Is it just me, or do things seem as if they are sliding downhill at an accelerated pace? Is it just getting crazier and crazier? Each offense more egregious than the next, as if, when you pile one on top of another, you don't notice each one individually as much?
As the end of the Bush regime looms over the horizon, it seems as if they are scrambling to do as much damage as they can to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights before they are ushered out - if, that is, they indeed will be ushered out, or if they plan on extending their reign of terror by some kind of false-flag, Gulf-of-Tonkin maneuver. At this point, the tin-foil hat is perched smartly atop my head, and it looks like it's going to be a staple of my wardrobe for a while.
This last week has been filled with the most shocking, arrogant power-grabs imaginable.
First, Bush slithers out an Executive Order calling for "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq". This order says that "I, George W. Bush" can seize the assets of anyone accused of:
(i) committ(ing), or pos(ing) a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:Furthermore, he doesn't have to tell anyone he's doing it, and anyone who tells that he's doing it will suffer the same consequences.
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
What does 'promoting economic reconstruction and political reform' mean?
(hint: whenever you see the word 'reform' associated with the Bush Crime Family, you know that it means utter destruction in some form or other.)
Translated into English from Bush-gibber, it means "I'm gonna git my grubby paws on all o' that Eye-racky oll, and ain't none o' y'all gonna stop me." The increasingly desperate attempts by the Bush-whackers to steal the oil in Iraq can be seen for the naked theft that it is. All the talk about 'benchmarks' merely means that Pirate Cap'n Bush ain't quittin' till the Iraqis give up the booty - the majority of their oil revenue - the only asset they have. 'Stabilization' my ass.
Bush is acting as if the Iraqis are at fault - as if they owe us! Remember, at the start of this shameful attack, the American people were promised that the 'war' wouldn't cost us a dime, because the Iraqis were swimmin' in oil! They could 'pay for their own reconstruction'! In February 2003, White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said that in the event that there is a war to oust Saddam Hussein,
"Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction,"
Imagine the gall!
Saying, "We can destroy a sovereign nation who did not threaten us, and then make them pay for it!" Like the thief that breaks into your house, steals everything you have, murders your family, and then sues you for breaking his arm while on your property, Bush even has the unbelievable, unmitigated grapes to accuse Iraq of being 'ungrateful'!
This is the kind of insane and delusional thinking (and acting) that has destroyed America's reputation and any shred of moral authority we once were able to claim on the world stage. This is what has created more terrorism, emboldened our enemies, and made us less safe than ever. And the thugs in charge are dismantling, brick by brick, any recourse we have of stopping them.
Next on this week's Hit Parade Countdown, BushCo pushes on with its dictum of omnipotence, according to the Washington Post:
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege.
Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts."A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."
A 'bold new assertion'? Is that what the kids are calling it these days? Every time The Kowboy Koward of Krawford shoves his boot up the rectum of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the media fawningly calls it 'bold' or 'steadfast' or 'strong' or some other flattering term. 'Executive privilege' is Bush-squawk for "L'état, c'est moi".
And in a not-unrelated story, Valerie Plame's suit has been thrown out of court. According to the Associated Press,
A federal judge dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration Thursday, eliminating one of the last courtroom remnants of the leak scandal. Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.And who is this impartial pillar of jurisprudence who threw out the suit? Bob Fertik at Democrats.com tells us:
So who is Judge John D. Bates, the judge who threw out Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Richard Armitage? A "loyal Bushie," of course.
- Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997, where he forced the White House to release thousands of documents related to Hillary Clinton's conversations about Whitewater.
- Appointed as Federal judge in December 2001 by George W. Bush
- In December 2002, he dismissed a lawsuit filed by the GAO against Cheney over access to his energy task force documents, claiming the GAO lacked authority to sue the VP.
- In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - replacing a judge who resigned in protest over the illegal NSA wiretapping. It's a safe bet Bates has been a reliable rubber stamp allowing Bush's NSA to spy on millions of Americans without a warrant.
- In August 2006, Bates declared it acceptable for Bush to sign a bill that had not been passed by Congress.
"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."Even if it's treason.
So much for the Department of 'Justice', Like Rupert Murdoch, they solve their problems by buying or taking over any organization that can impede their vision.
So, here we sit, taking hit after hit after hit from these disgusting criminals, and we're being buried alive.
But we have to ask ourselves, is it any wonder these guys are getting more aggressively dictatorial every day?
After all, every time they try something and get away with it, the message we send is "We're not going to stop you." Like Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler, attempting to persuade this President to act rationally and legally and in the interest of the American people by 'taking the high road' and going through the congressional channels merely tells Bush and Cheney that we're weaklings. They chortle and give us the finger, and instruct us to go Cheney ourselves while they continue to rape and pillage and loot and fatten themselves and their cronies. And we'd better not complain about it, either, or we may find our assets seized and ourselves 'disappeared'.
Please understand that we are past the point of rationality here. We are past the point of being able to expect these criminals to obey the law. And up to now we have given them every assurance that we aren't going to stop them.
Nothing else but impeachment will do.
The Dems claim that, instead of impeachment, we should concentrate on trying to make some much-needed changes in policy, blah blah blah.
But how do they think they're going to make any changes or pass a Democratic agenda when they can't even deal with a filibustering Repub Senate - the same ones, incredibly, who shoved through these horrible judges by threatening Democrats who even talked about considering a filibuster with the 'nuclear option'. Somehow, Dems who filibuster are 'obstructionists' but not Repubs. (Remember the howls for an 'up or down vote'? No? I didn't think so. Neither do the Repubs .)
The definition of insanity, in the Big Book, is taking the same action over and over and expecting different results.
Al Wilson, an artist who I was fortunate to have played with when I was very young, had a hit song that described this situation perfectly. It's the story of a 'tender-hearted woman and a poor half-frozen snake'. The snake begs to be taken in and taken care of, and the tender-hearted woman complies, and brings him back to life. The lyrics go on to say:
Sorry, kiddies, but playtime is over. These snakes are not going to change their natures.Now she clutched him to her bosom, "You're so beautiful," she cried
"But if I hadn't brought you in by now you might have died"
Now she stroked his pretty skin and then she kissed and held him tight
But instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite.
"I saved you," cried that woman
"And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
"Oh shut up, silly woman," said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in."
We must impeach now - while there is still hope that we can.
I don't want to be buried alive.