The Courts and Congress have come to believe there is reason for fear. Enemies are everywhere. Those who wish to do us harm are in our homes. They talk to us on our telephones. Some sashay in through our computers. "Evil doers" are ubiquitous in the United States. Our open society places the public at risk. We, the people, must defend ourselves. Thus, the Supreme Court and Congress have given the government and us the means. The highest judicial body in the nation has made it possible for the common man to protect himself with a pistol; Legislators provided the President ethereal firearms. Indeed, individuals and the Commander-In-Chief were bequeathed more than either had asked for. In 2008, we have entered the Summer of Separation. In the United States we say, "Farewell to privacy. Hello to arms."
In his mad dash to the middle, Barack Obama joins John McCain and George W. Bush as a trampler of American privacy rights. It looks like "The Further Adventures of Big Brother Sam" (Archive No. 0826a and 0826b) will continue, regardless of who takes the White House.
As Governor of Texas, the Presidential hopeful warned us. If we were to select him as Commander-In-Chief he would not send mixed messages. Americans might have read George W. Bush's lips. Pressure would be applied in abundance. A thousand points of light illuminated the path the then possible Chief Executive proposed. Yet, no one wished to believe a prominent person, the son of a former President of the United States could be so cruel. Certainly, a candidate to the highest office in the land would not suggest that he would be happy to start a war while he worked to win the support of American people. Yet, there it was, in the smirk, in the statement, in the glint seen in the eyes of Governor George W. Bush. The date, January 16, 2000, one year and four days before the ready and willing combatant placed his hand on the Bible and recited the Presidential Oath of Office.
We, the people of the twenty-first century may not have been present when the original Constitutional Congress met; still, we feel the depth of distress our forefathers did. Today, we express as our ancestors had. It is time to submit our own Declaration of Independence. Perchance, this statement of duress is long overdue.
When in the course of human events the government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the Right of the People to alter it and demand restoration of those Constitutional Principles that have so long assured their Liberty, Safety, and Happiness. Therefore, on the anniversary of our Independence, we offer this new declaration for our times.
Challenging the bipartisan imperialist consensus On the outset of the invasion of Iraq, I sat strapped in a cargo plane that swooped through the night sky dodging anti-aircraft guns. As we sat in darkness, not knowing if we would ever reach the ground, we suddenly dropped quickly from the air and slammed hard against a makeshift runway. Our plane was the first to land in the north. Our mission was to get in quickly, take the required territory and be relieved by heavy armor.
In Florida, talk of fuel prices flourishes. Citizens communicate concerns in Letters to Editors. For the populace in this Southeastern State is the focus of numerous negotiations, consultations, and deliberations nationwide. The subject is offshore drilling. Might Americans abandon opposition to this environmentally perilous practice and let the petroleum flow. There is much push and pull. There always is when purses are pinched. With the cost of gas high, and the use of cars critical in a culture built on travel, much hot and cold air is bandied about.
This morning as I sat in what I would wish to think of as my safe little sanctuary from danger, I watched you mount the stairs and ascend into Air Force One. The television announcer spoke of your impending trip to the Midwest. As one with family in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, I was grateful for your travel. I am certain the people in these regions will be comforted by your presence. Most will feel they have reason to hope that you will offer help. I truly appreciate you "swift" response to their needs. I am gratified that you have decided to fly high above the flooded terrain, and perhaps spend a moment with an individual or two. Perchance, you will speak to my sister or my Dad.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may say impeachment is off the table; nonetheless, on June 9, 2008, Congressman Dennis Kucinich placed it on the floor. For five hours, the Ohio Representative stood before his colleagues and an expectant national audience. Kucinich spoke of what has remained unmentionable for far too long. The President of the United States of America has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
In a nation, where appeasement is condemned, Americans are anxious. The people have been pacified for so long they can no longer recall what it means to be other than indulged. On June 6, 2008, Congresspersons, uncomfortable with the notion that they might have to use the rod, concluded, for now, it is better to spoil the already pampered Americans. Lawmakers said, as they have so often, "Let them eat oil!" After all, the people love petroleum.
Days ago, United States Commander-In-Chief, George W. Bush reminded us of the need to remain vigilant. He admonished anyone who might think to talk with those who politically, philosophically, or perhaps physically have the potential to oppose "us." The President of the world's superpower 'wisely' proclaimed ""Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." America's leader addressed Israeli lawmakers and said, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." As a protective parent might alert an easily frighten child, the Mister Bush forewarns his citizens. "Do not speak to strangers."
I just have one question for the architects and proponents of this global war on terror, how will we know when it is over? Who will sign the treaty papers for the terrorists? Will it be Osama bin Laden? The truth is that there will be no surrender ceremony because we are not really fighting a war. We are not fighting a war in the conventional sense. It is sort of like the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs" there is no identifiable point of success or failure. Because our enemy is undefined and really impossible to defeat there are no "benchmarks" to gauge our successes or failures. We have been fighting the war on poverty since 1964 and poverty has not surrendered yet. We have been fighting the war on drugs since 1972 and drugs have yet to surrender. In fact in both case we have actually lost ground to both enemies. The problem with declaring war on these types of enemies is that you become entrenched in the mindset of the original declaration.
Americans are five years into a battle gone awry. Citizens of the United States cry out, "too much blood has been spilled, too many lives and limbs were lost," we the people want to, "Bring the troops home." Hence, Congress holds hearings. The inquiry is intended to help define the future. For many it is time to exit Iraq and end a futile war. The people have questions; when and how will we complete a failed mission. On April 8, 2008, the Senior Commander of multinational forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, American envoy to Baghdad, spoke to United states Senators and attempted to address the public's concerns.
It was a day late in March. The month roared in like a lion and in some regions, the last days of this turbulent time were gentle as a lamb. A twister tore through the town of Atlanta, Georgia in mid-March. However, the winds died down, and the later hours were calmer, at least in America.
In a "glowing" statement, perhaps meant to glorify the horrific deaths of the soldiers slain in Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney offered, "I think it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have." The man who, in his youth sought five deferments in order to avoid service during the Vietnam War, went on to state, "A lot of men and women sign up because sometimes they will see developments." Richard B. Cheney helps us to recall the terror Americans felt as they witnessed the Twin Towers fall on September 11, 2001. He explains, this event and the thought of a terrorist threat "stimulated a lot of folks to volunteer for the military because they wanted to be involved in defending the country." "The thing that comes through loud and clear is how much they are committed to the cause, to doing what needs to be done to defend the nation," Cheney proclaimed. Yet, citizens cognizant of the reasons for a possible rise in recruitment remember more than a moment that changed the course of life for many young men and women.
The Bush - Cheney Presidency has provided this country with many strange and strained moments. George W. Bush, as a candidate for President, promised he would unite the nation, and indeed, he has. The majority of Americans on the "right" and the "left" do not approve of George W. Bush or his Administration. Singer, songwriter Neil Young hums of the disdain and contempt the country feels for the President. His lyrics speak of impeachment, and no one is bothered. Many hate the current Commander-In-Chief.
A few days ago I wrote about my interaction with the American Legion. I wrote at first to complain about the organizational support of FISA revision to include telecom amnesty. The ongoing correspondence between myself and Mr. Steve Robertson of the AL continued into today. While the correspondence has been amicable, we reached a cavernous divide in our thinking. As of this moment much of my original and continuing concerns is not addressed. The entire discussion is too lengthy for a diary, but I will try not to slant my coverage. Representative parts are being chosen to the best of my ability.
My first comments to the AL were brief and spoke to the erosion of Constitutional rights if we allow retroactive amnesty for illegal acts in addition to the continued erosion of our right to privacy included in the bill. The initial reply was soon revealed to be a form letter sent to all of us veterans who sent a reply in accordance with McJoan's first posting.
The American Legion is asking its members to use their power in moving Congress to pass the Bush legislation giving full telecom immunity from prosecution for their cooperation in illegal wiretaps. McJoan had a front page post at Daily Kos telling the sad tale. In accordance with McJoan's suggestion we veterans contact the American Legion, I sent an e-mail letter outlining my objections to the bill and requesting a reconsideration of their position. A reply came to my mailbox moments ago. Excerpts from their letter along with my thoughts and observations follow over the fold.
Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate: Smart, talented and ready to fight. But she's not a likable candidate. And, as America looks to get its groove back after two torturous terms of George W. Bush, that lack of likeability appears to be a fatal flaw.
Our nation is hungry for healing. It's tired of partisan warfare. After more than a decade of red states and blue states, people are ready to try on some purple. Clinton is seen as part of the old way. Democrats respect her - and her husband. But, unfairly or not, the previous Clinton administration is seen as the beginning of this divisive period.
The next president is going to have to build bridges. I don't think Clinton can do that; she's red meat for Republicans. And she's not helping herself in the way she's gone about "Setting the Tone" this past week.
Today, in hearings on Capitol Hill, I confronted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her role in the lies, exaggerations, and misdirection that led us into the Iraq war.
During my questioning, Secretary Rice falsely stated that she never saw intelligence casting doubt on the Bush Administration claims that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This unbelievable statement is flatly contradicted by numerous government reports and CIA testimonials.
Sources such as the 2006 Senate Intelligence Report, a January 2004 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report as well as former CIA agents (including Tyler Drumheller) have disclosed that there was contrary intelligence to the information provided to the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq war.
In 2007, the State of the Union was not as we were told it was; nor is it as we were told it would be. Each year, and for eight long years, George W. Bush promised to unite us, and perhaps he has more so than most other Presidents. Collectively, Republicans and Democrats alike understand that as a nation we are not strong.
Subscribe to Site [RSS]
