Robin sums it all up

Dean Baker: Bush sought to provoke financial panic

This excellent essay by Dean Baker accuses Bush of deliberately creating financial panic to push through legislation. Naomi Klein calls this 'Shock Doctrine.' Whatever you call it, Congress fell for it once again. Then the rats all fled the sinking ship.

Perhaps the day will come when Americans are too poor to even pay taxes. There are so many of us... what if the economy goes belly up and the dollar collapses? I wonder what our dear representative government will do to collect on this enormous debt they have assigned to us against our will? Put us all in debter's prison? Assign us all jobs in a massive national work house?

This will likely go down as one of the greatest - if not the greatest - betrayal in our nation's history. I had the impression that my congressman grasped that fact (and thus refused to vote for it, along with most of the other Hoosier congressmen.)

Somehow our aging Senator Lugar - a nice man - missed the historical significance. Perhaps he was simply afraid. It is unfortunately that history will damn him along with the rest of the millionaire's club. Our children's children won't know anything about him other than that he signed this bill -- and it will stick to his name and reputation like the stink of a skunk.

Dean Baker's essay assigns the biggest blame to Bush. Is this the legacy Bush plans to leave -- bankrupting an entire nation? He says that he truly believes history will vindicate him. Is he actually hoping that there won't be anyone left to read it?

If Lincoln's ghost really does haunt the White House, I have a theory about why Bush spends so much time on vacation, away from the place. If I were Lincoln, I'd be howling "TRAITOR!" over W's bed, every single night.

Statement on Congressional Approval of Bailout

by: Dean Baker, The Center for Economic and Policy Research

Friday 03 October 2008

This is the first time in the history of the United States that the president has sought to provoke a financial panic to get legislation through Congress. While this has proven to be a successful political strategy, it marks yet another low point in American politics.

It was incredibly irresponsible for President Bush to tell the American people on national television that the country could be facing another Great Depression. By contrast, when we actually were in the Great Depression, President Roosevelt said that, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

It was even more irresponsible for him to seize on the decline in the stock market five days later as evidence that his bailout was needed for the economy. President Bush must surely understand, as all economists know, that the daily swings in the stock market are driven by mass psychology and have almost nothing to do with the underlying strength in the economy.

The scare tactics of President Bush, Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke created sufficient panic, so that by the time of the vote, much of the public believed that the defeat of the bailout may actually have had serious consequences for the economy. Millions of people have changed their behavior because of this fear, with many pulling money out of bank and money market accounts, and in other ways adjusting their financial plans.

This effort to promote panic is especially striking since the country's dire economic situation is almost entirely the result of the Bush Administration's policy failures. First and foremost, the decision of Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke (and previously Alan Greenspan) to ignore the housing bubble, allowed for the growth of an $8 trillion bubble, which is now collapsing.

It is the collapse of this bubble, which has already destroyed more than $4 trillion in housing wealth, and is likely to destroy another $4 trillion over the next year, that is at the root of the economy's problems. While competent economists were warning of the bubble and the dire consequences of its collapse, the top officials in the Bush administration were celebrating the rise in homeownership rates.

The Bush administration made the crisis even worse by deregulating Wall Street. This led to the huge over-leveraging of financial institutions, which has vastly complicated the country's economic policies. It is especially disturbing that Secretary Paulson personally profited from these policies, earning hundreds of millions in compensation from Goldman Sachs during his years there as its CEO.

The collapse of the housing bubble, while falling short of the magnitude of the Great Depression, is likely to lead to the worst recession since World War II. Repairing the damage caused by this bubble will be a long and difficult process. Cleaning up the damage to the political system from President Bush's unprecedented fear campaign may prove to be even more difficult.

Difficult or impossible.

Likely the next guy to take office will remember how well fear worked - and how unwilling congress was to stand up to it - and ram all sorts of horrors down our throats. McCain certainly will. Obama is still a mystery.

Obama voted for it; but perhaps naively believes he can undo it. I honestly have no idea. I wonder if he still wants to be president of this imploding empire?

Jon Stewart: Dive of Death

Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Dive of Death



Absolutely... priceless.

Russ Feingold: Statement on Constitution Day 2008

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On Constitution Day 2008

September 17, 2008

On this day in 1787, our founding fathers signed the Constitution, making us a nation of laws, not of men. The basic concepts of justice, liberty, and inherent human rights outlined in that founding document, are at the very foundation of our strength as a nation.

But 221 years later, the United States is facing one of the darkest chapters in its Constitutional history. The Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and rule of law with disrespect unparalleled in our nation’s history. The list of this administration’s assaults on the Constitution is breathtaking: it includes the warrantless wiretapping program, its interrogation policy and justifications for the use of torture, its extreme positions on the legal status of detainees that have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, and its refusal to recognize and cooperate with Congress' constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. This is a shameful legacy that must be undone in the years to come.

On Constitution Day, we should also recognize that supporting the rule of law here at home can help to strengthen democratic institutions around the world that are critical to peace and stability – and, in turn, to our own national security. Right now, countries like Pakistan and Zimbabwe are grappling with their own constitutional crises. But we cannot be a credible example for nations like these if we allow our own Constitution to erode. The disparity between our words and our actions undermines our ability to defend the rights and freedoms of peoples around the world.

Our next president will face a difficult challenge. He must repair the wreckage the current administration has left, which means renouncing some of the powers the current President tried to amass as he turned a blind eye to the rule of law and separation of powers. No president will want to limit his own power. But if we are to be the nation our founders envisioned when they gathered in Philadelphia more than two centuries ago, we must work together – across party lines and at all levels of government – to protect and defend our Constitution and restore the rule of law.

Whither Bin Laden?

New York Times Editorial:

According to members of Congress, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is preparing to give the F.B.I. broad new authority to investigate Americans — without any clear basis for suspicion that they are committing a crime.

Well here we go again. Enemy us.

I'm sorry, but Mr. President... if you are going to persist in attacking the American people - who have done you no harm (some of them even voted for you) - at every turn, I'm afraid it is time to pose that creepy question again: the one you keep hoping no one will ask.

Where is Bin Laden? Why aren't you chasing him down?

If Bin Laden was the guy who masterminded the September 11th attacks... then why aren't you chasing him to the furthest corners of the earth? You did a nice job of laying waste to Iraq. Bin Laden wasn't there - has apparently never been there.

Iraq didn't attack us. Bin Laden did.

What about Bin Laden?

If Bin Laden was the man who planned 9/11, why did you fly his family out of the country the very next day? (Yes, we heard about that one plane that was allowed into the air.)

If Bin Laden is the man behind the worst day in American history - and sure, I know the Bin Ladens are Bush family friends, so its a little uncomfortable for you - shouldn't he figure somewhere into your 'keeping America safe' master plan?

Why won't you hunt him down? Why do you hunt the American people instead?

Because the Bin Ladens are family friends... and we aren't? Because you are afraid we may eventually start to notice that you're never chasing Bin Laden, and start to wonder why?

Is that why you're eavesdropping on our every word?

I'm sorry, but like many people, I'm starting to really wonder about you. You're even more paranoid than Nixon. And Nixon was one wildly paranoid guy.

And like most Americans, I keep waiting.

I remember it like it was yesterday: you promised - with a bullhorn - that you would "catch the man who knocked down those walls."

I guess we'll be waiting forever.

Under surveillance.

Here they come again

This from the ACLU; the guys who keep fighting for our Constitutional rights in the courts -- while Congress is lunching with lobbyists:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is demanding that Congress issue a new declaration of war so that anyone that this president or the next one declares to be an "enemy combatant" can be held indefinitely without a trial.

The new declaration of war would make the entire globe — including the United States itself — a “battlefield” where the president decides who will be locked up forever.

With only five weeks left in the Congressional schedule and only six months left in the Bush presidency, Mukasey’s ridiculous power grab should be laughed out of town. But given this Congress’ track record, the Mukasey proposal is no laughing matter. Especially because it also includes a cover-up of the Bush administration’s systemic torture and abuse of detainees.

We can’t take for granted that Congress will reject this outrageous proposal. We have to meet it with an immediate wall of protest that says to Congress: “Don’t you dare.”

Once again, I contacted my Representative and told him to reject this latest power grab by Bush and Mukasey.

You can do the same thing here.

Another day... another power grab. They just keep coming. Its a bit like playing 'Space Invaders,' with our freedom on the line.

Oilman-in-Chief approves Regional Oil Deal

... while State Department publicly said such a deal could undermine Iraq's Petroleum Law.

And its not about the oil. W thinks we're all as bright as... well as he is! Fooled us again, George! Gosh... we're such dummies.

Bush administration officials told Hunt Oil last summer that they did not object to its efforts to reach an oil deal with the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq, even while the State Department was publicly expressing concern that such contracts could undermine a national Iraqi petroleum law, according to documents obtained by a House committee.

Last fall, after the deal was announced, the State Department said that it had tried to dissuade Hunt Oil from signing the contract with Kurdish regional authorities but that the company had proceeded "regardless of our advice." Although Hunt Oil's chief executive has been a major fundraiser for President Bush, the president said he knew nothing about the deal.

Yesterday, however, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released documents and e-mails showing that for nearly four months, State and Commerce department officials knew about Hunt Oil's negotiations and had told company officials that there were no objections. In one note, a Commerce Department official even wished them "a fruitful visit to Kurdistan" and invited them to contact him "in case you need any support."

Go Waxman go. Dig it all up.

You never know: maybe someday we'll have a government willing to prosecute. Someday... we may have a Congress with just a tiny bit of courage; enough to outweigh their greed.

Well maybe.

Remember this date

This just in from CNN: The AAA's national gas price average has reached $4 a gallon for the first time in history.

You're doing a heckova job, Bushie.

The price

Well, the 8-year disastrous reign still hasn't passed into history, yet history may have at least one word of advice to future generations: never (again) elect two oil men to the White House.

A soaring jobless rate, an unprecedented jump in oil prices and a sliding dollar sent tremors through financial markets yesterday and cast fresh doubt on how soon the U.S. economy would be able to break out of a pattern of feeble growth and financial instability. (By Steven Mufson and Neil Irwin, The Washington Post)

Mad Cow in Indiana...?

Thank you FDA, USDA, Department of Agriculture, Indiana media, and all of the rest of you who were supposed to be protecting us and chose to keep us in the dark. No wonder Bush doesn't want anyone testing for mad cow disease. It would appear that it could already be here.

U.S. government fights to keep meatpackers from testing all slaughtered cattle for mad cow
The Associated Press
Published: May 29, 2007

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

Today CNN announced that four people in Northern Indiana (Ft Wayne area,) have died within the last 5 months of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, a rare brain disease that can be caused by eating meat infected by Mad Cow (or by eating brains, so I suppose these people could all belong to a secret, brain-eating cult. I've heard Ft. Wayne is an odd city.)

There is almost no news coverage of this here in Indiana.

I found one story, just breaking, on the Indy Star; and it stated that "the four deaths appear to be from classic CJD and not related to mad cow disease, which is linked to the rare variant CJD found in humans."

Personally, I can't say that I am feeling the trust these days.

Four cases in 5 months? The average is apparently only one case out of 1 million people, over an entire year. Something is definitely 'up' in Ft. Wayne.

And by the way, did you know that the Department of Agriculture is only testing %1 of the meat we eat - in spite of the fact that several known cases of mad cow disease have already been found in the U.S.?

And now they are trying to keep anyone from testing more than 1%. What are they afraid will come to light with more extensive testing?

This is a recipe for disaster.

I'll bet hardly anyone knows that:

Three cases of mad cow disease have been found in the United States. The first, in December 2003 in Washington state, was in a cow that had been imported from Canada. The second, in 2005, was in a cow born in Texas. The third was confirmed last year in an Alabama cow.

The Consumer's Union is covering this on their website. Another must-read site for further information -- Mad Cow Disease: Is the USDA covering up an epidemic?

Mainstream media has been failing to do its job. It takes years for this disease to show up, and without any real and ethical oversight under the Bush Administration, we are sitting ducks.

Killing us softly, Pt. 2

Breaking news from PetConnection blogger, Christie Keith, out on Daily Kos. And here I thought I was actually on top of this FDA, melamine, poisoned food, deadly drug, Chinese tainted disaster. Not hardly. They're way, way ahead of me.

It would seem that the FDA today announced that Tembec, an Ohio-based company, has been adding melamine and related compounds to an ingredient used to make fish, shrimp, cattle, sheep, and goat feed.

Yes, this is an AMERICAN company adding melamine to animal feed. Seriously! Apparently this feed has have been sold internationally as well as domestically. So now other countries will be forced to recall American food.

Feeling proud? You betcha.

And we truly think our corporations are any less creepy than the Chinese? Hey - the Chinese actually sentenced the head of their FDA to death. We can't even impeach... oh never mind.

I'll let Christie Keith tell you about the strange media blackout that followed:

Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:46:33 PM EDT


On May 22, the FDA suspended its until-then twice-weekly media conferences on the melamine contamination investigation, saying there was nothing new to report and they’d let us know when there was.

The night before they suspended the media conferences because there was nothing new to report, UC Davis had found melamine in a previously unrecalled pet food. FDA did subsequently issue a recall notice for this food, although they had not at the time they canceled the media conferences.

On the very day they canceled the media conferences because there was nothing new to report, a news story broke that the FDA’s own labs found melamine in catfish submitted by the state of Arkansas for testing, which was meant for human consumption. That catfish had been imported from China.

This was the first time melamine was detected in food meant for human consumption, but there still has been almost zero coverage of this in the mainstream media. Would there have been if the media conferences hadn’t been canceled?

Still wonder who the media is really working for? Democracy? Oversight? Anyone?

Christie Keith continues:

Now we find out that four days before canceling the ongoing press conferences because there was nothing new to report, on May 18, FDA learned that a US company had been adding melamine to its binding agent, which is used to make commercial fish and shrimp feed as well as livestock feed for cattle, goats, and sheep — not only in the US, but we’ve been exporting this stuff.

Some of the reporters at the media conference sounded pretty aggravated -- I especially liked the guy from the Washington Times who kept pushing for "FDA food safety czar" David Acheson to share how he felt, really felt, about the food safety official in China who just got the death penalty, and ABC News' David Kerley was absolutely relentless with his questions -- but I still want to know, where the hell has the legacy media been since the press conferences got canceled?

Not only have we been reporting these things on PetConnection -- a freaking PET BLOG, albeit one run by nationally syndicated columnists who are actual reporters, but still -- but I posted about the catfish here on DKos last Tuesday. David Goldstein has been posting about this on horsesass.org, too. It's not like there isn't a story here. It's not like the media doesn't have this story. But literally overnight, the minute FDA stops holding press conferences, it all just stopped.

Of course it stopped. My God, imagine if this one got out. Americans might (gulp) stop trusting their Bushie government...

Beam me up Scottie. This is getting beyond belief.

Bill Maher: Why Carter was right the first time

Killing us softly

Wonder why people are suddenly starting to get sick from the food? I mean, isn't the FDA supposed to be protecting us?

Well it used to be that way... before Bush stuffed the agency full of necon cronies bent on undermining any 'oversight' of business interests. Better get used to it... this is the 'Reagan way.'

On June 6, 2007, Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will haul in Andrew von Eschenbach to testify on why the FDA failed to warn Americans of the extreme cardiovascular danger and increased risk of death from taking Avandia, a $3 billion-a-year blockbuster diabetes drug made by GlaxoSmithKline. Statistics that were primarily obtained from GlaxoSmithKline's own research data predict that 35,000 people needlessly died taking Avandia last year and the FDA was fully aware of the risks and chose to ignore them.

Who is Andrew von Eschenbach?

Andrew von Eschenbach has never hidden his agenda; it is more an issue that people simply aren't paying attention. The top priority of the FDA is now the von Eschenbach dream, which is to bring new biotech drugs to the market with far less safety or effectiveness testing and then conduct experiments on individuals as the drugs are used in clinical practice. This effort is called the Critical Path Initiative and it will take a giant step forward should the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA come into existence as proposed in Senate bill S.1082. Von Eschenbach has stated that this is the very top priority of the FDA for many years to come (not food or drug safety).

Here is a really freaky story. Hamburger, anyone?

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

Nice, huh? There's more...

A contact-lens solution made by Santa Ana-based Advanced Medical Optics Inc. has been linked to a serious eye infection that can lead to blindness, the Wall Street Journal reported on its website Friday.

And how about this one:

Toxic fish bought at North Side shop:
Chicago Tribune

The frozen fish consumed by a Chicago couple containing a potent toxin found in puffer fish was purchased at a North Side Asian grocery, officials said Friday.

Officials declined to name the store that sold the fish. The California-based distributor announced a recall Thursday of thousands of pounds of fish.

The fish, imported from China, was labeled monkfish, but the Food and Drug Administration found life-threatening levels of tetrodotoxin, a substance found in puffer fish that can cause paralysis or death.

Who loves ya baby?

The Bush Administration and their 'new and improved' FDA, that's who. All business, all profits, all the time.

Go go capitalism! God bless America!

(Just don't eat the food...)

Why impeachment is "off the table"

A few days ago I read a story about impeachment, from the McClatchy Bureau. I was frankly so disgusted by it that I didn't think I could write about it yet. Oddly, the frustration and anger came pouring out anyway, in a comment to a fellow Hoosier on my Daily Kos diary.

This story comes right out and states in black and white what I have believed all along: the Democrats won't consider impeachment because they believe that allowing Bush and Cheney to stay in office will help their chances in the 2008 election.

According to the story, "Democrats in Washington want to keep impeachment off the table," By Steven Thomma:

There are both policy and political reasons that Democratic leaders are risking the anger of their base.

One is that some don't see an impeachable offense in what Bush has done, what the Constitution calls "high crimes and misdemeanors." They might find such evidence in any of the many congressional investigations, but they haven't yet.

Let's debunk that one right now.

There are literally volumes of works by brilliant legal minds laying out the basis for impeachment.

First of all, anything that deliberately undercuts the Constitution is a 'high crime,' if you have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution as part of the swearing in process. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales -- all swore the oath.

High crimes might include:

1. Outing Valarie Plame, a verified covert CIA agent. I believe this is actually a felony offense.
2. Lying to Congress and to the American people. At least one of these lies lead to our invasion of Iraq. If that isn't a 'high crime,' I honestly don't know what is.
   
3. Illegal rendition
4. Holding prisoners without due process
5. Secret torture camps... promoting torture in the first place.
6. There is the growing proof that they tampered with the election process (felony)

But the biggest case for impeachment, according to most legal scholars, is the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

Elizabeth De la Vega, a 20-year federal prosecutor has probably laid out the best legal case for impeachment in her book "United States V. George W. Bush et al." This is a brilliant and well crafted legal analysis, and there are many others.

Here are a few of the better ones:

1. The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, by Dave Lindorff


2. Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, from The Center for Constitutional Rights


3. Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney, by Dennis Loo


4. George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying, by John Conyers Jr.


5. The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, by Elizabeth Holtzman

There is enormous popular support for impeachment. The entire State of Maine is trying to impeach Bush and Cheney. Detroit voted to impeach - with a unanimous vote - bringing the total number of cities demanding impeachment to 70. The people of Vermont are lobbying for impeachment. The people of Massachusetts are trying to bring impeachment charges as well. California wants to impeach. Dennis Kucinich already brought impeachment charges against Cheney in the House. Conyers says he supports it.

And still, Pelosi says impeachment is off the table.

The Democrats are either remarkably illiterate when it comes to the impeachment process, or are pretending to be ignorant in the hope that the American people will somehow 'buy' that they are helpless. They are not helpless.

We have never - in our entire history - actually removed a president from office via the impeachment process. Rather, the process is in fact an investigation into wrong-doing; with charges filed by the House, and the case tried in the Senate with the Supreme Court acting as the judges.

The chances that Bush would be impeached by these particular Senators and these particular Justices seems remote, but the point is to dig out the dirt - to file the charges and hold them accountable. Let the democratic process work. It was the prospect of the impeachment process (and the dirt that would be uncovered) that led to Nixon's resignation... not impeachment itself.

Even Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this (domestic spying) really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

Dear God, how can Pelosi be this clueless... unless....

Another is that they fear a political backlash from voters similar to the one that punished Republicans after they impeached Bill Clinton. One factor on the side of the pro-impeachment crowd: Clinton was much more popular than Bush.

Get out. Ludicrous. That is patently ridiculous.

First of all, there apparently wasn't enough 'backlash' against the GOP after their impeachment attempt against Clinton to stop Bush from being elected president in 2000, along with numerous other necons.

Backlash? The American people thought the entire Clinton impeachment was partisan posturing at best, disgusting and pathetic to take a mild stand... but the dirt they splashed all over the media about Bill did affect Gore and his run for President.

There was absolutely no backlash against the GOP at all -- none -- although God knows there should have been. There would have been, had we the services of an impartial media corps.

If the GOP could do that much damage with a bogus impeachment trial against a very popular president -- how on earth could impeaching a criminal president with a 28% rating; a guy who started an entire WAR based on lies, has been undercutting Constitutional protections, spying on American citizens without a court order, leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent, tampered with election results... how could this possibly bring a backlash? My God -- this is a slam dunk!

If we are to the point where entire States - not to mention 70 individual cities, including Detroit - are trying to impeach Bush and Cheney... how on earth can the Democrats claim they 'fear a backlash?' (More likely they fear Cheney will magically make their small planes crash into a corn field in Nebraska.)

In a working democracy, they should fear the backlash of ignoring the will of the people. The people have made their wishes very clear. The people want impeachment. The people want justice.

The third is that they're eager to keep Bush and Cheney around as punching bags for Democratic candidates in the 2008 campaign.

Ah, here it is... the truth at last. This is all a partisan game.

This is the crux of why I became an Independent. This is just so... immoral. I cannot be a party to this. I can not be a part of this party, or any party that will put partisan gain ahead of lives, morality and justice.

How are they any different or any better than Karl Rove?

Consider me a conscientious objector. There are people dying while the Democratic party plays these partisan games, while ignoring the will of the people, justice, morality -- and their own oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

I cannot go along with this. I just can't do it.

Lincoln, a veritable font of inspiriation these days, said:

I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. - Abraham Lincoln

That is why I became an Independent, in a nutshell. I have a conscience.

The beginning of the end

Ever wake up so disillusioned... that you can just barely write?

I was reading some great commentaries out on Daily Kos this morning, and I came across this - a diary entited "Will Bush walk away in 2009?". Many of the components add up to what I have believed may... maybe even will happen in our country within the next couple of years. There are just too many signs that we are headed down this road. The pieces are all in place. Any student of history can see them now. It is as though Bush and Co. are following a script... and perhaps they are.

I have known about the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive since shortly after it was released. I even blogged about it, while keeping my real fears to myself. I tried to take the Jon Stewart route and turn it into a joke. W in my yard with a bulldozer.

I have heard all about these Halliburton concentration camps, being built right here, in our country. What I hadn't known, was that there are actually satellite photos available. Actually seeing at them makes my blood run cold.

Nazis. All over again. God help us.

First, our Executive branch goes on a power-grabbing spree - and nobody stops them. The Republican congress just kept giving Bush and Cheney the rubber 'whatever you want' stamp - with Democrat capitulation of course, over and over again.

Next, government officials started beating their chests and promoting torture, flaunting the Geneva conventions. The media has already been compromised: all mainstream media now regularly 'black out' certain vital news stories and fill our heads with sensationalism and utter nonsense, while at the same time promoting violence and torture via '24' (on Fox, of course.) Army generals are having a terrible time trying to undo the damage... and convince army recruits that torture isn't the army way. It is, however, the Vice President's way.

Halliburton is building concentration camps on our national soil. And everyone is watching American Idol.

When I was in third grade and studying WWII, I apparently drew the short straw and found myself researching the Holocaust. I can't imagine who thought this would be a good idea - for a third grader to see photos of bodies stacked like cord wood - but I saw them. I saw photos of the inspection lines full of women, grandparents and children departing from the deportation trains. Left, work. Right, gas chambers.

I didn't sleep for weeks. No, more like months. And there were the nightmares, about marching Nazis with high, black, shiny boots... always marching, pounding on our door, carrying us away to be tortured and killed. In my memory, throughout my entire life, there is nothing that has ever scared me so much... as Nazis.

For a greater portion of my life I even denied my own German heritage. I could not be German. I would not accept being German, in any part. I blamed the German people for allowing the Nazis to go that far and for doing nothing to stop it.

I think I understand a little better now. Governments are subverted in a slow and secret creep. It is invariably an inside job. To see it coming, you have to look quite closely. People in this country don't look closely at anything these days. Ask them, and they'll say they're just 'too busy.' They're all working several jobs, racing all over town - kids in tow - and at night they collapse in front of American Idol. Our newspapers are full of useless fluff, with real news relegated to the middle sections with the ads. We are a culture of excess and denial.

And so of course, there was a golden opportunity. And someone- some group of Machiavellian plotters - saw that opportunity and raced into the vacuum.

The only thing left now is the wait for the inevitable boots marching in the streets, the banging on the door, and the trains. Perhaps in this day and age, they will simply use trucks.

My greatest fear coming true, and in my own country. I would rather have died of strep as a child than to have lived long enough to see this happen.

Oh sure, we may somehow avoid this total democratic collapse. But judging from the nervous capitulation - or perhaps partisan arrogance - of our Democratic 'majority,' I somehow think we won't. We are on a collision course with hell.

Will Bush really step down in 2009? Good question. Does he have to? Not anymore.

Memorial Day 2007

Olbermann: The Neville Chamberlain Moment

"Who among us will stop this war?"

The big cave

The "Neville Chamberlain Moment"

Yesterday, majority Democratic leaders caved; they lay down, rolled over in front of Bush, and played dead. Then sat up and told everyone in earshot that they had made 'great progress.'

Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package yesterday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.

Bush, who has already vetoed one spending bill with a troop timeline, had threatened to do the same with the next version if it came with such a condition. Democratic leaders had moved ahead anyway, under heavy pressure from liberals who believe that the party won control of Congress in November on the strength of antiwar sentiment. But in the end, Democrats said they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto and could not delay troop funding.

Um... excuse me oh great and powerful Washington Post... but why? Why couldn't they delay troop funding?

Senator Feingold (D-WI) seems to believe that Bush has plenty of money to run his war through the end of the summer, and that the only way to force him to negotiate is to force him to veto the same bill, over and over again until he realizes that you are serious. Feingold also says - and he was a Rhodes scholar, very bright man - that since Congress holds the purse strings for this war, the only real way to end it is to 'just say no' when Bush asks for more war cash.

Reid and Pelosi: you could have sent your pathetic little benchmarks back 2, 3, maybe even 4 more times. Your original cave (outright betrayal to those who gave you this majority) came when the bill was still in the House. Madam Pelosi 'discouraged' (read snuffed) a vote on the Lee Amendment, which would have redeployed our troops by the end of 2007, and restricted use of these war funds to attack Iran.

This was nothing more than insisting on constitutional and congressional oversight where a declaration of war is concerned. Congress is supposed to declare a war, not the president. The president is supposed go to Congress and officially ask permission when he wants to start a war. Obviously, this president has other plans. The Lee Amendment would have demanded that this basic role of Congress be respected in the case of Iran -- in exchange for the cash.

You call this hardball? You caved immediately.

Reid - you were once a professional boxer? Seriously? No wonder we've never heard of you. Was your modus operandi to walk out into the ring... and immediately lie down on the floor and concede defeat?

I've been comparing you to Neville Chamberlain for some time now, so I wasn't exactly floored when I heard Keith Olbermann use the same likeness, when describing the immensity of this cowardly betrayal. The shoe fits. If only we had a Winston Churchill waiting in the wings.

We need a strong third party, and we need one immediately.

Poor Russ (poor us)

Russ washes his hands. I keep wondering when this guy is going to finally get completely fed up and become an Independent.

By the way, Russ actually posts on Daily KOS. Guess even Senators head to the Internet when desperate to make sense of this ongoing, national nightmare...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 22, 2007
3:39 PM


CONTACT: Senator Russ Feingold
Zach Lowe (202) 224-8657

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Iraq Supplemental Conference Report


WASHINGTON - MAY 22 -“Under the President’s Iraq policies, our military has been over-burdened, our national security has been jeopardized, and thousands of Americans have been killed or injured. Despite these realities, and the support of a majority of Americans for ending the President’s open-ended mission in Iraq, congressional leaders now propose a supplemental appropriations bill that does nothing to end this disastrous war. I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history. There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.”

True.

And imagine... now they've even removed those annoying, 'toothless benchmarks!'

They rolled over. Completely. Pelosi and Reid gave Bush that 'blank check.' I'm sure he served them a nice banquet afterwards, in the Rose garden.

Oh, they threw in something about raising the minimum wage... like that is going to somehow make this OK.

Weren't they going to raise minimum wage anyway? When they were running for office last year, I distinctly remember them promising to get us out of Iraq AND raise minimum wage.

Its getting really hard to decide who is more corrupt these days; the GOP, or the Democrats we sent in to replace them.

Did it ever occur to them that this might seem, oh, a little disingenuous? That we may not have wanted to 'trade' something we were already promised, for a blank check on Iraq funding? Did Reid and Pelosi somehow forget why we gave them that majority last November?

My GOD these Democrats are weak. The GOP is corrupt beyond recognition, and the Democrats are weak and capitulating corporate pawns.

Depressing day.

Just to cheer us up even more, here is what we can look forward to during our next national disaster!

On May 9th, Bush released a new presidential directive appointing himself dictator ('disaster decider,' or 'crisis czar,') and of course, 'protector of the constitution' in the event of a national emergency.

Just one more reason to dread a disaster. Now I'm not sure which I'm more afraid of... the F-5 tornado, or W in my yard: with a bull horn, a maniacal grin and a bulldozer.

Protector of our 'constitutional government', huh? Yeah. Somebody had better hide the Constitution now - quick - in a place where he'd never find it (a public library would work.) You can bet that once the document was in his care, Rove or Gonzales would 'accidentally' spill their coffee all over it (or pour gasoline on it and burn it,) rendering it forever illegible... and open to entirely new interpretation!

Who made the call?

And now the question everyone has been asking - and of course, the question that the president will not answer: who made that famous 'Wednesday Night AmBush' phone call? (See Comey testimony via YouTube below.)

According to the Washington Post, it doesn't really matter that the president refused to answer one way or another (what - no lies this time?)

I personally think it does matter: as do all of the other lies, misdirections, 'lost' emails, secret meetings with partisan agendas, fired prosecutors, stolen elections, secret torture camps, the entire illegal premise for the Iraq war and a myriad of Constitutional attacks committed during his watch.

Everything matters.

But then again... I suppose it doesn't matter... if no one in Washington is willing to do anything about it.

According to the Washington Post, Friday editorial:

IT DOESN'T much matter whether President Bush was the one who phoned Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's hospital room before the Wednesday Night Ambush in 2004. It matters enormously, however, whether the president was willing to have his White House aides try to strong-arm the gravely ill attorney general into overruling the Justice Department's legal views. It matters enormously whether the president, once that mission failed, was willing nonetheless to proceed with a program whose legality had been called into question by the Justice Department. That is why Mr. Bush's response to questions about the program yesterday was so inadequate.

Somehow - in the days of my childhood - it was still possible to prosecute a president caught breaking the law.

I remember seeing Nixon's resignation speech on television when I was, well, old enough to realize that this was something completely new. What I didn't realize was that it was the surest sign that democracy was working as it should: that there were consequences for breaking the law, even at the highest level of the Federal government.

Apparently, the democracy of my childhood is now hopelessly broken. Everyone is screaming... but nobody is acting.

Come on - you know its atrocious when a still living, ex-president comes right out and says Bush is the "worst president in history" at handling international relations. Think about that. A former president calling the current president "the worst in history." Has that ever happened before? I highly doubt it. But then again, we've never seen behavior like this from within the White House.

Bill Clinton is mum of course; (golfs with W's daddy and his wife is running for president, so there is duct-tape over his mouth.) In contrast, the ever conscientious President Carter has obviously seen enough:

Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

I have given up even asking 'what will it take?' It doesn't matter.

It is increasingly obvious that Bush could grab a high-power rifle and start picking off passersby from an upstairs window of the White House, and no one would raise a finger.

I doubt ABC would even cover it.