Impeach him now.
Back to Main
November 4, 2005
WB: The Cheney Administration
Comments
Here is the NPR recording. Froomkin has a part of the transcript.
My fealing is that Wilkerson (and Powell for whom he is talking) is protecting Bush by going for the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal. Bush might be on top of it all and might have played dumb to non-WHIG outsiders like Wilkerson. Wilkerson was not really in a position to know this.
I think that what’s going in is a slow-motion coup by establishment Republicans: the elder Bush, Scowcroft, Powell. Wilkerson is acting as their point man. The Cheney Regency failed when Cheney quit following the game plan. The establishment must set up a new Regency to keep Junior under control and to try to undo some of the damage.
Posted by: Iowan | Nov 4 2005 20:08 utc | 3
in dilip hiro’s january 2004 book, secrets and lies, he wrote that when bush was putting his admin together, the only two members he personally picked were powell and rice, and then he let cheney pick the rest. there may be other info which refutes whether selection actually happened this way (though hiro always seems very credible), but at the time i found it interesting. even more so now, since it’s looking like powell is helping poppy protect junior. so, was there some kind of a priori arrangement made where the crazies could sit in the drivers seat, so long as the bush mafia had enough leverage to take them out when they started getting too reckless,, yet still retain control? has shrub been manipulated by all sides?
Posted by: b real | Nov 4 2005 20:28 utc | 4
I think that what’s going in is a slow-motion coup by establishment Republicans
This is what I’m hearing from people in Washington who know a lot more (and a lot more Republicans) than I do. The puppetmasters who created George Bush had one overriding aim — transfer as much wealth to the really rich as possible. They didn’t care about Saddam, but when the opportunity opened up to grab Iraq’s oil, help Israel, and channel billions of dollars to themselves, they were more than happy to. Bush’s owners aren’t neocons or right-wing fundamentalists themselves, although they’re sympathetic to both groups, and are more than willing to use them to achieve their goals, which were to move as much money and political power into their hands as possible.
Dick Cheney was their viceroy. I no longer think that George Bush is either unintelligent or uninvolved, but I do believe his creators doubted his ability to actually run the country. And Dick Cheney was about as reliable as they came.
Cheney has failed them. They were willing to go along with Iraq because they were told it would be easy. Now they’re watching the whole thing spiral out of control, at enormous cost, and with enormous risk to their other extensive interests in the Mideast. Cheney seems to be more interested in establishing a police state than in preserving capital. The United States has managed to systematically piss off pretty much everyone else in the world, and Bush’s owners realize how important it is to their economic self-interest that the United States be tolerated and even liked.
The other thing they didn’t count on was Bush being as utterly incompetent as he has been. He hasn’t captured Osama, Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, the war in Iraq is no longer spinnnable, and now, after Katrina, the sheer worthlessness of the Bush Administration has been exposed. It’s not that these people could care less about the poor of New Orleans, but they need to preserve the fiction that Republicans can actually run the government. Katrina exposed that as a lie.
So Iowan is partly right. I think the Main Street Republicans are trying to “save” Bush, because they can’t throw him overboard. Plus, if they can get rid of Cheney, they can put in a new caretaker to make sure that Georgie doesn’t do anything too stupid. Too, I think they may truly be frightened at how out of control the situation has spun. It wasn’t supposed to be like this.
Posted by: Aigin | Nov 4 2005 20:30 utc | 5
“Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, told National Public Radio he had traced a trail of memos and directives authorizing questionable detention practices up through Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s office directly to Cheney’s staff.”
What meaning, if any, does “questionable” have under the US Code? You’d better make damn sure before you march yourself down the road of bitter disappoinment again.
Posted by: Pat | Nov 4 2005 20:42 utc | 6
This doesn’t surprise me in the least. However, what neither Bilmon nor the IHT addresses is WHERE’S THE PROOF? Without it, this will be yet another Story of the Shrub presidency’s essential corruption that dissapears due to lack of authentication. In other words it’s all hearsay until the documentation arrives.
Posted by: Berk | Nov 4 2005 20:56 utc | 7
Happily the American People are far in advance of Billmon. 53% Support Impeachment of Both if georgie lied about the war. Leaving georgie is No Solution.
Everyone is forgetting that Scowcroft said in a speech around start of Wreck Iraq II that he would move for impeachment, if they moved on Syria or Iran. Larry Eagleberger said the same. The deal now seems to be that daddy bush will support impeachment, if it’s limited to cheney. (cheney will doubtless step down for medical reasons.)
We need to focus on impeaching georgie for his refusal to carry out his oath of office:
1) He has refused to protect the united states by doing nothing when told country would be attacked.
2) He has led an assault on the constitution.
3) He has led the way in defending torture.
4) He has led the assault on the financial integrity of the nation, so he could implement grandpa prescott’s wetdream of destroying social security.
5) He has destroyed the government so that New Orleans was destroyed.
There’s an excellent new organization Impeach Pac
Posted by: jj | Nov 4 2005 20:58 utc | 8
@Pat+@Berk – you are right. It is all hearsay and I called it vague and that´s why I didn´t write about it.
As much as I would like Wilkersons stuff to be true, he didn´t come up with one bit yet that could confirm his words. I really think he misreads the configuration.
Anyhow, there is enough, more than enough, to call for Cheney’s impeachment, but I do not expect that to happen in my lifetime.
You’re missing the point w/concerns about the evidence. Firstly, by having powerful men speak out, it gives the foot soldiers in corporate press permission to not tow the line. Secondly, they’re trying to get the drumbeat going. They don’t want to let the story drop. So, if looks like it might, they’ll just give an attack speech to tide them over. Thirdly, this is about mass manipulation. just as in the past everyday was more pro-georgie propaganda, now they’re flooding the system w/anti-cheney crap. cheney isn’t going to be impeached. The Elite is simply telling him that he doesn’t have their support , any longer. He cannot govern w/out it. This is just to push him into stepping down for “medical reasons”.
And don’t forget that there was Zero Evidence Of Any Sort that wittle georgie was capable of governing. And all the evidence showed that the JackAss Party has won the ’00 & ’04 Pres. elections. (Kerry just admitted to Mark Crispin Miller that election was rigged. Listen to today’s Democracy Now.) So, careful that you do not over state the role of evidence in shaping public opinion & thereby creating the legitimacy necessary for the Elite to Impose the Rulers of THEIR choice.
Also, they have to move very quickly to head off the assault on Syria – that’s the Prime Issue driving all decision making. This isn’t an academic exercise, after all.
Posted by: jj | Nov 4 2005 21:23 utc | 11
The “worse than Watergate” appellation increasingly tagged to the misdeeds, both foreign and domestic, of the Bush/Cheney Administration will, in time, be proved to be a tepid under-exaggeration of just how grave is our current “crisis of goverance.” A mighty, mighty tussel is afoot, my friends, between the de facto perpetrators of a radical coup — the Cheney “cabal,” indeed — and all the forces, from establishment Republicans down through the political spectrum to progressive barflys like me and you, who must now stand up to thwart these usurpers and rescue our nation.
Posted by: manonfyre | Nov 4 2005 21:37 utc | 12
What’s really bloody depressing about this – and an impt. thing to watch – is how all the stuff about “democracy” is just a fig leaf. In Reality, a handful of Men Rule America. When they’ve had enough, their representatives in the WH will be tossed aside. Actually, it’s really scary. And nothing even to celebrate, esp. when people say stupid things like that only cheney should be tossed.
Posted by: jj | Nov 4 2005 21:45 utc | 13
Here we go again!
If Cheney or BushCo need to be undone (which IMHO they do) let’s not be using repug misinformation to do it.
Not only can we never be sure of the evidence’s authenticity, or that someone like Wilkerson is telling the truth and that he will ever provide sufficient evidence of that when its required, using repug claptrap leaves the repug resistance wide open to repug manipulation.
Let the assholes run with it and carve each other up. Don’t buy into it though because our objectives will never be the same as Poppy’s (who one imagines is so outta touch and full of hubris that he believes Jeb is a potential POTUS in ’08)
If there was a way of getting rid (impeaching) Bush and/or Cheney without having to depend on repugs or demopublicans of course people should go for it. But I don’t think there is. I think impeachment can only be done by the combovers so it would be smart to stay away from a lose/lose situation such as that. Whatever the result ie success or not one faction of the combovers is going to be strengthened which is not in the long term interests of normal humans.
Why not try and replace the combovers first?
Either ensure that some normal people get the demopublican candidacy or find some normal people and assist them to replace the combovers via an independant political alliance.
Yep hard but certainly not impossible and no it won’t work perfectly either. As I have said before wanting to be an elected official is a personality disorder so some of the combover replacements may well become combovers.
But it can work and if the task is properly planned, the strategy allows for small achievable goals all along the route and the partcipants stay focussed it is definitely possible.
Just because the hacks need to campaign for the whole four years between polls; doesn’t mean that a credible candidate with a well thought out strategy would need anything like that amount of time.
Onwards and upwards
Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 4 2005 21:56 utc | 14
National Security Council staff stopped sending e-mails when they found out Cheney’s staff members were reading their messages.
Mr. Fitzgerald, please come to the white courtesy telephone. Mr. Fitzgerald, you are needed in the espionage section.
Wow, this from the office of a man whose only constitutional duty is to inquire about the health of the president.
Posted by: Alopex Lagopus | Nov 4 2005 22:03 utc | 15
rule by the rich.. twas ever thus-call them whigs or republicans or dems–
hamilton, jefferson, cheney, bush
kleptocrats,slavers,
givers of blankets for indians filled with disease–
these rich bastards lived with ease
now it’s time for them to go with a thermidorian rush
Posted by: Dr Wu -I’m just an ordinary guy | Nov 4 2005 22:11 utc | 16
I think these guys will be dropping morsels of documents to the press until Cheney is smoked out. I think Wilkerson’s first going public was a shot across the bow. This one is a shot into the rigging. The CIA prison story is meant to rattle a few spars too.
Posted by: Alopex Lagopus | Nov 4 2005 22:18 utc | 17
If Cheney has done anything outrageous, it is the public face he put on torture. Better leave that sort of business to the pros.
None of this is really funny, of course, but impulse of shame and shock is curious given the de rigueur use of torture by CIA for 50 years in the quiet maintenance of our “interests.”
Gotta admire Dick. No more bullshit. Gloves off.
Why impeach? Isn’t the clarity refreshing?
Posted by: slothrop | Nov 4 2005 22:20 utc | 18
I own Reuters and I have decided to move against Cheney.
Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody, according to participants in a closed-door session.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_torture
Posted by: Rupert Murdoch | Nov 4 2005 22:34 utc | 19
Impeachment is not the issue. It could be a result.
It’s a good idea to let this thing take time, just as the Fitzgerald situation is staying in suspense. The best thing of all was the single endictment, which leaves the others under increasing pressure and public scrutiny.
The important thing is to keep these nefarious deeds constantly in the public eye. Eventually it will pnetrate into the automatic response part of the brain. When they see Cheney and others, they will think “untrustworthy”, and hopefully, “threatening”.
Even though the elites govern, societies can function, as this one is failing to do sufficiently. We have to have better organization and administration… one thing the public will see as the internal disintegration continues.
Bush should be exposed, and it should be completely understood by the society that it has to be more cautious and aware. So the gradual removal of the players would probably be best, only after the full impact of their characters has been absorbed.
From what I’m getting from the people, the cutting of pensions and benefits is the straw that is hurting them enough to pay attention.
This is an orchestrated game by the puppeteers, but still a lot can be gained with some revelation of truth.
Posted by: jm | Nov 4 2005 22:57 utc | 20
it’s paradoxical that despite this government’s strides into greater secrecy & control over information, their crimes become that much more transparent. whether this can be attributed to the hubris & incompetency of our culture-at-large or the current criminals in charge is a whole other melting ball of wax.
Posted by: b real | Nov 4 2005 22:59 utc | 21
One could make the case that they are sawing off the limb that Cheney is perched on. All these fantasy scenarios about Cheney resigning and Bush appointing Jebbie or McCain VP don’t see as fanciful right now.
Whether the move afoot is to protect Bush or clean up Powell’s image or both, the knives seem to be out for Dick.
The next guy who ought to be worried is probably Rumsfeld.
Posted by: Phil from New York | Nov 4 2005 22:59 utc | 22
I would like to see conspiracy charges brought against them. So removal might make this less possible. Increasing public opposition will help.
For so many years we have been discussing conspiracies, and last year in the blogosphere, it increased exponentially, the Left, of course being accused of the fabrication.
Conspiracies have always been the norm, and I think the time has come to expose one….the uranium, fixed intelligence scam.
It’s begging with noise and flashing lights to be studied.
Posted by: jm | Nov 4 2005 23:10 utc | 23
If Cheney can get the US Senate to ease torture restrictions, that immediately and unequivocably dilutes and probably null-and-voids liability for same-same that has occured apriori, here or G’MO.
Gonzales no doubt researched the legal precedents.
Fitz can’t charge Cheney, if Senate says it’s OK.
Imagine, new legislation to avoid felony treason!
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp63dWinterSpring2000p245.htm
Posted by: clever bastard | Nov 4 2005 23:10 utc | 24
So Iowan is partly right. I think the Main Street Republicans are trying to “save” Bush, because they can’t throw him overboard. Plus, if they can get rid of Cheney, they can put in a new caretaker to make sure that Georgie doesn’t do anything too stupid. Too, I think they may truly be frightened at how out of control the situation has spun. It wasn’t supposed to be like this.
sorry, but Shrub cannot be salvaged, and I think they know it. Iran-Contra was a surprise to everyone — so when Reagan said he didn’t know, people bought it.
But no one is gonna buy the “i didn’t know” crap from Shrub….its been in all the papers. Shrub has to go, because he’s never gonna be credible again.
They just need to get rid of Cheney first, so they can replace Shrub with their chosen sucessor when the time comes.
Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 4 2005 23:19 utc | 25
Did Powell think we needed more troops going in? Did Powell aware of the prisoner abuse regeim was being put into placeas it happend?
Why did Bush have to rely on memos to learn these things and other. Powell was AOWL during this whole thing, per usual. He let them happen. He above anyone could have put a stop to this whole thing for he had the political capital to CRUSH Cheney and Rummy and their band of merry necromancers.
Posted by: rapier | Nov 4 2005 23:33 utc | 26
Hiya Rupert,
long time no see-saw! I’ve noticed for some time that you have been using the Reuters tentacle to ‘sledge’ the repugs and I can’t help but wonder if this is just you’re usual protection racket (threaten em enough to scare em but not enough that they can’t afford to pay ya) or we a seeing a long term relignment of NewsCorp Plc Ltd SA with the peoples republic of China.
All the best and watch yer back around those Israelis,
Kerry
Posted by: Kerry the Goanna | Nov 5 2005 0:08 utc | 27
If/since it is in the stars, the impeachment of George Bush, [assuming a Dem comeback in 06], would only result in a President Cheney running as an incumbent against Jeb. [“Wouldn’t be prudent…”] So Cheney has to go first, probably for “health” reasons. They could put Jeb in the VP slot but it’s risky. Better yet, replace him with Condi, who would agree not run in 08. Jeb could campaign as an [untainted] outsider pretending to be a moderate like Poppy…
Posted by: gylangirl | Nov 5 2005 0:12 utc | 28
Agreed re: all the caveats wrt to Mr. Wilkerson’s credibility. In fact, the thing I find most hilarious is the one-step-farther-up-the chain bit of firewalling that wasn’t bolded by Billmon:
“he believed that Cheney’s staff prevented Bush from seeing a National Security Council memo arguing strongly that the United States needed many more troops for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.”
Why do I find this so amusing?
Because, regardless its veracity (or not), this statement could foreshadow a future bizarro world scenario in which, down the line, somebody will make the case that those crappy Italian forgeries were actually designed to fool only one single, solitary pair of close-set eyes.
Thus, this could be viewed as the first innoculatory shot in what may ultimately come to be known as ‘The Stupid Shrub Defense’.
.
With this story (the publicity is the thing) the serious politicking around the ruins of the Bush admin begins.
Posted by: cc | Nov 5 2005 0:47 utc | 30
RossK- it’s Reagan redux during Iran-Contra. Uh, I dunno. Oh, I just don’t know. Hmmm, I can’t remember.
My Madam Cleo moment: Cheney will be gone before spring. the neocons (Addington, Wolfie, etc.) will be asked to resign but will be allowed to resign as tho they chose it.
McCain will be vp. to replace Cheney. And will run in 08.
The real estate bubble in the largest, over-speculated cities will pop with the next rise in interest rates.
I’m not sure if Rummy is going to go down over torture, but maybe.
..and that’s if the elites can manage this mess. And yes, elites have run this country for the most part since its founding. anytime an “outsider” –Clinton, Jackson, for example…not saying if they’re good or bad, just outsiders–they don’t get the support a Yale legacy, prez legacy dumbass gets.
Until we have popular vote elections with instant runoffs, on voting machines that aren’t strategically rigged, we’ll have the same old shite.
There will be no thermidor in the U.S. The closest we will get is the elite Republicans (as noted by Delay’s guy today) will dump the religious right because they’re bad, bad, bad, for biz.
They’ll work on a coalition with conservative dems and suburban voters.
Maybe Woolsey will be a harbinger for the elite class’s thinking in his support for “going green.” It’s past time, and without the elites to force this on their CEO buddies, it won’t happen.
Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 5 2005 1:03 utc | 31
fauxreal–
If some ‘high-placed’ pseudo-source starts floating the latent Korsakoff Syndrome thing again….. you win the jackpot!
jj writes:
You’re missing the point w/concerns about the evidence. Firstly, by having powerful men speak out, it gives the foot soldiers in corporate press permission to not tow the line. Secondly, they’re trying to get the drumbeat going. They don’t want to let the story drop.
That’s pretty much my take on it too.
I don’t think it’s realisitic to expect some white knight is suddenly going to appear out of nowhere with archive boxes full of notarized documents that’s going to bury this administration overnight. Certainly demanding that sort of standard of proof from Wilkerson seems not only unrealistic but counterproductive. The man offers us one more nail in Dumbya’s coffin and some people are screaming that he hasn’t got the death certificate, dug the hole or officiated at the last rites. I wouldn’t blame him if we was wondering right now why he wasted his time talking to NPR when he could have been golfing.
Anyway, remember that it took months for the Watergate scandal to finally bring down Nixon. Even then it was never a sure thing – it took a serendipidous combination of circumstances, including but by no means limited to the willingness of the Washington Post, back in its golden age, to stay on top of the story when it would have been just as easy to let it die from benign neglect.
Very broadly I see a similar dynamic playing out here. The Bush administration is already imploding in slow motion, if people are patient and keep up the pressure nature will take its course and the administration will collapse under the weight of its own corruption and incompetence.
Posted by: Lexington | Nov 5 2005 1:44 utc | 33
“nature will take its course and the administration will collapse under the weight of its own corruption and incompetence.” lexington
i t wish that was true but these days are much much darker than they were even under the worst moments of the deranged nixon & his satanic crew & i fundamntally think that for the cheney bush junta the takes are considerably higher & their corruption more genuinely entrenched
i hope that what w are witnessing though is an enormous rift amongst the elites in their battles for power but the winner is far from certain at this point
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 5 2005 2:13 utc | 34
As I have posted on here many times, people should read Thomas Dye and “elite theory.” There are elites that control at all levels. From the local elite to the globalist/internationalist elite. The Rockefeller republicans still have much influence behind the scenes and they have lost faith in east coast GHWBs son the Texas pea pod.
When it comes right down to it, the east coast economic elite rule. They control the large banks, the money supply etc. Bushie jr is lost in the global game and the old elite is coming to the rescue. Although, since Nixon the elite have not wanted the country to go through the instability of another impeachment. I still believe the east coast elites are pissed to this day about Clinton’s impeachment by the wingers from the hustings.
These things (government scandals) take away from their global domination plans.
As said above, someone in the GWB admin will ride silently off into the sunset. Others, such as Scooter will take a fall just as others (North) did for Reagan.
The eastern elite, the Kissinger class have an agenda. It has nothing to do with abortion, taxes, where manufacturing exist, etc, etc. It’s all about creating an interdependent globe with the elite cabal in control. The rest is just pawns in the overall agenda, and if a few get rich along the way so be it. The Bushies and Clinton’s of the world are the lower level enablers of the agenda. Us at this level sit around and snivel about this and that, when its all about top down control.
A perfect example is China. The elite starting with Nixon have been working on China for 30 years. Is it about democracy? No. The eastern elite have never liked or promoted American style democracy anywhere. A good ol dictator works much better.
Bushie jr has had his chance at promoting democracy and nation building and it looks like it failed. Now its time for tried and true foreign policy. Dictatorship in Iraq, here we come. Maybe Billmons Iraq post from yesterday was right. A new Baath leadership may be the ticket.
Oh yah, one post above quoted Crispin about Kerry’s election remark. Its now posted on Raw Story that Kerry denies saying that to Crispin.
Posted by: jdp | Nov 5 2005 2:13 utc | 35
Wilkersen is a champion and fervent believer in the Amerikan Empire, he’s just disappointed that they did’nt do it right, not that they tried … he’s no white knight.
Secondly he is the frontman for Colin Powell, and regulars know exactly what I think of him … as the mouthpiece for Powell, who has his hand up Wilkersen the Muppets butt, Wilkersen simply spouts what he’s directed to.
Now that the ‘game’ is effectively ‘up’ due to a perfect storm of political events, this is all about firewalling Shrub and attempting to publicly apportion all blame to the so called ‘cabal’ … it does nothing to address the falsity of our democracy nor does it in anyway address the systemic issues that will allow it all to occur yet again and again.
This is simply a shuffling of the deck chairs of the ‘face’ of ‘power’ for public consumption.
Within that context it is simply more of the political death by a thousand cuts I’ve posted on before … Cheney and probably Rumsfeld and thier Straussian lackeys are on borrowed time, probably shrub too … yet this internal coup does’nt move one step towards handing the Republic back to The People from the clutches of corporate capitalism …
This lightens the darkness around my heart only partially …
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 2:19 utc | 36
This is very complex. An immense amount of activity is going on behind the scenes. I’m not really sure whether many mid-range and even higher ups both behind the scenes and in public offices know how this is going to play out yet. I think many have not even chosen sides yet.
“… all the stuff about “democracy” is just a fig leaf. In Reality, a handful of Men Rule America. When they’ve had enough, their representatives in the WH will be tossed aside. Actually, it’s really scary.”
This is true. Though I suspect it is more like 100, with additional input from another thousand. That’s why Semour Hersh can express dismay at the “coup” perpetuated by a handful. Whenever the media talk about “having a dialogue with the American people” about some issue, you can rest assurred that the issue has been decided already, and its merely time to put the finishing touches on public opinion.
But I have so many questions here:
* If Cheney is culpable, then what about Rummy, who has not been receiveing anywhere near the attention. What role does the timing of Rummy’s windfall profits on the Avian Flu hoax have to do with this?
* If the Neo-Cons are culpable, then why Cheney, who is acknowledged to not be a Neo-Con?
* How does Wolfowitz, the primary architect of the failed Neo-Con stategy in government, walk away with a promotion to a secure sinecure?
* What did Ashcroft know, and when did he know it?
* If Bush has any quality he is reknowned for (besides addictiveness and vindictiveness), it is loyalty. Yet under this scenario, he ignored, marginalized, humiliated, and essentially forced out one of his only two picks–Colin Powell. Did he use Powell from the start, and only pick him for political expediency in getting elected in 2000?
*Along the same vein, there is news from Wayne Madsen that Bush has been stacking the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) with new appointments. If this is a conflict that pits Poppy and the old guard, allied with the CIA, attempting to save Junior’s rump, against the neo-cons, then why is Junior so avidly working against that.
Remember, when Bush ran for office in 2000, he acknowledged not having foreign affairs experience, but he and the press played up the meme that his competence as an executive would allow him to delegate and coordinate between the experienced members of his team. Is this satement no longer operative?
There are numerous parties, involved in the sausage of government, who each have their own interests in this affair:
1) The old guard realists, led by Poppy and Scowcroft
2) The “old” CIA, purged and unpurged
3) The new CIA, under Porter Goss, and loyal to Bush
4) The Vice President and his office
5) The Sec Defense and his office
6) The old Pentagon and military brass, purged and unpurged
7) The new loyal Pentagon appointees
8) Condi Rice and her closest staff in both roles she has held
9) Military contractors profiting from perpetual war
10) Military contractors whose programs are now set to be cut back because of perpetual war
11) Various corporate interests, including the conflict between those who might “want” some type of national health care, and those who don’t
12) I’m sure there are many other parties that I have neglected to mention with grievances or loyalties to the current regime
Some of these parties have strong vested interests in maintaining the current balance of power. Others have a strong interest in changing that balance. The point is that if the table is going to be reset everyone will want a seat in the negotiations. Otherwise, as jj alludes to, we have one narrow coup enacted under the cover of elections, succeed by another narrow coup, pulled off without the cover of elections. Even if the “New Government” is in some way “better” than the old, the implications of this are both huge and ominous for the future of any vestige of Democracy in this country. And even if we are to have a form of Facism regnant here, then one could only argue that more fasces included in the bundle, the better.
In addition to an accounting of the interested parties, one must assay the different charges that are being leveled–and by whom. Each charge may have a different goal or political target. I just watched “The Snooze Hour” on PBS, and believe me, it was a barn-burner! Watch the rerun tonight if you can. It is notable that they had David Corn, of the Nation magazine on the discussion panel, and did not use him as a foil to ridicule, which is their usual tactic when including a liberal. He is somewhat to the left of Sy Hersh, someone who would not be out of place at this bar. He made a number of strong persuasive points, of a systemic thrust, questioning the actions of Bush as the ultimate decision maker, and Condi as the NSC mediator. Later, even Mark Sheilds, who has all the color of the sheet of cardboard holding your writing pad together, was aflame attacking Bush’s credibility to govern. And David Brooks acknowledged that the conduct of the war has been “a total disaster”–it is important to realize how far we have come, in maybe six short months, that the bottom has absolutely dropped out of public opinion, and the war is now uniformly acknowledged as a disaster. He also acknowledged that SS reform (the benefit, not the police) is dead in the water, and the extension of the tax cuts almost as dead! The solution he is pushing for is a major house cleaning, in an attempt to restore credibility.
It seems to me that the Donkeys, smelling poilical blood, may be growing a spine and willing to push this as far as it will go against Bush. They want to impugn his integrity and decision making ability (or lack thereof). Can they, coupled with the activists, push this as far as impeachment? 55% of the public now thinks that Bush lied them into war, and 53% believe that if he did lie, then he should be impeached. Impeachment is a political act, and depends more on popularity, or lack thereof, especially before an election, than political majorities. If Bush’s credibility completely craters, anything is possible. It seems an open possibility, depending how things are handled, any any new allegations that arise, to me. All of this stands in contrast to Poppy’s crowd, who want to pin the blame on Cheney and Rummy. Those two, in turn, seem willing to offer up the neo-foot soldiers (some of whom appear to already be shot). The Neo-Cons are claiming tranparency and due procedure were followed. (It is interesting and confusing to note that the Neo-Con “cabal”, as they are accused of being by Wilkerson, who is supposedly allied with Poppy through Powell, are deflecting blame all the way up Bush, stating that they followed procedure and the buck ultimately stops with the President.) And we know that the movement conservatives will find a way to turn this full circle and blame it all on Clinton. Who’s on first?
And so, we have all these threads, these charges and accusations, which have been floating in the dry air like sparks, but none coming down and catching fire, drifting over a stand of aspens and commencing to alight upon the trembling branches:
1) We have the Downing Street Memo, that intelligence was fixed.
2) We have Wilkerson’s accusations that a “cabal” hijacked policy
3) We have the Plame investigation, which has indicted Libby and imlicated Cheney
4) Help me complete this list of sparks so I can post this.
And all this is in addition to the Delay ,Frist, Noe, etc. scandals.
Who else will step up to the plate and–to garble a metaphor-take a swing at the pinata. What other leaks, revelations, scandals will arise. How will the MSM play this. Mixed, show by show, on PBS tonight.
How far will this go? Who will ultimately fall? Will it, besides the shadenfreude at seeing some really awful human beings receive their personal comeuppance, change policy and actually make much of a difference to real people and the quality of their lives? It is probably better taking people in power down hard even if little else changes, if only to raise the cost and risk of wielding power.
Bush will be repackaged as a “Compassionate Conservative” at his next State of the Union. Will the sheeple fall for it, or does this demonstate just how cornered he really is.
At least it makes for stimulating blogging.
Oh yah, one post above quoted Crispin about Kerry’s election remark. Its now posted on Raw Story that Kerry denies saying that to Crispin.
That’s sad & frightening. It means Kerry’s scared & fixing the problem has little support @levels of power. (In other words we are well & truly fucked. The Elite want to be able to fix elections more easily than they have in the past.) M. C. Miller is a reliable source. Kerry probably said it thinking it wouldn’t get out – remark at a cocktail party type of thing – ie what he actually thought, rather than what it is politically correct for the masses to know. Read Mark’s discussion today on Democracy Now. Or read his book that’s just coming out – “Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too” – on how truly rigged the election was.
Posted by: jj | Nov 5 2005 2:46 utc | 38
Wilkerson on the Newshour, the metaphoric car bomber just drove into the whitehouse. Don’t know why exactly, but a pretty big explosion it was indeed — or tipping point. Sure as shit somethins’ goin down for this to happen, put the whole show on edge — and all over Cheneys ass.
Posted by: anna missed | Nov 5 2005 3:15 utc | 39
annna missed
the metaphor is a correct one. but their confusion between policy, polity, strategy, jurisprudence, tactics & plans are so crazed – i fight an uphill battle to make any sense at all
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 5 2005 3:22 utc | 40
They will never turn over the keys to kingdom to that yutz McCain. It will be a useful congressional idiot like Ford. Hastert would be the logical greedhead. Caretaker and then sacrifical lamb for Hillary. She and Bill have always been happy to get the kneepads on for the money folks.
Posted by: / | Nov 5 2005 3:40 utc | 41
jj – by way of observation, when bush finished his last press cheerlead re $7.0B for avian flu, (and they’ll probably have to buy it from Israeli’s, like their buying GWII ammunition now), when bush walked from the podium and the curtain parted, there was good ol’ Arie Fleischer in the shadows, directing bush to his meeting with NACPAC/AIPAC.
Arie Fleischer, deus ex machina mago magnífico.
Posted by: ARG12*40 | Nov 5 2005 3:45 utc | 42
/
McCain has “forgiven” Bush, Rove, etc. for what they did to him…I heard him say this in his own words. He also talked about Teddy (trust buster) Roosevelt as one of his heros…don’t know if it’s the trust buster Teddy or the Phillipines Teddy, tho.
the only republican of any stature that I know of that moderate Dems have any confidence in (rightly or wrongly) is McCain.
And McCain is fully behind “staying the course.” –but if the course isn’t “stayed,” he’s one person who can turn the barge because he has cred as a war hero.
Putting in some gas bag like Hastert is a guaranteed loss in 08. Same with putting in Jeb…I think America is a bit tired of the Bush League…and Jeb was one of the original signers to the PNAC statement, so he’s pegged with Cheney and Rummy and Wolfie and more, and the total failure of their doctrine.
It would be so easy to trash Jeb by association.
I’m just speculating, but I cannot imagine that the elite will go for a placeholder for vp.
Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 5 2005 4:00 utc | 43
Regarding Mark Crispin Miller and Kerry–jj has the right interpretation, but he is a little mild with his spin: Kerry is a chicken and a Dickhead, always was, and always has been. None of the reporters here in Boaton have any respect for him. It is just like him to leak and then refuse to admit there is a spot on his pants. Could anyone have run a worse campaign that him? With Gore, it was obvious the MSM had to work overtime to trash him, but with Kerry, everyone had half-days. It was almost like, after going to all the trouble to position himself for a dozen years and secure the nomination, he decided he didn’t really want to run after all. Nevertheless, that said, Crispin should have verified whether he could go public–so this was mishandled in the worst way possible. It comes across almost as if Kerry is underlining his faith in the election results.
Also, Amy interviewed the wrong people. She should have interviewed veteran activists and Ohio Freepress journalists Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitsrakis. They have one book published, and a second one coming out about the elections in Ohio that are far more detailed, and specifically refute Mark Hertsgaard’s conclusions, point by point.
As I have told Amy and her staff on numerous occaisions, I am sick of her faux “debates.” They have none of the action of cable TV screamfests, which I hate and would never watch anyway, and yet you get less information than if she just interviewed the two parties separately. But the greater reason I am against her debates, is that they go against everything alternative journalists believe in. Alternative Journalists do not believe in the ideal of dispassionate coverage. They don’t believe the press should be stenographers, presenting he said, she said stories; treating evolution and intelligent design as if they were equal propositions. They do believe that the press should investigate stories and try to determine what they believe, to the best of their ability, to be true, and then present the story that way. If one side is lying and you can prove it, then it is incumbent upon you to do so. Obviously, there are stories where “the truth” might be hard to find, or one finds different interpretations of events equally compelling. Then present it that way, but only after doing the research to come to that conclusion. Amy ignores these dicta. I get angry when I feel I’m wasting 40 minutes, right in the middle of my day, hearing a debate between two people, with one arguing that Bush’s tax cuts will really help the poor. I don’t need to hear these lies from the precious hour that DN has; I can hear that shit anywhere. Do your work as a journalist, acknowledge your prejudices and presumptions openly, and then present the truth as best you see it. Rant over.
So far the Wilkerson thing, as b pointed out does’nt carry hard evidence with it, but because it does seem sanctioned (by some elite faction) and appears co-ordinated with other internal attacks it is still very serious. On one level, it plays as an orchestrated public relations blowback that, ironically or not, uses the same fast and loose minipulation of the facts that the administration used to manipulate the public (WMD etc) in the run-up to the Iraq war — this time reversed to create an un-recoverable loss of faith&trust in the mind of the public, which then calls the cards to the table. And since they have been bluffing all along, with a pair of 2’s, they are being forced to fold. Lets hope that the public (mind) will throw out the bath water with the baby, and that the failure goes deeper than the personalities involved. That along with them, unilateralism, pre-emption, and all the torture& rendention crap goes with them.
Posted by: anna missed | Nov 5 2005 4:21 utc | 45
Cheney can’t be impeached, because the danger to Bush in loss of credibility is too great. Therefore he has to resign.
One more question: What about Tenet. Now that he’s got his ratty little medal will he flip, to cover he “cakewalk” ass, or is he owned like a piece of Bushfront property?
So, who comes out of this smelling like roses? Why, Colon Powell, of course! He has made a career of rising to the top and smelling sweeter than before, like fizz in your Dr. Pepper. So, if I were an investigative reporter, I would be following him around, seeing who he is meeting and speaking with. Is it Poppy and Uncle Brent? My money would be on him, with a wingnut Veep for ’08.
One more goody from Washington Week. Bush will roll out tax reform next, which like “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare reform will not be the whole enchilada, but will set the theoretical underpinings in place for a greater screwing of the poor, er, I mean, tax simplification.
Again, a point I have made before: Iraq is now an acknowledged disaster, though we can’t forget that money has been made by those that count. But, except for that, and Social Security reform, which I doubt anyone could have sold better, Bush has been the most successful President in the last century, at least, as judged by the goals of those that installed him: moving money from the poor to the rich. Remarkably successful. But because one could never talk about that as being the objective of a Presidency in the MSM, it sounds a tad strange. You know, we have to talk about Democracy, and Freedom, blah, blah, blah. And if his ability to transfer wealth is now vitiated, well, it’s no big deal for those behind the power, to move him out and move the next one in. Nothing is personal, just bidness. Chimp has got his ranch, and his fortune, and his pension, and he can ride his bike and cut brush all he wants. No worse than putting a racehorse to pasture. Most of us wish we had it so good. Besides, his buddy, Jeff, can sleep over at the ranch any night he wants.
@Malooga, you’re way too articulate to use terms like “dickhead”. I say that not to attack, but to say that I know virtually zip about him, and thought you were about to offer some useful stuff from those who know in Boston, and you offered disappointingly little, other than that he is detested. I only know he’s politically safe, and personally a vain, phony social climber, haunted by the fact that he’s decaying Gentry (name w/out the money).
I agree w/yr. point about Amy’s format, but what infuriates me more is that I Guarantee you that the Foxified format is a requirement of the Foundations etc. that fund her. (She didn’t use that format until the split w/WBAI.) She should clearly state that, at least on the web page. And find a way around it. I rarely listen to her because of it ‘cuz it’s just a waste of time. And what’s puzzling about doing it today, is that, by convention, authors are invited on programs to discuss their book. That is the one time when those rules don’t apply – even on NPR. And it doesn’t matter what the subject is. So, it was particularly egregious – and made M.H. look awful.
I suspect MCM was just naieve. It prob. never occurred to Kerry that it would get out – and it was vague enough to claim a mis-communication – nor did it occur to MCM that he’d deny it, esp. since he cared enough to discuss it w/Dodd. I expect he’ll handle things differently next time.
Thanks for the heads up on the Snooze Hour, which I haven’t watched in… I’ll catch it later. The poles have clearly flipped if David Corn is given a respectful hearing.
Posted by: jj | Nov 5 2005 4:44 utc | 47
Vermont Votes to Secede from Neo-Zion Amerika
http://tinyurl.com/aqofu
Posted by: aqofu03^ | Nov 5 2005 4:45 utc | 48
L-Tryptophan Strikes Again
Research reveals GM corn and soy express
disease anomylies in second generation,
causing massively high fatality rates.
http://tinyurl.com/dgdo7
China and Viet Nam are rapidly developing
GM feedstocks, just at a time when farmed
fowl are showing signs of distress and
disease in second generation offspring,
currently attributed to “avian flu”.
http://tinyurl.com/amdza
In Russia, where GM has not yet penetrated,
only *migratory* fowl are showing the disease,
even though livestock are being slaughtered
as a precaution that the disease may spread.
The migratory fowl may have fed on spilled
GM grains during their migration in SE Asia.
“Avian flu” may a 2nd-generation pathological
symptom affecting the internal organs, found only in livestock fed high GM feedstocks, and
among farmers who eat the same feedstocks and
the organs of the livestock they feed.
China, Viet Nam and other ASEAN countries
where “avian flu” is recurring, are also
those areas where farmers eat the same feed
as the livestock they are rearing. ASEAN’s rural population primarily eats the livestock entrails only, and sells the IQF meat for export cash.
Defeating ‘avian flu’ may be as simple as spending Bush’s $7.0B emergency vaccine program to instead thoroughly test GM feed, the same as any biological WMD or new pharmaceutical drug.
Corn Seeds Imports Flourish Despite Oversupply
http://tinyurl.com/d86ug
Otherwise, we will have spent that $7.0B, and innoculated 100,000,000’s, with 100,000’s of attendant long-term disabilities and deaths, for a purely hyped cover-up of GM’s own dark secret, with GM being dumped in Australia and ASEAN!
In the US, GM corn is not segregated from natural corn. Americans are all guinea-pigs. Guinea-pigs for genetical manipulation, and now guinea-pigs for mass experimental inoculation.
Dr. Mengala would be proud.
Posted by: dgdo7@09 | Nov 5 2005 5:29 utc | 49
LOL, this is priceless, it’s so funny it *hurts*.
I mean who do they think they are kidding ?
Kindergarten ‘Ethics’ training for the ‘Big Boys’ ?
This is tragic, insulting and absolutely pathetically HILARIOUS all in one … :))
Bush Orders Staff to Attend Ethics Briefings
White House Counsel to Give ‘Refresher’ Course
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 5, 2005; Page A02
President Bush has ordered White House staff to attend mandatory briefings beginning next week on ethical behavior and the handling of classified material after the indictment last week of a senior administration official in the CIA leak probe.
According to a memo sent to aides yesterday, Bush expects all White House staff to adhere to the “spirit as well as the letter” of all ethics laws and rules. As a result, “the White House counsel’s office will conduct a series of presentations next week that will provide refresher lectures on general ethics rules, including the rules of governing the protection of classified information,” according to the memo, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post by a senior White House aide.
The mandatory ethics primer is the first step Bush plans to take in coming weeks in response to the CIA leak probe that led to the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, and which still threatens Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff…
A senior aide said Bush decided to mandate the ethics course during private meetings last weekend with Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and counsel Harriet Miers. Miers’s office will conduct the ethics briefings…
– snip –
A senior Bush aide said the “mandatory sessions on classified material is a result of a directive by the president in light of the [CIA] investigation.”
Next week’s meeting is for West Wing aides with security clearance, which allows them to view and discuss sensitive or classified material. Information about Plame was classified. Rove is among those aides who must attend.
“There will be no exceptions,” the memo states.
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 5:46 utc | 50
Ethics? Aren’t those the people we’re trying to stop from crossing the border? (Sorry, couldn’t resist)
No wonder Miers didn’t make it to the SC. Anyone cought lying after this doozie will not even have the memory excuse.
“There will be no exceptions,”
with the first notice of an investigation, destroy all notes, notebooks, notebook computers, memos, files and any written memoranda, step number 1 in ethics. Don’t draw attention to the men behind the curtain.
Posted by: christofay | Nov 5 2005 6:03 utc | 52
So the PR face of the Cheney administration is on a fact-finding trip to Argentina on how to assure that the middle class gets dumped into the poor class. First, start a phony patriotic war, check. Second, destroy the value of the currency, working on it in a very hard and serious way for this seriously hard matter.
Posted by: christofay | Nov 5 2005 6:05 utc | 53
The perfect storm hit the NewsHour tonight. Even Brooks admitted mistakes have been made.
The underlying theme was can the realists stage a coup, and reinvent the Bush Administration like they did to the Reagan’s second term? Never will happen. The pundits still haven’t grasped that the Bush Administration is composed of true believers and radicals in the mode of John Brown or Lenin. The realists will only take the levers of power from the radicals’ cold, dead hands.
Posted by: Jim S | Nov 5 2005 6:19 utc | 54
@jj-Sorry about the “DickHead” comment. It was juvenile shock value. At least I didn’t call him a “Stalinist Fruitcake.”
I don’t get invited to JK’s soirees in Louisburg Square very often, which is why I’m more often to be found here, at this low-rent dive. But I can say that his brother runs the hot-shot Telecommunications Law firm here–in other words, they are to Media Consolidation what Alberto Gonzales is to Abu Graib. His wife comes from one of the richest families in Africa, Mozambique specifically, and you don’t make that kind of dough farming the way Isak Dinesen did.
No, I can attest to the fact that the Foxified format is not mandated. They (she has a bright, young, loyal, hardworking staff) really like the format. They claim to get good feedback from it. I’m always suspicious of that kind of feedback in radio; it’s hard to know who is listening to you and so when you essentially throw some red meat out there to your base, which is what she is doing, you do get phone calls and emails. But you might have actually alienated the silent majority of your listeners who are just not the type to call the show. I have experienced this myself, so this is not just some theoretical speculation.
Amy has some very weak programs followed by a great one, once or twice a week. Producing that show is a lot of hard work. Producers rarely make it more than a year or two before they completely burn out.
But let me say this for the record, since I am criticizing Amy Goodman: She is perhaps the hardest working person I know; totally committed to what she does; Lives, eats, drinks, etc. the news; is fearless; handles incredible pressures nimbly; and I admire her immensely. I certainly would not want, or be able, to be her. She has earned her bona fides. And she created and popularized that show, which is enlightening and changing the minds of millions, through sheer perseverence, ego, and willpower. That said, like any type A person, she can be arbitrary, harsh, overly critical, insensitive and demanding. Just goes with the territory.
The National Conference on Media Reform this past summer in St. Louis was attended by over 3000 people. Naomi Klein, Norman Solomon, Jim Hightower, George Lakoff, Bob McChesney, Jon Nicols, Sut Jhally, Marc Cooper, Danny Schecter, Davey D., Patti Smith, the two Democratic members of the FCC-Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, and countless others I can’t remember off the top of my head were there. But the only person who compared with her in commanding the media spotlight was Bill Moyers. That is a tremendous responsibility.
More than any other single person, Amy, has the power and responsibility to frame and set the agenda for the progressive struggle, the resistance to power, in this country. A blogger like Kos doesn’t even compare, not in numbers and certainly not in setting an agenda; they are a mere echo chamber, a daily outrage.
By the way, that Sunday was the day that Bill Moyers, in his emotional keynote speech, announced his retirement, and more importantly, his campaign to unseat Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the head of the FCC, which providentially, came to fruition just today. Big news; another Republican scandal and investigation. Drip,drip,drip.
It is notable that Alberto twelve hours Gonzales is not teaching the ethics class.
.. from this neck of the woods, when he came up with that ‘reporting for duty’ stunt, you could hear everyone thinking in unison, ‘what a dickhead’.
Posted by: DM | Nov 5 2005 7:28 utc | 57
Yep dickhead is a perfectly fine word to use on someone like Kerry who conforms exactly to the mental image that word conjures.
That said I wouldn’t bother to accuse a fellow poster of being a dickhead because if I wanted to debate someone I wouldn’t really bother with name calling. If only because you’d have to be a dickhead to bother to get into a debate with a dickhead.
But of course dickhead isn’t used as much in some parts of the english speaking word as others so it probably sounds to some like just another mindless obscenity when in fact it’s definition is someone exactly like John Kerry ‘reporting for duty’.
It weird how hard it is to explain colloquialisms sometimes, or not even colloquialism just words that have a sort accepted but unspoken meaning. I’ve been playing a shooter with my 13 yo boy this week and he can’t understand why I crack up when I take on a particular monster who closely resembles the governor of california. The monster’s name? Onan the Librarian…oh well I suppose you had to be there.
Posted by: debs is dead | Nov 5 2005 10:51 utc | 58
In case anyone is interested in Jim Woolsey’s and his
CIA colleague Mike Scheuer’s latest “official” view on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda take a look here. I’d be interested in an identification of the
un-bearded “terrorist” in the middle picture at the right
of the photo of the boogey-man-in-chief. Scheurer is what passes in the U.S. for an acknowledged expert in the field, and drops a number of (to me) obscure terrorist names to certify his expertise. (I freely admit to not being an expert.)
What I do find striking is the yawning gap between such “conventional expert U.S. opinion” on such matters, and
what non U.S. affilitated sources tend to think and express, as for example here at MOA, or the always illuminating blog of Imad Khadduri.
One assumes (with perhaps an excess of charity) that such experts as Scheuer, Doug Farah, and even Judith Miller actually believe the information they transmit to us. Indeed these experts have done “on the scene” investigation (Farah in Africa, Miller in Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast) and seem to have made good faith made efforts to verify their findings. They all seem, by no coincidence, to be well connected to sources in the “intelligence community”, so one is left with the question of whether they know what they are talking about, or have been more or less consciously duped, manipulated, and exploited by their cynical “informed sources”. Again, charity excludes another hypothesis, namely that they are “willing and conscious agents of disinformation”, but not all will disposed to be so charitable. In any case, these fonts of authoritative conventional U.S. wisdom could scarsely be more at odds with that of a large segment of public opinion outside the U.S.
In that respect RGiap’s impassioned polemics are a valuable if disconcerting counterweight to U.S. conventional wisdom, and are, in my opinion, especially precious when he provides “missing links”, as he did (again in my opinion) on Negroponte’s activities while U.S. ambassador to Honduras. One of the basic fault lines separating the U.S. tectonic plate of “rationality” from the rest of the world’s is the question of whether or not Al Qaeda remains essentially a tool of Western intelligence agencies, as it most assuredly was in its origins. This is unthinkable for “responsible” U.S. opinion, but almost axiomatic for many whose opinions are formed outside the American matrix . More generally, the question of just how much “terrorist” violence is created by “friendly” intelligence agencies is, alas, likely destined to remain a subject for heated and fruitless debate. (Cf. for example Khadduri’s blog for today cited above). Over time I have come to share the view that much of that violence is indeed the result of occult manipulation, and indeed that the most “resonant” cases are usually the most suspect. But I don’t know that for a certainty, even in the most important instances. Thus, even, if Fitzgerald has taken only a tiny step, I am extremely happy to see one bit of “mere conjecture” rendered concrete and legally testable. I hope that there will be many more such possibilities, and would be
happily surprised if fair and open trials produced evidence which led me to once again subscribe to conventional U.S. expert opinion. Meanwhile, the gatekeepers, opinion molders, and their occult minions continue to ply their trades.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 5 2005 11:53 utc | 59
Hmmm. I’ve wondered how Poppy was going to clean up the idiot son’s mess this time. Now I know how. Wilkerson has been sent out by Poppy’s boys to pin this all on Cheney. I’m not buying it one bit.
The tip off:
he believed that Cheney’s staff prevented Bush from seeing a National Security Council memo arguing strongly that the United States needed many more troops for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Oh really? Now we’re to believe that poor little W would have done the right thing if only his treacherous underlings hadn’t kept important information from him? Nice try, Poppy. But it will probably work, at least on some level.
Remember, Wilkerson has emphasized again and again in interviews how much he & GHWB adore each other.
Posted by: semper fubar | Nov 5 2005 12:26 utc | 60
Further to the programmed internal ethics training for all WH staff, no exceptions to be conducted under, of all people, Harriet Miers … here’s some excerpts from the Standards of Official Conduct memo that was circulated back in January of 2001:
Memorandum
January 20, 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Standards of Official Conduct
Everyone who enters into public service for the United States has a duty to the American people to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government. I ask you to ensure that all personnel within your departments and agencies are familiar with, and faithfully observe, applicable ethics laws and regulations, including the following general principles from the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch:
(1) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain.
(7) Employees shall not use public office for private gain.
(11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities.
(12) Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all just financial obligations, especially those — such as Federal, State, or local taxes — that are imposed by law.
(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating applicable law or the ethical standards in applicable regulations.
Please thank the personnel of your departments and agencies for their commitment to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government as we serve the American people.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 23:04 utc | 62