Letters to the Editor
-
Terminal corruption.
Governments are usually corrupt because that is the nature of politics, although normally the corruption is hidden and, however serious, does not deeply threaten society. All presidencies, good and bad, have had their corruption scandals. However deplored, a certain amount of corruption can be seen as normal but not necessarily dangerous to the country.
Not so with the Bush administration.
The neoconservative Bush administration takes corruption to a whole new level. Unlike their predecessors, Bushites aren't just on the take or making the usual slimy deals. They've come out of the closet with corruption and have made overt greedy corporatist criminality the purpose of the presidency.
Such a grossly criminal administration could not have persisted in power without the corruption and coercion of the 'opposition' party as well. Any real opposition is systematically marginalized, and repressed and brutalized if necessary. Impeachment and removal from office is the very least that justice should expect, because Bushites are high-order war criminals as well and guilty of what was the Supreme Crime at Nuremberg.
If what they have done doesn't merit impeachment and prosecution, nothing does, and they can lie, cheat, steal, rape, maim, and kill with near impunity. So they do. Don't think of it as a 'presidency'. Think of it as the ultimate organized crime syndicate, industrialized and institutionalized.
It gets worse the more you look at it. We can have no idea how many victims they have in a secret number of secret prison camps or how much they have stolen or what their plans are to make good on their crimes. All the corruption we can actually see can only be what the corrupt can't prevent from overflowing past the walls of their secrecy.
-
@ Garry Owen
I was around then too, and not on the sidelines. I think you're way out of line. Glenn isn't the guy who should be the focus of your discontent. He can be forgiven for not knowing exactly what happened in Chicago; much more so than you for bashing someone who's invested quite a bit of effort and intelligence in preparing the ground for those of us who don't want to see a repeat of the sad events of 1965-1975.
You forget that before there was a Chicago, or a Kent State, or a Berkeley, or an Ann Arbor, there were things called teach-ins, and people like Staughton Lynd and the Berrigans.
You're angry about what's happening. Well, you're not alone, but sneering at people who are making genuine contributions to changing public opinion makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. Go do whatever you're going to do, but leave pissing on your natural allies out of it. Everyone has a part to play in this, and all are important.
-
@Boomerang242
and even the jurors didn't feel comfortable convicting him on one person's (Russert's) say so
12 to 0 for conviction, Boomerang.
me:"Then he was sentenced for those crimes by a judge who was following the sentencing guidelines in respect to those crimes."
Indeed he was. For the crime of being contradicted by Russert,
No, he was convicted by a jury of his peers.
Me:"Is there any reason why you would voice a defense of the criminal, Scooter Libby, beyond you just being stupid and blind to the reality of the situation?"
I decided to answer your question even with the pejoratives you added, because I understand the addled state of mind BDS inflicts upon it's victim.
-- shooter242
If despising a president who has absolutely no respect for the rule of law is defined by you as BDS then I'd say your definition of 'deranged' is, as always, Boomerang242 territory.
-
@Gary Owen
Now since you bothered to do that much research about me, why don't you READ my red star letters and get to know me. That way, you won't have to come back at me with your limp reply.
Quite the charmer. Aren't you, Gary? Not sure we need you "on our side". Thanks anyway.
-
@Owen
I'm into my sixth decade. It's not my world any more. Change comes from young people.
What Utter Bullshit, you crusty arthritic geezer.
But keep posting--I enjoy your letters.
-
More ends justifies the means from Mark Levin.
I followed Glenn's pointer to the National Review and, just below it, there was another posting by Mark Levin promoting WH stonewalling of Congressional subpoenas:
"Here's what the White House should do — "a slow bleed." That's right, the same strategy employed by the Democrats in the Iraq war should be used against these committees from a legal perspective. In short, the White House should litigate this to the bitter end. It should throw every legal obstacle it can muster in front of these partisan committees. It should appeal all setbacks and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. And hopefully, but the time the matter is resolved, it won't matter. The administration will be over."
Mark Levin seems to be ignoring the precedents set for future presidents in favor of whatever it takes to get through *this* administration.
-
Funny!
In case some of you don't visit Firedoglake, you have to see this. I makes me laugh to tears.
http://www.firedoglake.com/
-
William Timberman @ 8:15
Well said.
-
Hear, Hear!
Gordon Brown, Great Britain's new Prime Minister, made a statement to Parliament calling for constitutional changes "to hold power more accountable and to uphold and enhance the rights and responsibilities of the citizen."
http://pm.gov.uk/output/Page12274.asp
10 Downing Street
Constitutional Reform statement3 July 2007
Mr Speaker, all Members of this House and all the people of this country have a shared interest in building trust in our democracy. And it is my hope that, by working together for change in a spirit that takes us beyond parties and beyond partisanship, we can agree a new British constitutional settlement that entrusts more power to Parliament and the British people.
Change with a new settlement is, in my view, essential to our country's future. For we will only meet the new challenges of security, of economic change, of communities under pressure - and forge a stronger shared national purpose - by building a new relationship between citizens and government that ensures that Government is a better servant of the people.
Let me pay tribute to the contribution to our thinking - and the wider constitutional debate - already made by Parliamentarians on all sides of the House. And because I want this process to be one in which we consult and involve not only all political parties but also all the people of this country, what I propose today is not and should not be seen as the final blueprint for a constitutional settlement but a route map towards it.
This route map seeks to address two fundamental questions: to hold power more accountable and to uphold and enhance the rights and responsibilities of the citizen.
And while constitutional change will not be the work of just one bill or one year or one Parliament, I can today make an immediate start by proposing changes that will transfer power from the Prime Minister and the executive. For centuries they have exercised authority in the name of the monarchy without the people and their elected representatives being consulted. So now I propose that in twelve areas important to our national life, the Prime Minister and executive should surrender or limit their powers - the exclusive exercise of which by the Government should have no place in a modern democracy.
These are:
- the power of the executive to declare war;
- the power to request the dissolution of Parliament;
- the power over recall of Parliament;
- the power of the executive to ratify international treaties without decision by Parliament;
- the power to make key public appointments without effective scrutiny;
- the power to restrict Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services;
- power to choose bishops;
- power in the appointment of judges;
- power to direct prosecutors in individual criminal cases;
- power over the civil service itself;
- and the executive powers to determine the rules governing entitlement to passports and the granting of pardons.
I now propose to surrender or limit these powers to make for a more open twenty first century British democracy.
- - Gordon Brown, July 3, 2007
Holy Tom Paine! Common sense is busting out all over.
If a rough colonial may may make a suggestion, I'd suggest, as a modest first step, to get the British Government out of the bishop business, and get the 26 bishops out of the House of Lords.
Happy Independence Day!