestic and moral in nature. He re-captured the victory in 2004 with a platform smeared with fear and lies. “Honor and integrity” had not survived his first two years, and yet, somehow, he projected an image of small town American values that resonated with enough people to give him four more years. The only problem is, that small town turned out to be Fairview, and the Republicans lived on Wisteria Lane, where all manner of debauchery reigned.
But that’s what happens when politicians claim that a party represents moral superiority. They forget that we are all human, we are all in thrall to our own demons, and nobody can lay claim to the righteousness of moral purity. Republicans led the charge against gay and lesbian people, while the Vice-President’s own gay daughter was in a very public relationship. Republicans demanded that teens be taught sexual abstinence outside of marriage, while young pages were propositioned by a House leader. Republicans frequented prostitutes (gay and straight), got bribed, perjured themselves before Congressional committees, and snorted cocaine at wild parties. In other words, they acted like other people do. They did not have a corner on moral purity after all.
They are blaming their run of bad news on a bigoted press, out to stage a Democratic coup d'état. It is not the press, but the American people who are a snarling mob, looking for somebody to lynch. The American people, the majority of whom are honest enough to admit that they, too, are sinful, are no longer willing to believe that one party represents righteousness and the other depravity. They want somebody who can run the country, effectively and efficiently. If he or she has some skeletons rattling around, that’s of little consequence. They want a technocrat, not a theocrat; efficiency not hubris.
It’s the end of an age.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
There was a human being named Jumah at Guantanamo
George Bush's newest "new strategy" on Iraq looks for all the world like the same old strategy that hasn't worked for the last four years. Nothing's changed, not even the soldiers, many of who are being deployed for the third time in a foolish attempt to rescue Bush's failed and reckless war.
Before the beginning of the Iraq war, which was falsely linked to the so-called "War on Terror," we found out that our government had imprisoned hundreds of people at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, and deprived them of the right to counsel, to see the charges against them, and to receive a fair and speedy trial. If this was being done in Iran or Syria, we'd be demanding United Nations sanctions, or threatening war. But, we are the Empire, and no one challenges us.
Our own FBI says that the prisoners have been chained in a fetal position to the floor for at least 18 hours, urinating and defecating on themselves; subjected to extremes of temperature; gagged with duct tape; held in stress positions while shackled; and subjected to loud music and flashing lights. Don't believe it? You can read the FBI's own report, released last week under the Freedom of Information Act. It's gruesome.
And now there's a letter from one of them to me and you. His name is Jumah al-Dossari, he's 33 years old, and from Bahrain. His heart-breaking epistle is reprinted in today's Los Angeles Times. He writes:
During the first few years at Guantanamo, I was interrogated many times. My interrogators told me that they wanted me to admit that I am from Al Qaeda and that I was involved in the terrorist attacks on the United States. I told them that I have no connection to what they described. I am not a member of Al Qaeda. I did not encourage anyone to go fight for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have done nothing but kill and denigrate a religion. I never fought, and I never carried a weapon. I like the United States, and I am not an enemy. I have lived in the United States, and I wanted to become a citizen. I know that the soldiers who did bad things to me represent themselves, not the United States. And I have to say that not all American soldiers stationed in Cuba tortured us or mistreated us. There were soldiers who treated us very humanely. Some even cried when they witnessed our dire conditions. Once, in Camp Delta, a soldier apologized to me and offered me hot chocolate and cookies. When I thanked him, he said, "I do not need you to thank me." I include this because I do not want readers to think that I fault all Americans.
Before the beginning of the Iraq war, which was falsely linked to the so-called "War on Terror," we found out that our government had imprisoned hundreds of people at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, and deprived them of the right to counsel, to see the charges against them, and to receive a fair and speedy trial. If this was being done in Iran or Syria, we'd be demanding United Nations sanctions, or threatening war. But, we are the Empire, and no one challenges us.
Our own FBI says that the prisoners have been chained in a fetal position to the floor for at least 18 hours, urinating and defecating on themselves; subjected to extremes of temperature; gagged with duct tape; held in stress positions while shackled; and subjected to loud music and flashing lights. Don't believe it? You can read the FBI's own report, released last week under the Freedom of Information Act. It's gruesome.
And now there's a letter from one of them to me and you. His name is Jumah al-Dossari, he's 33 years old, and from Bahrain. His heart-breaking epistle is reprinted in today's Los Angeles Times. He writes:
During the first few years at Guantanamo, I was interrogated many times. My interrogators told me that they wanted me to admit that I am from Al Qaeda and that I was involved in the terrorist attacks on the United States. I told them that I have no connection to what they described. I am not a member of Al Qaeda. I did not encourage anyone to go fight for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have done nothing but kill and denigrate a religion. I never fought, and I never carried a weapon. I like the United States, and I am not an enemy. I have lived in the United States, and I wanted to become a citizen. I know that the soldiers who did bad things to me represent themselves, not the United States. And I have to say that not all American soldiers stationed in Cuba tortured us or mistreated us. There were soldiers who treated us very humanely. Some even cried when they witnessed our dire conditions. Once, in Camp Delta, a soldier apologized to me and offered me hot chocolate and cookies. When I thanked him, he said, "I do not need you to thank me." I include this because I do not want readers to think that I fault all Americans.
Jumah al-Dossari is our responsibility, for he resides on land we claim as our own, under the eye of the government we have elected, and he sends us a word that can only be called a Word from the Lord: "I would rather die than stay here forever, and I have tried to commit suicide many times. The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people, and I have been destroyed. I am hopeless because our voices are not heard from the depths of the detention center. If I die, please remember that there was a human being named Jumah at Guantanamo whose beliefs, dignity and humanity were abused. Please remember that there are hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo suffering the same misfortune."
If he dies, his blood is on us, for we allowed this to happen.
Monday, January 08, 2007
The New Bush Iraq Strategy: A Recipe For Protacting Failure
John, over at A Lie A Day, says that the George Bush's latest attempt to prolong the war in Iraq is "Nixonian." He's right, even though Nixon's tactic was a seven-year long series of troop reductions, rather than Bush's "troop surge." Though opposite in tactic, they are identical in strategy: stall, and try to think of something that might work.
Nixon loved to talk about "secret timetables" for troop withdrawal and "five point peace plans", but it wasn't until 58,226 Americans, thousands of Allied troops, and over one million Vietnamese were dead that the troops came home. When it was clear that he couldn't stall any more. When it was clear that he didn't have a plan, five point or otherwise.
Bush has never had a plan beyond overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Every few months, he comes up with a new Iraqization strategy for victory, and each one fails. The White House website has one from November 30, 2005, which defends the strategies back to 2003. It's called "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." Among the strategies it laid out:
"Carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government.
"Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;
"Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and
"Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society. "
Guess that didn't go so well.
Nixon loved to talk about "secret timetables" for troop withdrawal and "five point peace plans", but it wasn't until 58,226 Americans, thousands of Allied troops, and over one million Vietnamese were dead that the troops came home. When it was clear that he couldn't stall any more. When it was clear that he didn't have a plan, five point or otherwise.
Bush has never had a plan beyond overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Every few months, he comes up with a new Iraqization strategy for victory, and each one fails. The White House website has one from November 30, 2005, which defends the strategies back to 2003. It's called "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." Among the strategies it laid out:
"Carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government.
"Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;
"Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and
"Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society. "
Guess that didn't go so well.
What will be different this time? Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina's own Bush press flack, says: "We’ve got a new team on the ground. We’re going to come up with a new strategy. The strategy is going to be designed to win."
But as George F. Will points out in the Boston Herald, "Based on experience in the Balkans, an assumption among experts is that to maintain order in a context of sectarian strife requires one competent soldier or police officer for every 50 people. For the Baghdad metropolitan area (population: 6.5 million), that means 130,000 security personnel. There are 120,000 now, but 66,000 of them are Iraqi police, many - perhaps most - of whom are worse than incompetent. Because their allegiances are to sectarian factions, they are not responsive to legitimate central authority. They are part of the problem. Therefore even a substantial surge of, say, 30,000 U.S. forces would leave Baghdad that many short, and could be a recipe for protracting failure."
Can anybody flash me a "V"?
But as George F. Will points out in the Boston Herald, "Based on experience in the Balkans, an assumption among experts is that to maintain order in a context of sectarian strife requires one competent soldier or police officer for every 50 people. For the Baghdad metropolitan area (population: 6.5 million), that means 130,000 security personnel. There are 120,000 now, but 66,000 of them are Iraqi police, many - perhaps most - of whom are worse than incompetent. Because their allegiances are to sectarian factions, they are not responsive to legitimate central authority. They are part of the problem. Therefore even a substantial surge of, say, 30,000 U.S. forces would leave Baghdad that many short, and could be a recipe for protracting failure."
Can anybody flash me a "V"?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Forget God, What if Governor Sanford Were One of Us?
Okay, just don't start. Your governor's probably not all that smart either. At least he's not named Jeb or Sonny. Besides, haven't you ever left your voter's registration card at home when you went to vote? Even though you knew you'd be on national tv? I have, and I can tell you--oh, never mind.
It's painful but watch....
Speaking of videos, Not Very Bright has a great new video that will give you a whole new perspective on George (Michael, that is. It probably won't improve your view of that other guy, however...)
It's painful but watch....
Speaking of videos, Not Very Bright has a great new video that will give you a whole new perspective on George (Michael, that is. It probably won't improve your view of that other guy, however...)
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The Vanity of the Veto: This Dog Can Hunt
Of course he vetoed it.
He doesn’t veto bloated budget bills (unlike Governor Mark Sanford, who, for all his faults, is at least a principled guy). He doesn’t veto bills that erode civil rights or dangerously expand Executive Powers. In his six years in the White House, the only bad bill to cross his desk apparently allowed him to set up an elaborate photo-op where he could deliver a Sunday sermon to a recalcitrant Congress: "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it." Surrounded by children born from frozen embryos that had been abandoned at fertility clinics, the President could show himself a protector of the innocent, a defender of our most cherished values, and a harrier in wild pursuit of his base.
Of course, the President signed the “fetal farming” bill outlawing a non-existent practice of growing human embryos for the specific purpose of harvesting them for medical research or treatment. Gruesome and morally repugnant, the bill passed Congress unanimously. There are few rational people who would suggest that such a practice ever occur. It was pandering as well, akin to outlawing genocide.
I’m hesitantly pro-choice. Not because I have doubts about whether a fertilized human egg is a full human being—it isn’t—but because abortion is always a tragedy, destroying as it does, the hope and promise of what could be. And yet, though I have agonized with a number of young women (and men) who have made this choice, I find it far better to enter the situation with grace than with judgment. I guess that makes me a liberal.
What today’s veto shows is that George Bush cares not a whit for governing, but for the eternal campaign. He basks, not in the drudgery of hard choices, but in the glory of easy answers. Even among evangelicals, his support is slipping, so what better to get them back on board but a handsome pair of custom-made base-warmers, guaranteed to burnish his street cred along the sawdust trail.
I’ll believe that Bush is really pro-life when I see him withdrawing support for Israel’s irrational attacks on Lebanese civilians, or refusing to violate the personhood of people suspected of being terrorists. Until then, it’s all Barnum, all sound and fury, vanity of vanities.
He doesn’t veto bloated budget bills (unlike Governor Mark Sanford, who, for all his faults, is at least a principled guy). He doesn’t veto bills that erode civil rights or dangerously expand Executive Powers. In his six years in the White House, the only bad bill to cross his desk apparently allowed him to set up an elaborate photo-op where he could deliver a Sunday sermon to a recalcitrant Congress: "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it." Surrounded by children born from frozen embryos that had been abandoned at fertility clinics, the President could show himself a protector of the innocent, a defender of our most cherished values, and a harrier in wild pursuit of his base.
Of course, the President signed the “fetal farming” bill outlawing a non-existent practice of growing human embryos for the specific purpose of harvesting them for medical research or treatment. Gruesome and morally repugnant, the bill passed Congress unanimously. There are few rational people who would suggest that such a practice ever occur. It was pandering as well, akin to outlawing genocide.
I’m hesitantly pro-choice. Not because I have doubts about whether a fertilized human egg is a full human being—it isn’t—but because abortion is always a tragedy, destroying as it does, the hope and promise of what could be. And yet, though I have agonized with a number of young women (and men) who have made this choice, I find it far better to enter the situation with grace than with judgment. I guess that makes me a liberal.
What today’s veto shows is that George Bush cares not a whit for governing, but for the eternal campaign. He basks, not in the drudgery of hard choices, but in the glory of easy answers. Even among evangelicals, his support is slipping, so what better to get them back on board but a handsome pair of custom-made base-warmers, guaranteed to burnish his street cred along the sawdust trail.
I’ll believe that Bush is really pro-life when I see him withdrawing support for Israel’s irrational attacks on Lebanese civilians, or refusing to violate the personhood of people suspected of being terrorists. Until then, it’s all Barnum, all sound and fury, vanity of vanities.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Unconscious Orthodoxy
Let’s see if I understand this correctly: the United States Department of Justice cannot investigate the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program because its lawyers don’t have a high enough security clearance. According to the AP:
“The inquiry headed by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers’ role in the program.
“We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program,” OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey.”
In other words, the government does not have the security clearance to investigate itself.
Remember, the President said back in January that the investigation would be “good for democracy.” Just not good enough that he would actually let it proceed. Hiding behind the veil of “national security,” the Bush administration has proven once again that it will continue to act in complete defiance of anyone who would question its right to trample our freedoms, even itself. Orwell tried to predict it, in pre-war, Socialist Britain when he had Syme tell Winston: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
To create the unconsciousness of the new political orthodoxy, Bush has nominated the man who created warrantless eavesdropping, the NSA’s own General Michael Hayden. And as The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart noted, he did it with the exact words he had used to nominate Hayden’s predecessor, because he knew that we were already all but unconscious.
Who’s going to question it? Who’s going to stop them? Congress? The military? The people? No, we’re all busy, thank you, filling up our Hummers and betting on oil futures. Not a single human being alive can even understand the conversation.
“The inquiry headed by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers’ role in the program.
“We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program,” OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey.”
In other words, the government does not have the security clearance to investigate itself.
Remember, the President said back in January that the investigation would be “good for democracy.” Just not good enough that he would actually let it proceed. Hiding behind the veil of “national security,” the Bush administration has proven once again that it will continue to act in complete defiance of anyone who would question its right to trample our freedoms, even itself. Orwell tried to predict it, in pre-war, Socialist Britain when he had Syme tell Winston: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
To create the unconsciousness of the new political orthodoxy, Bush has nominated the man who created warrantless eavesdropping, the NSA’s own General Michael Hayden. And as The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart noted, he did it with the exact words he had used to nominate Hayden’s predecessor, because he knew that we were already all but unconscious.
Who’s going to question it? Who’s going to stop them? Congress? The military? The people? No, we’re all busy, thank you, filling up our Hummers and betting on oil futures. Not a single human being alive can even understand the conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
