Tag George W. Bush

Five Notes About Bin Laden’s Death

1. Dear American news media: it is totally unnecessary to keep reporting the same single factoid every ten minutes for 36 hours straight. We got it. William and Kate did get married….er, Obama did release his birth certificate…um, they finally killed Osama Bin Laden…Donald Trump is a monster asshole (oh, wait, that’s tomorrow’s obsession).

2. Dear American college students: you were only 10 years old when 9/11 happened. I realize there usually aren’t any good parties on a Sunday night, but please stop with the debauchery as if your school just won the NCAA tournament. According to Yahoo, most of you don’t even really know who Osama is (well, was).

3. Dear every other American who has behaved like the aforementioned college students over this news: remember how pissed off you were about the Palestinians cheering in the streets on 9/11? That’s you. Shut the fuck up, take a minute to soberly remember the dead — not just the 3,000 Americans but the tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been sacrificed for our moment of revenge — and hope that Bin Laden’s death really DOES mean something more than an excuse for you to behave like gorillas in heat.

4. Dear Asif Ali Zardari: you are the biggest lying piece of shit in the world. You make George W. Bush look good in comparison if you really expect a single person anywhere to believe the assertion that the Pakistani government did not know that Bin Laden was living next door to a military base FOR SIX YEARS. The American government has far too long put up with the charade that Pakistan isn’t the actual driving force behind the Taliban and Al Quaeda, and maybe with Bin Laden out of the way there will be little reason to pretend much longer.

5. Dear Barack Obama: at what point do you stop being a pale imitation of George W. Bush? Is this that moment? Now that you’ve actually trumped Bush (see what I did there?) at the one thing he couldn’t claim as “Mission Accomplished”, is it even remotely possible to step away from a decade of war, the crumbling edifice of civil liberties, the encroachment of a police state, the fear-mongering, the jingoism? Please? PLEASE!?!?! I know that this country will never again be the same, but you gave up so quickly and so thoroughly and almost gratefully accepted the mantle of despot that Bush left behind. You seem like such a smart man that I have a hard time understanding what political calculus you’ve gone through that made it seem okay to you to carry on the same way things had been going for the eight years prior. It’s not okay. You can have as much credit as you want for being the guy who gave the order to pull the trigger on that sonofabitch, but you also get to own all the blame for the trillion dollars wasted to accomplish that, the lives lost or ruined, and the legacy of a greatly diminished nation. If you really think it was worth all that, maybe you’re not as smart as you look. I shudder to think that maybe Donald Trump is right about you.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Funny, I Thought We Got Rid Of George Bush

Is it me, or has Obama completely given up any pretense whatsoever of being anything but a total do-over of George W. Bush? Despite the Charlie Sheen-like ranting of the right-wingers, the guy is a total neo-con meat puppet, and the military intervention in Libya is merely the latest nail in the coffin of his “hope-y, change-y” charade.

Dissent Magazine co-editor Michael Walzer’s critique has earned a lot of attention, though it just sort of hits the highlights: no clear purpose, no defined “endgame”, lots of dissenting response from other Arab countries as well as Russia and Germany. This post at The Awl from American Conservative editor Michael Brendan Dougherty brings a few more points to the table, not the least of which is that the domestic political opposition comes from both sides of the spectrum. My hero Dennis Kucinich is actually thumping the table for impeachment. The only people really happy with this are, you guessed it, the neocons.

Keith Olbermann, who has been off the radar for a couple of months since getting the boot from MSNBC, even took this opportunity to return from his exile with his new blog, cheekily named FOK News Channel (FOK supposedly short for “Friends Of Keith”), to lambaste George W. Obama:

Chris Weigant has a piece at the Huffington Post that looks at the three basic outcome scenarios and what each one might have in store both in terms of domestic political fallout and on-the-ground changes in Libya. And Michael Moore turns his soapbox over to guest-poster Medea Benjamin, who would like to point out that part of the problem with Libya in the first place is that up until a couple of weeks ago the U.S. and its allies were lavishing Gaddafi with all sorts of weapons — a policy maneuver from the Bush Administration that the Obama Administration was all too happy to continue.

The irony of all of this starting on the 8th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War is, quite frankly, almost too much to stand.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

War, Peace, And Whatever The Fuck This Is

Of all the meaningless gestures from the Obama Administration regarding our illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, none is more meaningless than the declaration that “the last combat troops have left Iraq”.

Fifty thousand troops remain in Iraq and the number of mercenaries used in lieu of U.S. military personnel will nearly triple from 2,700 to 7,000. An American military presence in Iraq is unlikely to disappear for decades to come. Just ask the Germans, who still have 68,000 American soldiers in their country even though their war ended 65 years ago. Or the Japanese, who have 47,000 U.S. troops. Or the Koreans, with 37,000. “They need us to maintain order”, “they need us to defend them”, “the strategic value of forward placement is critical to our national security”, “we have to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here”, and so on. The lies evolve as the situation changes, but there is always some rationalization for permanent occupation.

John McCain had the temerity to say this on Twitter: “I think President George W. Bush deserves some credit for victory.”

Somebody should kick John McCain in the teeth. While it’s not the first time the United States trumped up some bullshit reason to invade another country, the outright lies from Bush and his allies used to gin up a case for a completely unnecessary war are nothing short of war crimes themselves. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Tony Blair, every last one of them should be hauled in front of the same sort of kangaroo court that Saddam Hussein was tried in, summarily found guilty, and hanged for their crimes against humanity. Crowing triumph after seven years of unadulterated misuse of power should be seen as the craven act of a coward and a bully, and the bootlicker McCain deserves to have some sense smacked into him.

During the 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama received a great deal of criticism for using the phrase “putting lipstick on a pig”, but the news spin on this troop reduction is exactly that. Meanwhile, Obama himself deserves a pretty good smack for continuing and expanding the war in Afghanistan, now nearly ten years old and with even less legitimacy than the invasion of Iraq.

There will, of course, never be any proper accounting for all of this. The trillions of dollars squandered, the lives lost or ruined, the incalculable damage done to not just the people of Iraq and Afghanistan but also the people of this country. But neither should there ever be a banner raised in triumph, a head held high in honor, or a page written in history that portrays these last seven years and however many more to come as anything less than a disgrace and a shame.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

We’re All Socialists Now

The Republican Party has spent the last 20 years transforming the word “liberal” into a slur and has been so successful that liberals themselves have struggled to find a replacement for that term. It seems that “progressive” has won out as the most commonly used substitute, although whenever I hear anybody use that term to describe their politics, I presume they are too spineless to own up to the real definition of liberal in the first place. John F. Kennedy’s timeless quote is the touchstone that I personally always look to when I want or need to define liberal to anyone:

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’”

It is possible to reclaim the word, of course. African-Americans have reclaimed a word that never had a positive connotation in the first place, “nigger”, and turned it into a subversive idea that throws the hatred of its original use back in the face of those who would use it and at the same time reframes it as an expression of solidarity. The transformation of the word “gay” is so complete that it has lost any of the negative connotations it was meant to convey and has simply become the standard term, but the gay community has similarly reclaimed the word “queer”.

Since the results of the 2008 election demonstrate a clear trend back toward liberalism, the Republicans have had to turn up the heat a little bit. The early actions of the Obama Administration to deal with the banking debacle found Republicans and other right-wingers trotting out the term “Socialist” to apply to the TARP bailout, and that worked so well in their echo chamber of madness, they’ve decided to run with it. The Republican Party has decided, against the objections of its own chairman Michael Steele, to refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democratic Socialist Party” in all of its official communication and in talking points for the media. According to that report, they are going so far as to convene a special meeting of the RNC next week to enact this resolution, making it official policy of the Republican Party, and also delivering a great big “Fuck you, nigger!” to Michael Steele in the process.

Calling Barack Obama, a thoroughly middle-of-the-road politician who shows no inclination toward anything resembling liberal politics, a “Socialist” was ridiculous in the first place. Applying that term to the entire Democratic Party, which, like the Republican Party, has so many corporate lobbyists up its ass that all they can see is the first guy’s shoes, transcends ridiculousness. But that’s the state of affairs in the GOP these days: “let’s take the most outrageously stupid thing we can do and do it harder.”

I’m sure you’ve probably read by now, though, that 20% of the American public now thinks socialism is probably a better idea than capitalism, and that among voters under 30 that shoots up to 33%. And, at the same time, the percentage of people willing to identify themselves as Republicans to a national pollster is down to around 20%. So maybe the Republicans could take a clue from those polls and jump on the Socialist bandwagon. If they did, they could double their numbers overnight!

Of course, they’d need to rebrand themselves a little bit. “Republican Socialist” just doesn’t have a ring to it, but Republicans like to paint themselves as the “defenders of the nation”, so maybe they could go with “National Socialists”. Hey! I think that works! Check it out:

Democratic Socialist National Socialist

Real Democratic Socialism as embodied by the Socialist Party USA is quite a different beast entirely from the “free handouts to the rich and powerful” socialism that the Republicans are complaining about. You’d also have a very hard time pegging social democracy to the excesses of the Soviet state and its satellites. In practice, social democracy long ago became the norm in Western Europe and learned to play nice with the status quo, while establishing broad-based social welfare systems that have made people throughout the EU better educated, given then better medical care, and improved their standards of living to rival or exceed those of Americans. So maybe it’s a pretty good deal to be a Democratic Socialist. And if you can’t deal with being called a “Socialist”, I guess “liberal” is probably up for grabs again now that the Republicans have moved on from it.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Times Four

Staggering.

Thanks, Jack

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Been Down So Long I Thought It Was Up

I didn’t watch this part on TV yesterday, but I am going to relish this image for a long, long, long, LONG time.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Free At Last, Free At Last

Congratulations, Mr. President.

One way or another, we all knew, George W. Bush would be on his way to the dregs of American history this day, and so you are in that sense merely lucky to be the man who got to show him the door. One way or another, we all knew, the balance of power would shift away from the party of Hoover, Nixon, Reagan and Bush and return to the party of Truman, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, and so you are in that sense merely lucky to have chosen sides wisely. One way or another, we all knew, change would be vowed by the person who would stand this morning before the world and receive the mantle that empowers that promise, and so you are in that sense merely lucky that no one who ever makes those vows is held to account for them.

And yet there you are. If so much luck was borrowed, it must be acknowledged that you made much luck yourself. A year ago it seemed beyond belief that it would be you on that platform. A generation ago it seemed beyond belief that a person of your color would ever be on that platform. You have demonstrated your own ability and promise so much that you were able to completely reverse those seemingly immutable convictions. In a nation which continues to define itself through polar oppositions, that speaks volumes to your personal strength and courage.

As you transform now from blank slate upon which a desperate nation projects its hope into a visionary who must project a course of action to a nation cast into despair, luck will not likely be your ally. Here, Mr. President, you will need to rely on your own ability and trust that your ability is as sufficient to achieve something positive for all of us as it was to achieve this shining moment for you.

So many people have thrown in their lot with you because you have given them hope. Others, like myself, because the alternatives were too terrible to contemplate. Nevertheless, you have us all in your charge, even those who will continue to actively work against you (and they are nearly as many as we are). The cheering will subside, the tides of public opinion shift, and not everything you do will work out for the best. But we will all still be here and will need you until your turn to relinquish this role comes, as inevitably as Mr. Bush’s turn today. Your potential to do well is enormous and deserves as much support as possible. I look forward to your successes, and offer you the sincere wish that your mistakes and failures are few and insignificant.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Somewhere Aaron Burr Is Saying “I Told You So”

Whether you are among the majority of Americans, who consider George W. Bush to be the worst President in American history, or among that dwindling number of deluded Republicans and professional conservative lickspittles who believe that history will vindicate him someday in the far, far, far off future, it is difficult to argue against the point that the Bush Administration put the limits of presidential authority to an acid test and was generally able to extend executive purview to an extent rarely seen outside of times of full-scale war. Now, one of the most significant points on which Barack Obama will find himself judged by the American public, by presidential scholars, and even by the rest of the world is the degree to which he is able and/or willing to retract that power back to within more traditionally accepted boundaries.

Lots of blogs and journos are linking to this piece on The Atlantic’s website by University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps that considers the deliberate vagueness of the definition of the Executive Branch in the Constitution and the shaping of the office in part by the Framers’ perceptions of George Washington, but to an even larger part by the writings of Alexander Hamilton.

While the other Constitutional Conventioneers were more focused on hashing out the nature of Congress, which they saw as the REAL source of power in the new government, Epps says the Framers were a little bit afraid of Washington’s power base due to his national popularity, and so they deliberately avoided specifying powers that the first President could use against Congress. Hamilton, meanwhile, expounded on a vision of what he called the “unitary executive”, and though his ideas did not find their way into the Constitution, they became a blueprint for engineering the use of political power during Washington’s tenure (Hamilton was his Secretary of the Treasury and a key adviser), which in turn set precedents for power grabs used by Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, and so on and so on, right up to You Know Who.

Epps contends that the Executive Branch needs to be recast, beginning with overhauling the national electoral system to eliminate the Electoral College, and including forcing the President to form a “national unity” government if his party drops below some threshold of majority in Congress. Most notably, he says that the Executive Branch should be forced to split power between the Presidnt and a nationally-elected Attorney General, who would be elected in alternating cycles, because the current Executive Branch is too large and all-encompassing to be managed by a single manager.

Personally, I think a lot of people are going to be very disappointed when it turns out that Barack Obama won’t be willing to give up all the extra powers George Bush and Dick Cheney were able to snag, and that by the time 2012 rolls around there will be a lot more public stomach for the sort of reforms Epps is talking about, so it’s a good time to come up to speed on all this.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Fuck Yeah, Bernie!

This is the new portrait of Dubya that was recently unveiled at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. It’s the first time the National Portrait Gallery has ever exhibited portraits of the sitting President and First Lady (and I mean “sitting” as in “incumbent”, not “sitting” as in “seated”, even though they are both seated in the pictures).

Our Hero, Senator Bernie Saunders of Vermont, has wasted no time in firing off an angry letter to the National Picture Gallery to complain. Not about displaying the portraits, but about what he feels are inaccurate and deceptive statements in the description plaques next to the portraits. The description of the portrait of Dubya includes a statement to the effect that the September 11, 2001 attacks “led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq”. Bernie has pointed out to the NPG that:

When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one “led to” the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked … Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order.

Here’s a link to a PDF of the entire letter, courtest of Bernie’s own website.

It’s a minor point compared with some of the other efforts to buff up Dubya’s image, but history is in the details, and it’s the little mistakes that make the big lies believable. Given ‘em hell, Bernie!

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Goopers

For a moment there yesterday, I was wondering if maybe the news about Dick Cheney was some sort of Republican ruse to give John McCain a way out of last night’s debate.

But then the debate went right ahead and McCain managed to do a cracking good impression of Bill the Cat.

As if Dick Cheney even HAS a heart….

After the election, I understand that George Bush and John McCain are putting together an act and taking it on the road.

They’re going to do the live version of “Dumb and Dumber”.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site