Consortiumnews.com

Reader Reactions

June 5, 2007

Editor’s Note: Not surprisingly, we got a number of comments about the Democratic cave-in on Iraq War funding, but also opinions about Al Gore on reason, George W. Bush on global warming, the imperial presidency, the Hariri murder case, and the danger from the Pakistani bomb:

In my mail today was a letter asking me to join Friends for Harry Reid by giving $25 to $100. A bumper sticker was included. Thank goodness a self-address envelope was enclosed, so I can return their bumper sticker and let him know what I think of the Democrats. Funny thing, no mention of the blank check they just handed Bush. No mention of Iraq at all.

BARBARA FELLOWS
Minneapolis, MN

I am 74 years old. I have been a lifetime, passionate Democrat. I am a
retired Magisterial Judge. Since the hijacking of our democracy in
2000, I have been exhausting myself vocally in support of the
Democrats, have read as many relevant books as possible, have convinced
many, many people to reconsider their support for this madman in the
white house and his administration.

This last vote by congress, funding the war, for me, is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I am seriously considering changing my registration to Independent. It is out of respect for my immigrant parents that I have delayed this action. I have come to the conclusion that there is no real difference between the parties. The democrats are as reliant upon corporate money as are the republicans.

We live in a corporate controlled government, and it is now clear to me that the democrats are not going to change anything. I feel so helpless as do many people to whom I talk. Whatever happened to boycotts? I don;t hear any organizations such as yours, calling to boycott corporations who are profiteering from this occupation. There should be an onslaught of criticism against so many institutions and companies who are funding the campaigns of politicians, calling for citizens not to buy their products etc.

I really do not care anymore. This country is beyond saving. It has been lost to lies, deceptions, corruption, and so on and so on. The day after this last infamous vote by congress, I read on a site that every democrat should immediately change their registration to independent. Today I heard on the evening news that the number of independent registered voters is on the rise. I think I see what is happening.

Martha

It appears now, the only way to get out of the war is to get out of the war. If the polls are true, the first credible candidate who says, we will get out of Iraq, if I am elected, should be a shoe in. Most of the front runners will not fully commit to getting out of Iraq. Then, we have to wonder about a society that, if you look around, is not really interested in the war, judged by their actions.

The forces working against this idea of getting out of Iraq, are very powerful, and we really don`t know who among those running for president, they have in their pocket. This is a reality. The honest fact is, one faction is there, in the true spirit of colonialism, regardless of the claims made before the invasion of Iraq, to steal Iraqi oil. That faction will do their damndest to stay, at any cost.

On a recent late night show, a journalist who was enlisted, to be embedded at the start of the push to Bagdad, said, as he flew over Kuwait, by helicopter, and witnessed the military build up, was awestruck by the size and scope, said, the thought came to him, as to whether it would make more sense just to buy the oil, rather than steal it. He was supposed to be making a joke, but sometimes true words are spoken in jest.

There is another faction, who you refer to as the presidents advisors, and, that in Sen. Hagels, words, have a single minded purpose, who have craftily, influenced the foreign policy of the U.S. They will also, stop at nothing to keep is in Iraq. Single mindedness, sometimes does not produce a good result. You have to wonder if they are not responsible for the presidents, references to Iran, in the rift with Putin. Is it just more fear mongering, and to take the focus off of the war in Iraq? The other faction in the Middle East itself, is only protecting their profits.

Is there another way? In the face of all these powerful forces, will someone emerge, who can accomplish the goals, that will be in the true interest of America.

While I agree completely with your recent article on Gore, I find the silence from the left-wing news sources and blogs on his opposition to Bush's impeachment equally egregious.

Do you have any idea how he can write such a lengthy indictment as represented by his new book, "Assault on Reason", while simultaneously being opposed to his impeachment on the grounds of it being "a waste of time and resources"?

I have tried to reconcile these two things, and can come up with no reasonable explanation as to how it isn't an "assault on reason" too.

It was reported a week or so ago that the dems have kept their campaign promise, having finished the 10-11 pieces of legislation involved in that promise, which now await either Bush's signature or veto.

What I fear quite frankly, is that we are about to see a similar situation arise as did under Clinton--- another Criminal in Chief avoiding the prosecution he deserves, for reasons not too dissimilar to those offered in the name of "healing and unity", that as you made a strong case for giving us the Bush we neither wanted or deserved.

My fear here is as well, that this position of his will be percieved as him wanting to retain the power in the executive branch Bush has accumulated.

The silence on the part of his supporters on this matter, seems as disingenuous as any of the rhetoric you cited in that article, like his "inventing the internet".

Excellent article on the Hariri case. And in a world where justice is
for the powerful as well as the weak, the Bush administration would
surely stand trial for violations of the Nuremberg Charter, Article VI
(a) forbidding aggressive war.

Keep up the good work. At least someone is speaking truth to power.

Peter

--
This is not really appropos to any particular news item, but I think maybe this Unitary Executive theory touting conservative movement ought to be re-branded. "Tory" is one word that comes to mind. In fact the Conservatives in England are still called Tories.

"Tory" is what these Unitary Executive loving Conservatives would have been labeled during the American Revolutionary War. At the end of that War in 1781, they would have been asked to return home to England, which was governed by King George III. The Patriot were the Liberals, who wrote not one, but two liberal documents dispersing power. The first was the Articles of Confederation, which failed, and the second was the current Constitution.
Liberalism has always been on the side of freedom, which is messy. The original Patriots were NOT Conservatives.

President Bush, on May 9, signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight. The Executive Order called National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51; HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html)

The directive, according to a press release entitled "National Continuity Policy" from the Office of the White House Press Secretary, “... establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies.

The document also establishes a …”'National Essential Functions”‘ which “… prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency."

The directive states that this power could/would be exercised in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency”. The directive loosely defines a catastrophic emergency “…as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

Furthermore, the directive says unabashedly,“…The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.” The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” In addition, paying only lip service to Constitutional “separation of powers”, saying “… this effort will be coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

The directive issued May 9 makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created there for the National Continuity Coordinator and the National Emergency Act as specified by U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter II, Section 1621. The National Emergency Act allows that the president may declare a national emergency but requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."

In other words, the Executive Order grants Bush the ability to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, thus enforcing martial law on all of us, and basically taking dictatorial powers for an unspecified time.
Therefore, if President Bush determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can proclaim the office of the presidency now has powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over. Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency. Under this authority, Bush could cancel the 2008 Presidential Elections, dismiss Congress, declare Court ruling not binding, seize personal firearms and/or, suspend habeas corpus and declare marshal law.
The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.

This, in my opinion, is by far Bush’s most dangerous move yet to threaten the security of our constitutional government to date.

"Bush Signals Shift on Warming," (Washington Post) June 1, 2007, by Michael Fletcher and Juliet Epstein, has a very misleading headline, page one, top of the page.

Without consideration of what, if any, our greenhouse gas policy should be, it is fairly clear that the "shift" is really just a different form of the same formulation that has been somewhat in place since 2000. Which is to say, namely; "we need to talk about this and maybe try to do some more things about it."

The authors implicitly have determined that because the administration "wants" to be a participant in the future (as if the country responsible for over a quarter of the world's emissions yet with a small fraction of its population could not be), rather than a "reluctant participant, " that this warrants a "shift;" in bold letters, headline, page one. But the "reluctance," had in fact been with respect to mandatory targets. And in fact, this "shift," which 1) in actuality is no different from the idea of "looking at it more intensely and considering some things," and 2) applies to the future several years from now, rendering it almost worthless on this point alone, is, also, 3) completely consistent with the "reluctance" regarding past talks requiring mandatory targets, because it once again takes the same approach, albeit slightly different rhetoric, with "aspirational goals."

Al Gore has argued that reason and facts play an increasingly decreasing role in decisions in America today. Also, it seems, in news coverage, where what has substituted in its place -- increased rhetoric that sounds great -- the same phenomenon is subtly taking place.

Very minor side point. "He said/she said" reporting has unfortunately also become the norm, in place of hard hitting, candid, objective reporting, regardless of the partisan implications. I suggest it is "minor" in this instance because the issue is somewhat subjective. But Epstein and Fletcher find a way to once again, "give both sides" by stating that "the White House said Bush's proposal has drawn positive reactions." Hmmmm. the White House said that? That is startling. While it may be "newsworthy" to report this expected truism, the reporters offer this as a kind of "support" for these same proposals (which again amount to nothing more than "five years from now we want to take a leading role in saying we all 'should be doing something' on this" and in a sense are somewhat worthless), and then for lack of support, cite other groups, stating: "Environmentalists and their supporters in Congress" did not have a positive reaction.

Notice how the latter has to be seemingly "balanced out" somehow, and this is done, again, by utilizing the White House's own spin, as if that was somehow equivalent or even relevant as a quasi objective perspective on the matter. (As a side note, what is an environmentalist? Is it any one by definition who thinks (rightly or wrongly) that we need to be doing something about large scale chemical atmospheric alteration? Could it be Scientists, environmental groups, public policy experts, some members of Congress, some moderate republicans (are there more than a small handful left in national office?), policy groups outside of the White House, foreign leaders (other than the ones that the article notes were "impressed" with the "proposal," without identifying which ones, or why) themselves, etc.?)

Ivan Carter

Thanks for your article on the danger posed by a government of militant
Islam in Pakistan, holding the keys to a nuclear arsenal. The article
is about 4 years too late but better late than never.

Bush has all but ensured that free elections scheduled for this year
would see an enhanced vote for militant groups, perhaps enough to win
government or at least to destabilise government. Bin Laden might
become de facto President; AQ Khan would remain a national hero, on
hand to advise on nuclear suitcases. Sooner or later a people smuggler
to the south of the USA would get a tap on the shoulder: 'Hey man, you
wanna take a coupla suitcases over the border? The money will be good'.

The only immediate hope would appear to lie in another general toppling
Musharraf and imposing himself on the country 'for the sake of
security'. Even that eventuality, however, will not solve the problem
of growing insurgency.

Iraq is a senseless, stupid, wasteful diversion from the main game in
Pakistan.

John B
Australia

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.