O'Reilly's 19th Nervous Breakdown!

As many of you may know Bill O'Reilly is in the middle of a desperate death-rattle inducing war of verbal spitballs with Thinkprogress managing editor Amanda Terkel, because she had the Temerity to Quote O'Reilly Accurately when he blamed an 18-year-old girl for her own rape and murder.

Somehow he's shoved that issue to he side, even after he sent one of his Produca-Stalkers to Harrass Terkel, and is now the galloping Crusader against "Far-Left Hate". Yes, really! Watch


Absolute truth? No Ad homs? Not so much.

– O’Reilly on TP Managing Editor Amanda Terkel: “Well, Miss Terkel is certainly a villain.” [3/23]

– O’Reilly on ThinkProgress: “They’re insects, OK?” [3/25]

– O’Reilly on Podesta: “This smear merchant, character assassin John Podesta...” [3/25]

Just for the record the original audio of O'Reilly's comment is here.

Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk.

Those are his words, no one elses - no question. The best case scenario is that he was claiming that her being Drunk and scantily clad at 2 A.m. somehow justified her rape and murder as if being dressed in a burlap burka would have really made a difference.

"How could the poor hapless thug Resist?"

So naturally after compounding the brutalization of one woman, O'Reilly has to participate in the verbal brutalization of another woman who dared to rise to her defense.



O'Reilly claims here that he's done more for "victims" than any show on television - even than America's Most Wanted? Really? Deluded much?

The stalker-ucer in this segment accuses Terkel to being "dishonest" simply because she admits to not listening to the Mel Gibson portion of O'Reilly comments, as if that would somehow change the context of what he said about Jennifer. However, thinkprogress does provide a link to the entire show right here - and they did go back an review those comments which were...

I think it’s safe to say that if Mel Gibson didn’t get drunk, he wouldn’t be in this terrible situation he finds himself in. And if a young woman, 18-year-old Jennifer Moore of Harrington Park, NJ, didn’t get drunk, she’d be alive today.

I will agree that the point of O'Reilly's segment was that "If you get drunk on a regular basis - it will damage you're life", and that parents absolutely need to monitor and properly educate their children - that's a given.

However..

If Mel Gibson hadn't gotten drunk he wouldn't have been arrested for drunk driving, but he still probably would have held the views and beliefs that prompt his vicious anti-semetic comments. If Jennifer hadn't have been drunk (or had her car towed, or been walking alone) - a murderous thug could have, and probably would have still raped and killed her. I mean, c'mon - She wasn't even at legal drinking age - in the first place. Why aren't we wondering who illegally served her the drinks?

And look, if her car hadn't been towed, she would have tried to drive home and might have killed someone else - but does O'Reilly consider this? NOoooo! (And I listened to the entire recording!)

I'm not buying this snake-oil and neither should you.

O'Reilly: There's no peer pressure - you don't see Jay Leno, or Jon Stewart (talking against drugs and alcohol) The only thing was Nancy Reagan "Just Say No")

Well, there's MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Drivers) an there's R.A.D. (Rockers Against Drugs)

Vince Neil (who committed vehicular manslaughter while drunk in the mid-80's and eventually, painfully sobered up) did a spot for R.A.D.



Both of these programs are ongoing - so even with O'Reilly's argument that "nobody" is telling kids not to get drunk or go off on drugs - he's Full of Shit.

No where in the radio program does he consider Jennifer's attacker at fault - he absolutely blames no one but Jennifer for what someone else did to her. Pathetic. The more you listen the worse it gets.

O'Reilly: This girl Jennifer Moore couldn't have made more mistakes than she made - and forfitted her life because of it.

Sure, she made mistakes - but people should be able to make mistakes without someone else KILLING THEM!

Thirdly, O'Reilly claims that Terkel has petitioned and attacked the Alexa Foundation - that's a Lie!

After Terkel's second post she was invited onto Olbermann, and Billo - went Balistic-o!



In this segment he claims that there is some type of "cabal" linking the dreaded George Soros to Media Matters, to Thinkprogress and (former Clinton Admin, and Obama transition team head) John Podesta, to NBC News (without even mention MSNBC or Keith - who is the guy who actually put Terkel on the air). Yeah, right.

O’REILLY: And Podesta’s mainstream media is, of course, NBC News. That’s the outlet Podesta uses. ... A well coordinated, well financed cabal attacking dissent, it’s a pretty big story, especially because it involves Podesta, who has access to the president and NBC, which along with its parent company General Electric is grossly misusing its power.

First off the Urban Myth of Soros funding Media Matters has been completely debunked, but even if it were true - So Frakking What?

It's not like rich people like T-Bone Pickens has funded organizations like the Swift Boaters to smear John Kerry, or Newscorp/Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch funded the "Arkansas Project" via the American Spectator to smear and dig up dirt on Bill Clinton - except that they did.

The real irony here is that David Brock, who founded Media Matters did it specifically because - he was one of Murdoch's henchmen who wrote the original "Trooper-Gate" stories on Clinton and smear attacks on Anita hill, but after he saw what happened with the Impeachment and realized that Hill was absolutely correct about Clarence Thomas - he started fighting against the REAL smear machine. The Right-Wing Smear-Engine which links Roger Ailes to Karl Rove to Matt Drudge.

"World Currency" my left eye.

If there's one thing that O'Reilly's good at - it's Projection - particular when he complains about being attacked by Thinkprogress.

“If you go to this ThinkProgress website,” the Fox News hatemonger said, “anybody who disagrees with Barack Obama in the public eye gets smeared and slimed. ... They’ll go after your sponsors, they’ll go at your house, they’ll go after your family.”

Lying yet again, Thinkprogress is not going after his house or his family - but they are going after his sponsors. Like UPS.

UPS values and takes seriously the comments from personal emailers and those posted on your site regarding advertising that appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s FOX News show. We are sensitive to the type of television programming where our messages and presence are associated and continually review choices to affect future decisions. Further investigation is underway related to this placement.

Capital One.

Thank you for contacting Capital One. We regret that you found the Bill O’Reilly programming during which one of our ads was aired to be offensive. Please be assured that this was not our intent. Capital One in no way endorses the views/opinions portrayed during the news broadcasts in which we advertise.

And Ford Motor Company

I agree with you about the rantings of the hopelessly pig-headed Mr. O’Reilly, recognize that I am just an innocent bystander in this email letter silliness. I work at Ford and support Ford, but have no idea how the decisions are made on where we advertise. Frankly, as a mainstream company, we advertise everywhere there are good ratings. That is not an endorsement of the show — that is recognition that people are watching the show. Don’t know why they watch that mindless ranting. But they watch in droves. Welcome to America, I guess.

Although all of these advertisers clearly abhor O'Reilly's comments - and not one has attempted to defend them - none appear willing to take the next step and pull their support, even temporarily as a statement in support of criminal victims, because O'Reilly still gets "high ratings".

I guess money talks and values walk for some people. Especially U.S. corporations. Clearly they need to made aware that their ads are an endorsement of the show since their ads pay for the show! You can't make a stronger endorsement than keeping the show on the air.

The point isn't that O'Reilly made a stupid comment in 2006, it's that instead of simply acknowledging it or correcting it - he's began a campaign of terrorism (yeah, I said it), hate-mongering and smear purely to obstruct and deflect from his own actions.

And this isn't the first time - he's staged these kinds of Ambush-interviews at least 40 Times. No one is arguing that being out-of-control drunk is a good thing, that's not the issue. O'Reilly absolutely has a right to state his views - but when those views are knowingly and clearly FALSE, and when he attempts to use his platform to intimidate those who point out his falsehoods - he should be held to account.

O'Reilly doesn't care whose right or wrong - he only cares to use this argument to continue his paranoid persecution complex, and deluded attacks on anyone who supports the middle, the center or the hated "Left".

If you agree - join the petition to make O'Reilly's Advertisers realize just what you really think of him, and what you think of THEIR continued support of such his hate-speech and terror-tactics. All it takes for hate and evil to spread, is for the good to do nothing.

Meanwhile to help clear your palate from all that negativity: here's a little bit of what O'Reilly "isn't hearing" about alcohol and drug abuse from the media, Sixx A.M.'s "Life is Beautiful"



Update: UPS has pulled their advertising. from the O'Reilly Factor!

Vyan

Powell: Close Gitmo Now!

This morning on Meet the Press former Secretary of State Colin Powell strongly denounced America's use of Guantanemo Bay to detain terrorist suspects as well as the Military Commission system which so far, has completely failed to implement justice for even a single detainee.

Watch it:

[It's] a major problem for America’s perception. Iif it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo — not tomorrow, this afternoon.

But it's not like he would simply let them go....

I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system.

Preempting the argument that this might give some of them "access to lawyers" and "habeas corpus".

So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And oh, by the way, we have over 2 Million people in our jails who all had access to lawyers and habeas corpus - we know how to handle bad people in this country.

Then he truly hit the nail on the head when it comes to why some in our government continue to insist on the need for Gitmo.

[E]very morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds,

That's right kiddies, we've been hiding these people in Gitmo not because of what they've done - but because of what we've done to them in our efforts to gain information using illegal methods. The entire Military Commissions Act was designed to protect and hide the use of coercive interrogation techniques, to allow for the use of that coereced evidence and even stripped away the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. As Jonathan Turley has pointed out...

It's only through Habeas, that you have access to all your other rights.

By striping Habeas from "alien unlawful enemy combatants" the MCA attempted to block access to all of their rights, because without that one - none of the others can even be addressed. This strategy was the perfect follow-on to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which claimed to prohibit torture, yet at the same time blocked the ability of detainees to bring mistreatment claims before a court in their own defense. So sure, "we don't torture" - but if we did, there's nothing anyone can do about it is there?

Exactly why some people seem enamoured with this Jack Bauer bullshit is beyond me. It doesn't even work in fantasyland. Last night I saw a 24 rerun, where they captured CTU techinician Gial after he had been helping the Salazar Cartel as Jack broke it's leader out of prison. Ryan Chappele ordered chemical torture techniques to be used on him and guess what... he didn't break. Not until Tony Almeada showed up and let them know he, Gial and Jack had been setting up and undercover sting operation on the Salazars.

Oops.

And now we've taken this cowardly macho bullcrap and implemented it internationally. U.S. CIA operatives are being tried for kidnapping in Italy. Many of our own NATO allies are furious with us over our Secret Prisons.

We don't need to do this, we never did - just as Powell summarized.

[W]e have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open… We don’t need it, and it’s causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.

Amen to that.

It's feuling the international Jihad, it's fueling the insurgency. It's part of the perpetual insurgency engine. It's long past time we switched that engine off.

Vyan

The Sociopathic Disease of Conservatism

I've made this argument - that Conservatism is a Disease - for quite sometime, but this will be one of the first times I really get down to the nitty gritty of it. It's been my feeling that the modern day conservative cult that thrives in America is fueled by a low-grade form of anti-social pathology and compulsive-addictive disorder. They're like Hate-Junkies. And the number one thing they hate are Liberals.
Recently the following screed was posted as a comment on my lonely little blog.

Anonymously - of course.

Liberalism is a mental disorder,
This is the agenda of the Left. And they don't even try to hide it:

1. Re-establish the "Fairness Doctrine" to silence Conservative Talk Radio
2. Insure the success of the Mexican (and other Third World) invasion and conquest of White America.
3. Disarm all law-abiding citizens
4. Silence all speech of which they disaprove by expanding the definition of "Hate Speech", and pass laws to make such speech punishable by imprisonment.
5. Immediately surrender to the enemy in the Islamic War.
6. Establish Islam as a State-Protected Religion with assistance by CAIR and government schools.

My immediate response was the following.

If they "don't try to hide it" could you find any single respected "Liberal" who openly, or even on the sly - endorses any of that crap?

My own view is...

1. Re-establish the "Fairness Doctrine" to silence Conservative Talk Radio.

The Fairness Doctrine would do no such thing. It would actually require that the News, be the News - while Equal Time for Commentary and Editorialism would be enforced.

2. Insure the success of the Mexican (and other Third World) invasion and conquest of White America.

By what - making them American too? I'd say that's America conquering them.

3. Disarm all law-abiding citizens

Short 2nd Amendment Lesson, there's nothing in there about law abiding citizen, law enforcement or hunting. The 2nd Amendment is directed specifically at "a well regulated militia" being neccesarily for the maintainance of freedom from tyranny. You in a Militia? No? Then it doesn't apply to you.

4. Silence all speech of which they disaprove by expanding the definition of "Hate Speech", and pass laws to make such speech punishable by imprisonment.

I do support enforcement and some moderate expansion of Hate Speech and FCC regulation of same. But not to stop such speech, simply to make it painful to be an asshole in public. If we can fine ABC for Janet Jackson's titty we could fine Imus or Limbuagh, but they'd both still be on the air.

5. Immediately surrender to the enemy in the Islamic War.

Which Islamic War? - the one between the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq or the one in Afghanistan and Pakistan aginst Al Qaeda? In the former case, we've got no hunt in that fight. Do we side with the Sunni or the Shia? In the later case I've heard NO ONE suggest we should surrender to Al-Qeada or Hezbollah for that matter, in fact Democrats have been struggling to get Bush to send more troops to Afghanistan by taking them out of Iraq..

6. Establish Islam as a State-Protected Religion with assistance by CAIR and government schools.

Ok, that's just ridiculous. Liberals and Progresses want protection from a state sponsored religion, y'know like the Pilgrims and the Quakers who were trying to escape the persecution of Henry VIII's Anglican Church. Or for that matter - the Taliban.

Now I'd like to take my response a bit further, and rather than address the tit-for-tat points of Mr. Anonymous, consider exactly how anyone could come to believe such drivel. I understand of course, that these were merely boiler-plate cut-and-paste straw-man B.S. right-wing talking points. In understand that this person clearly hasn't been reading my blog, or it's crossposts on Dkos, Democratic Underground or OpedNews and hasn't seen what I've already discussed concerning The I-Mess or Immigration or Hate Crimes Legislation. (Cuz y'know... Facts are for Pussies!) It's clear that this just typical right-wing radio blather. I know that this is a form of Projection, making accusations of others that are simply fun-house mirror reflections of their own actual positions. (Liberlism is accused of being a "mental disorder", when in all likelyhood it is Rabid Neo-Conservatism that is based on abnormal pathology),

I know he's just a troll!.

I understand all this, but what I've always felt disturbing is how many people are more than willing to eat this stuff up and spew it right back out. Normally I wouldn't care, except for one thing - I'm pretty sure all these deeply deluded people vote!

As I've written before on Hating the Enemy, (namely Liberals) the leaders of the right-wing movement are not at all shy about telling us how they feel and who we should be hating.

Let's do a quick review (thanks to Media Matters) of some of the things that Republicans, including Hannity, regularly say about Democrats and Liberals.

• Sean Hannity suggested that the DNC may have been behind the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos, asking: "Was that a DNC plot too?" (The Sean Hannity Show, 9/10/04)
  
  
• Laura Ingraham stated that Democratic Sens. John Kerry (MA), Joseph R. Biden Jr. (DE), and Barbara Boxer (CA) are "on the side of" North Korea leader Kim Jong Il because they were opposed to John R. Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. (Hannity & Colmes, 4/11/05).
  
  
• Ann Coulter on Bill Clinton, "he was a very good rapist" and "molested the help" and on Al Gore, "Before we knew he was clinically insane" - "He seemed kinda gay"
  
  
• Bill O'Reilly says he doesn't do "personal attacks", except of course for when he does.
  

On The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly has referred to media writer and Fox News Watch panelist Neal Gabler as a "rabid dog" and said of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, "How nuts is this guy?" O'Reilly also said guest Christopher Murray "sounds like a fascist" for saying that that public institutions should not display religious symbols and called former Public Broadcasting System host Bill Moyers a "totalitarian." Students at the University of Connecticut who heckled right-wing pundit Ann Coulter during her campus appearance there earned the title of "far-left Nazis" from O'Reilly. He's also called John Kerry a "sissy", and claimed that Bill Clinton would be welcomed as president by Osama bin Laden.


• Jonah Goldberg has distorted comments by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), called syndicated columnist Helen Thomas a "thespian carbuncle of bile," and accused former President Jimmy Carter of engaging in a "mildly ghoulish exploitation of Coretta Scott King's funeral."
  
  
• Then of course there's Michelle Malkin whose has claimed that "the vast majority of Hispanic politicians" believe that "the American Southwest belongs to Mexico;" has referred to certain Californian politicians as "Latino supremacists;" and characterized recent immigration protests as "militant racism" marked by "virulent anti-American hatred."

All of these people, are playing the Fear Card. Fear the brown-skins and the darkies. Fear the muslims. Fear the fags. Fear the ACLU. And Fear the Liberals who somehow have this crazy idea that America is supposed to be somekind of "Land of the Free" where all kinds of weird and different and disgusting people are supposed to be able to "Seek the American Dream" or some such nonesense. John Dean has written about this strategic re-writing of Americas History in his book "Consevatives without Conscience"

In their efforts to present conservatism as an Ameican tradition, conservatives have also reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. One of the key elements of the Constitution is the establishment of a unique republic, in that a federal system would coexist with state and local governments. Before it was ratified many opponents attacked its progressive and innovative nature, for far from representing teh status quo, the Constitution was dramatically liberal.

James Madison defended it in The Federalist Papers by explaining that the founders "have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom" but rather employed "numerous innovations... in favor of private rights and public happiness." Madison sid that "precedent could no be discovered," for there was no other government" on the face of the globe" that provided a model. Madison, the father of the Constitution, clearly saw his work as the opposite of conseratism.

Yet conservatives today continue to exploit xenophobia and paranoia of all things "progressive" all tucked up in nice neat American Flag wrapper of gingoism.. Dean also argued that what currently drives the conservative movement is nothing less than Totalitarian Authoritarism. From his appearance on the Daily Show with John Stewart.

Dean: In dealing with that, in the Milgram experiments, where he brought people in off the street, and indeed found that he could get them to administer high voltage -- what they thought was high voltage, and it wasn't. I deal with that to show how people can set their conscience aside. In other words, how do people go into the CIA every day and carry out some of the orders for torture? How do people go into NSA and turn that incredible apparatus against Americans? This is a typical Milgram situation. I actually go beyond that to find the nature of the authoritarian personality that will follow a leader who is an authoritarian.

In Milgram it was shown that otherwise normal people would submit their own conscience to the will of an authority figure and would, if continually pushed to do so, administer a lethal level electric shocks despite the screams and protests of the intended victim. Compare this with the definition of a Sociapath.

Sociopaths are very egocentric individuals that lack a sense of personal responsibility and morality. They may be impulsive, manipulative, reckless, quarrelsome, and consistent liars. Sociopaths are usually unable to sustain relationships and have a total lack of remorse for their actions. The sociopath may also be very prone to aggressive, hostile, and sometimes violent behavior. This aggression may or may not lead to criminal behavior and often takes the form of domestic violence. Along with these other actions, sociopaths often engage in self-destructive behavior such as alcoholism or addiction to drugs. This, of course, usually worsens many aspects of the sociopathic behavior. Despite these previous symptoms, the sociopath may be an excellent actor, always appearing charming, calm, and collected. They usually have a normal or above normal intelligence level and good verbal fluency. It is these qualities that sometimes place the sociopath in leadership positions within their social groups and often make it hard to spot their "black side".

Essentially Sociopaths have no conscience, no morality as we would describe it. Whereas Dean discusses the ability for ones conscience to be selectively suppressed under specific situations and in regards to specifics types or groups of individuals when directed by a "trusted authority". Clearly, a true sociopath doesn't need to be directed by others - and frankly wouldn't allow it - yet their behaviors remain markedly similar.

We can see it in the way the Bill O'Reilly can be so charming at one moment and then a raging lunatic the next. We can see it in Douglas Feith as smilingly twists reality and facts regarding Saddam and Al-Qaeda into linguini. We can see it with Bill Kriston, Michelle Malkin, Katie O'Beirn and Ann Coulter. These people are the standard bearers of the right-wing. The "Authorities" to which many for which many of our fellow citizens are willfully neutered their own conscience in aquiesence to. Here's an example from Dr. Bob Altemeyer, one of Dean's primary sources, intoducing his new book - The Authoritarians.

For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?

Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.

The idea that "All Men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights" is lost on these people. All rights become optional, based on whether that person passes the proper litmus test. Maintaining Habaes Corpus is "giving terrorists special rights." Monica Goodling did "nothing wrong" when she attempted to achieve ideological purity within the Justice Dept, that's the way it should be. Tim Griffin did nothing wrong by systematically caging the votes of African-American Troops while their were serving in Iraq. Who said their opinion and vote should matter? War Crimes and Torture are good for our intelligence, that is if we did do the torture. Karl Rove is just so misunderstood. I need my tax money for the down payment on my second condo. The poor are just lazy and deserve what they get. Iraq had it coming. The President has the "inherent power" to do any damn thing he feels like. Valerie Plame-Wilson had it coming. Good healthcare is for those who can afford it. Whose Bin Laden, that Obama guy running for President? Free Libby! Climate Change is just a hoax and even if it's not we didn't do it - it was sunspots, or volcanos, or maybe all the animals in the rain-forest farted - so there's nothing we can do to stop it. Stop bugging me, I need to refill the tank on my new Cadillac Escrapade, anyone got change for $1000?

See, I can do The Running-Man the "Straw-man" too.

All of these arguements are about shifting blame and responsibility for all the ills of the world - to someone else. Anyone but us.

The real truth about being liberal is simply that you realize that we are all connected. Economically. Bio-chemically. Thermo-dynamically. What happens at the bottom of the ocean can change weather patterns across half the globe. What happens in a cave in Afghanistan can change an entire National pathology on the other side of the world. The truth about Liberals isn't that we "Hate America First", we love America's promise and potential and are angered and disgusted when we see her fail to live up to that promise - that All Men Are Created Equal.

With that view in mind we don't or even really hate conservatives, we only hate what they've done to regress this nation back toward the type of totalitarian and repressives states that predated the Great Elightenment and the truly progressive vision that birthed this nation. Those regressive forces will always be there, but the tide of history is not on their side - it's on ours.

I don't hate conservatives. I for one, pity them. They need help. (Treatment, Rehab, a Colonic - anything!) Even if they don't deserve it, certainly won't seek it and won't return it. If they honestly and openly ask for it, Liberals will provide it.

Does anyone believe conservatives would do the same?

Vyan

The Brutality of Rudy Giuliani

Today former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is often painted as "America's Mayor" after his decisive response to the attacks on September 11, 2001.

What is often forgotten and ignored is the well worn streak of brutality and totalitarianism that runs like a river through both his public and private actions. Let us look back to before the 9/11, to 1999 and Giuliani's dramatic reforming of the NYPD for both the better and the worst.

From Human Rights Watch.

New York is enjoying a dramatic drop in violent crime, with some attributing it to the police department's emphasis on more minor, "quality of life," crimes, such as graffiti, squeegee windshield washing, and subway turnstile-jumping, pursued as a way to demonstrate control of the streets and to apprehend individuals who may have outstanding arrest warrants against them.

...

Police abuse experts have wondered why, if the police leadership is eager to stop crime by aggressively pursuing minor criminals and crimes, it is failing to demonstrate the same aggressiveness in dealing with officers before they commit more serious offenses.

In 1997 the Giuliani dichotomy of being tough on civilians who commit minor offense and light on police who abuse their authority gradually began to be exposed and led to several tragic incidents.

First there was the wrongful arrest, torture and sexual abuse of Abner Louima by NYPD officers who mistakenly thought he had insulted one of them outside of a night club.

A federal court jury in Brooklyn convicted three New York City cops March 6 of conspiring to cover up the 1997 station house torture of Haitian immigrant Abner Louima.

Thomas Weise and Thomas Bruder each face five years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to obstruct a federal investigation into the savage assault on Louima. The third cop, Charles Schwarz, was convicted in a previous trial as an accomplice with Justin Volpe in torturing the immigrant worker inside the bathroom of the 70th Precinct in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn.

Volpe, convicted of sodomizing Louima with a broken piece of a broomstick, tearing a one-inch hole in his rectum and bladder, was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Schwarz, who was found guilty of holding Louima down during the attack, faces up to a life sentence.

The three cops greeted the verdict with disbelief and rage. "They're f—-ing liars; this is f—-ing bullshit," exclaimed Schwarz, who turned his wrath on his lawyer. As he was taken back into custody he slammed the wall and shouted out other obscenities.

Let me point out again that Louima wasn't even the guy they were looking for in the first place! This kind of brutality doesn't just happen, there has to be a permissive attitude in play at the department in order for anyone - let alone several officers - to believe that kidnapping and assaulting someone this way, not to mention intimidating witness and the victim to "keep quiet" could possibly work.

And how did Rudy react at the time? (From Human Rights Watch)

In August 1997, after the alleged torture of Haitian immigrant Abner Louima by police officers made national headlines and outraged city residents, the anti-crime record of the mayor and police department was tarnished. In uncharacteristic fashion, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Police Commissioner Howard Safir condemned the officers implicated in the incident as well as those who reportedly did nothing to stop it or report it.2 These were welcome condemnations, but conflicted with the mayor's persistent and seemingly automatic defense of officers accused of abusive treatment - even when he lacked a factual basis to do so - in his first term.

So did Rudy then take decisive steps to correct the problem? Not really.

Even when the mayor himself asked a task force to review police-community issues following the alleged beating and torture of Abner Louima, he immediately criticized the task force's majority report: "Some of the things [recommended] we've already done. Some of the things I've opposed in the past, I'll continue to oppose them. And some of the things are unrealistic and make very little sense."

Two years after Louima, another high profile police misconduct case landed on Rudy's lap - the murder of Amadou Diallo.

In February 1999, four New York City policemen searching for a rape suspect knocked on Amadou Diallo's door to question him. When he came to the door he reached inside his jacket, at which point the officers shot at him 41 times, hitting him with 19 bullets. The object Diallo was reaching for turned out to be his wallet.

Many New Yorkers were incensed and began to raise cries of W.W.B. - "Walking While Black!"

In New York City under Rudy Giuliani, we have seen the terrible resurgence of officially condoned police racism. Not long ago, a black cast member of a Broadway play was arrested and held overnight, missing his performance. Like Diallo, his only "crime" was that of being a black man in his own building at a time when it came under police attention. Ask any young black man in New York City, neatly dressed teenager or even a computer consultant wearing a suit, how many times he has been stopped and harassed by the police.

...

Giuliani's first Mayoral campaign began in a police riot, which no-one today remembers. The cops were demonstrating in front of City Hall, then inhabited by a black mayor, David Dinkins. Giuliani stood on the steps and delivered a speech so incendiary that the cops, many of them already drunk, began beating journalists and blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge. It is heavily ironic that Giuliani no longer permits demonstrations on the steps of City Hall.

After Diallo, there was also the case of shooting of Patrick Dorismond:

On March 16, 2000, an undercover New York City narcotics officer approached Haitian-American Patrick Dorismond to solicit marijuana. Dorismond reportedly grew upset at officer's request, and scuffled with Detective Anthony Vasquez, who fatally shot Dorismond. Dorismond was later found to not have any drugs or weapons on him.

As he had done before, Giuliani blamed the victim.

Before Patrick Dorismond's body was cold, the Giuliani administration launched an obscene campaign to vilify the dead security guard and all but portray him as someone who had a police bullet coming to him. Having little to work with, Giuliani ordered Police Commissioner Safir to unseal a juvenile record on the man, disclosing that he had been arrested for robbery and assault in 1987, when he was 13.

The charge, reportedly stemming from a childhood fist fight over a quarter, was dropped and his record sealed because he was a child. But Giuliani's legal advisers took the position that once he was dead, Dorismond's right not to have police records from his childhood publicized by the mayor died with him. It allowed Giuliani to declare that Dorismond was no "altar boy" and that his previous brush with the police "may justify, more closely, what the police officer did."

As for the cop who shot the security guard, Giuliani praised him for his "distinguished" career as an undercover officer, declaring that in going out and shooting an innocent, unarmed man to death in the street he "put his life on the line in the middle of the night to protect the safety and security of this city."

But then 9/11 happened washed all this away from our collective memories, remaking Rudy into a brand new golden boy for the G.O.P.

He became a key speaker at the G.O.P's 2004 Presidential Convention even while NYPD officers continued their suppression tactics and even engaged in political espionage. Milking the situation for every ounce of juice Rudy wrote to the Republican faithful in an RNC mass-mailing on the eve of the 2004 elections repeating what he'd stated on the Convention floor.

On September 11, our nation faced the worst attack in our history.

On that day, we had to confront reality. Our people were brave in their response.

At the time, we believed we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, "Thank God George Bush is our President." I've been saying that every day since.

We needed George Bush then; we need him now; and we need him for four more years!

That conversation has since been shown to have been a complete fabrication, while Bernard Kerik who Giuliani had been pushing as the new head of Homeland Security has since been unceremoniously tossed off the bus in the wake of ethics issues and alleged ties to organized crime.

Skip forward to the here and now.

I have recounted all the above in such detail in order to provide context for what may be some of the most chilling aspects of Rudy Giuliani radical authoritarianism to be yet revealed : His belief in absolute Presidential Authority.

From Glenn Greenwald.

Rudy was asked about the Iraq supplemental. He said he finds it "irresponsible and dangerous." Then he began to muse about, after a veto, "would the president have the constitutional authority to support them [the troops], anyway?" He said he's a lawyer so he wouldn't offer an opinion "off the top of his head," then he proceeded to do just that.

He seemed to suggest that Bush could fund the Iraq war without Congress providing funding, but it was confusing. In an interview with a New Hampshire TV reporter after his remarks, he seemed more categorical and said, since the war had been authorized by Congress, the president has "the inherent authority to support the troops." But he added, "You have to ask a constitutional lawyer."

Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional Lawyer, and he's not down with this.

Not only does Rudy believe that the President has some magic ability to fund a War on his own (ala Iran/Contra) but he also believes that the President has the authority to imprison American Citizens without charges, justification or review.

This view flies totally in the fact of Hamdi v Rumsfeld which clearly called for Judicial Review in such cases:

It would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.

Following Hamdi the 109th Congress via the MCA effectively suspended the writ for foreign combatants - but it did not suspended for U.S. Citizens and the President certainly does not have that power independent of Congressional authority.

Giuliani may simply be confused on this point - but I doubt it since also think the President has the inherent power to defy the will of Congress.

In fact, it may well be this very long and clearly defined authoritarian streak of Giuliani's that is making him the darling of the Neo-Con Sect, causing them to brush aside his pro-abortion, pro-gay stances even among the deepest, darkest hearted of the red-staters. Especially among them.

For you see, they love nothing so much as a whip-cracking, brutal authoritarian in those parts. Just listen to what Katie O'Beirn and Rich Lowry have said about how Giuliani "women issues" have actually helped him. Lowry via Greenwald...

Have been talking to some smart people today about Giuliani. Two of them said independently that the appeal of Giuliani is he'd be "a tough SOB -- for you," and that he'd be "a d*head -- for you." Another said . . . that a Giuliani supporter he knows considers the nasty divorce a kind of asset because it speaks to his toughness. . . .

I think it's clear he'd be a "tough dickhead son of a bitch" for somebody - but there's no guarantee that it's going to you.

Greenwald on O'Beirn:

O'Beirne passed along an email from a friend which stated: "Contrary to popular speculation, the apparently brutal public dumping of Donna Hanover can only bolster the popularity of the man with conservatives." O'Beirne also suggested that an old Giuliani campaign ad showcasing his lovely family could be revised to say: "Don't worry. I dumped them all because I am that tough guy."

The Past is Prologue.

If you look back, the signs are all there. With a Giuliani Presidency we can not expect to see an actual moderate Republicanism, we will not see "Compassionate Conservative" finally realized, instead we can expect to see an even more extreme version of the Unitary Executive Theory than we have from John Yoo, more corruption and cronyism (Kerik), and even more excuses and justifications of racial profiling (against Muslims, Blacks and probably Latinos), illegal detainment of suspects and possibly even torture than we've seen so far from President Bush.

And that's saying something.

Even back in 1998 in response to Louima and Diallo - some New Yorkers saw it all clearly. He is George Bush Redux.

The kind of mayor I want for my city would be deeply agitated by the killing of Amadou Diallo and would ask why he had such poorly trained, highly strung "heroes" patrolling in plainclothes. Giuliani, on television, merely seemed pained, as he always does. Undoubtedly he wishes it had not happened, but only because it is a nuisance to deal with and (had it gotten out of control,

Yes, exactly how George Bush looked pained by the aftermath of Katrina - not because he was sorry that it had happened to all those who lost their lives and homes, but that it had happened to deeply embarrass him.

More from 1999:

Rudy Giuliani is a dictator in waiting. He is self righteous, absolute, has no sense of humor, and will go to any lengths to punish his enemies. He is temperamentally completely unsuited to be senator [As he was vying at the time], as it is a job requiring negotiation, collegiality, and charm. I believe he is interested in the job for one reason only: as a stepping stone to the Presidency. If so, he would be the most dangerous president since Richard Nixon. In fact, I think he would be more dangerous: Nixon doubted himself and sometimes hesitated at the opportune moment; Giuliani feels no doubt and will not hesitate.

He feels no doubt and would not hesitate, as Bush continues to "feel no doubt" about his decision to attack, invade and occupy an unarmed Arab nation?

This "lack of doubt", his self-righteous and authoritarian nature is exactly why he continues to be the rights true darling, and why should he succeed in claiming the Republican nomination he should be opposed by all who abhor neo-con fascists at all costs.

Vyan

Bush's War on Fact (and NYT) Escalates to DefCon 3

As reported by Glenn Greenwald, the Bush Administration is threatening legal action against the NY Times for exposing Dick Cheney's lies about Iraq.

While speaking with Rush Limbaugh

They're off to a good start. It is difficult, no question about it, but we've now got over 300,000 Iraqis trained and equipped as part of their security forces. They've had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States. If you look at the general overall situation, they're doing remarkably well.

The NY Times on the other hand has release a classified Pentagon Report indicating that Iraq is Slipping Toward Chaos.

Guess who the Bush Administration wants to put in the penalty box?

But of course - according to Fox News - it's the New York Times.

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is looking into how classified information indicating Iraq is moving closer to chaos wound up on the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, and is not ruling out an investigation that could lead to criminal charges.

A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for operations in Iraq, confirmed to FOX News that a chart published in The Times is a real reflection of the thinking of military intelligence on the situation in Iraq as of Oct. 18, adding that an effort is underway to find out who leaked the chart and if the breach of operational security constitutes a crime.

So Fox News has confirmed that the Chart reflects the Truth - and the Pentagon response is "Who leaked it?"

The shrill call for heads to roll has already begun to ricochet around the wingnut-o-sphere.

Michelle Malkin -

Meant to get to this earlier, but the newspaper of wreckage is at it again--publishing illegally leaked classified information about the war in yet another transparent effort to sway the election.

The article title: "Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos."

After blabbing about the classified info revelaed in the article for 11 paragraphs, the Times notes:

A spokesman for the Central Command declined to comment on the index or other information in the slide. "We don't comment on secret material," the spokesman said.

The article then continues to blab about the illegally leaked info for another seven paragraphs.

Mario Loyola (National Review) has some questions:

I want to know whether there is any level of national secret the Times is not willing to betray for the political advantage of its pet causes.

There is nothing the blabbermouths won't blab if it hurts the Bush administration.

And I would like to know what else they may have doctored on the slide.

Hello, Justice Department?

And while we're at it, I would love to understand why the law doesn't prohibit the propagation of strategic national secrets in wartime -- which has always been understood as treason.

So let see, the New York Times prints the truth - and they know it's the truth - and as a result it's assumed they only did it because they're just a bunch of "Bush Haters", are accused of making shit up and of being traitors?

The question of why Dick Cheney has repeated lied to the American public doesn't even enter the equation. How about this one: Why was the chart in question - which has merely verified what has been obvious since the bombing of the Golden Mosque in February - classified in the first place?

This isn't strategic or tactical data. It doesn't tell us anything about how U.S. or Iraqi Forces plan to respond - it simply gives an assessment of where things are, and where they is not Disneyland.

Sharing that information doesn't hurt the War on Terra &tm, it simply hurts the Bush Administration's ability to lie with impunity.

BushGov was pretty pissed about Banking Leak, the NSA Eavesdropping Leak, and the Secret Prisons leak, never mind that most of these actions on the part of the Administration violated both U.S. and International law. Oh... and they were all true.

But leaking classified information about Valerie Plame-Wilson and destroying our ability to detect and fight weapons proliferation in Iraq and Iran? No problem. How about Republican Senator Pat Robertson leaking classified info which hampered our efforts to capture Saddam Hussein? No biggie.

Glenn sums it up:

This is what the ideal world of the Bush follower looks like: If the Government is waging a war and things are going horribly, the Government has the right to lie to its citizens and claim that things are going remarkably well. If a newspaper is furnished with documents prepared by the military that shows that the Government is lying and that things are actually going very poorly, the newspaper should then be barred from informing their readers about that truth -- and ought to criminally prosecuted, perhaps even executed, if they do so.

It truly takes an authoritarian mind of the most irredeemable proportions to watch our political leaders have their lies exposed about a war and have as their first reaction the desire that those who exposed the lies be prosecuted and imprisoned. But it isn't just Bush followers here who are demanding that, but the Bush administration itself, through the military, that is threatening to do so.

This threat is quite real IMO, especially with Alberto Gonzales already on record as threating to prosecute journalists.

Over the weekend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a Draconian threat to prosecute journalists for writing about the National Security Agency's clandestine and illegal monitoring of U.S.-overseas telephone calls. That threat shows what an Orwellian farce the government's classified information system has become.

Gonzales is threatening to prosecute reporters under the 1917 Espionage Act. This anachronistic act was passed during World War I to make it illegal for unauthorized personnel to receive and transmit national defense information. The law is also currently being used to prosecute two lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for obtaining and transmitting classified information they received from a U.S. Defense Department employee. The lobbyists' lawyers have filed a motion in court arguing that the law is an unconstitutional breach of the First Amendment right to free speech.

Gonzales threats are bad enough, but if the Pentagon gets involved, all bets are off the table after the passage of the Military Commissions Act and the obliteration of Habeas Corpus for non-U.S. Citizens. Reporters could literally just - Disappear.

Think it couldn't happen? It already has to a Pulizer Prize Wining AP Photographer whose been in U.S. Custody for six months now without a hearing.

Military officials said Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen, was being held for "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions. AP executives said the news cooperative's review of Hussein's work did not find anything to indicate inappropriate contact with insurgents, and any evidence against him should be brought to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

Hussein, 35, is a native of Fallujah who began work for the AP in September 2004. He photographed events in Fallujah and Ramadi until he was detained on April 12 of this year.

Hussein is one of an estimated 14,000 people detained by the U.S. military worldwide - 13,000 of them in Iraq. They are held in limbo where few are ever charged with a specific crime or given a chance before any court or tribunal to argue for their freedom.

In Hussein's case, the military has not provided any concrete evidence to back up the vague allegations they have raised about him, Curley and other AP executives said.

This is not something that we can idly stand-by and let pass. This creeping totalitarianism is a real threat and most certainly will affect U.S. Citizens as we've already seen in cases such as Jose Padilla, Yasar Hamdi or the Liberty Seven. It has to be fought tooth and nail - stopped in it's tracks.

Hopefully November 7th will be a turning point. It must.

Vyan

Best. Keith. Ever!

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:

Keith pulled no punches and launched another smack down on Bush and FOX News…

Video - WMV Video - QT

And finally tonight, a Special Comment about President Clinton’s interview. The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President’s "portable public chorus" has described his predecessor’s tone as "crazed."

Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda; the nation’s "marketplace of ideas" is being poisoned, by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit. Nonetheless.

The headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration… did… not… try.—

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance, in American history!

President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs — some of them, 17 years old — before Pearl Harbor.

President Hoover was correctly blamed for — if not the Great Depression itself — then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.

Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War — though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

But not this President.

To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been President on September 11th, 2001 — or the nearly eight months that preceded it.

That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the Executive.

But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.

Except… for this:

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts — that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.

Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News, Friday afternoon.

Consider the timing: The very same weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is — not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it!

The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.

It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired — but a propagandist, promoted:

Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.

And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the question.

Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.

He told the great truth un-told… about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about Bin Laden.

He was brave.

Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I — in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist — and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.

Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11."

Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.

The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.

The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it — who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews — have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.

Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for Bin Laden in 1998 because of the Lewinsky nonsense — why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed Bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20th of that year? For mentioning Bin Laden by name as he did so?

That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."

Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.

Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri — the future Attorney General — echoed Coats.

Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.

And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky witch-hunt — who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt? Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?

Who corrupted the political media?

Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?

Who preempted them… in order to strangle us with the trivia that was… "All Monica All The Time"?

Who… distracted whom?

This is, of course, where — as is inevitable — Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.

The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.

But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.

The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton… but by the same people who got you… elected President.

Thus instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it… we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently redd the Orwell playbook too quickly.

Thus instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since — a statement that might range anywhere from Zero, to One Hundred Percent, true.

We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.

And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush — you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles… wrong.

Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be the textbook definition… Sir, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.

That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair — writing as George Orwell — gave us in the novel "1984."

The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power…

"Power is not a means; it is an end.

"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power."

Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.

"We must disenthrall ourselves."

Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence. He might well have.

"We must disenthrall ourselves — and then… we shall save our country."

And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date… to save… our… country.

—

The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush…

You did not act to prevent 9/11.

We do not know what you have done, to prevent another 9/11.

You have failed us — then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.

You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.

And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.

And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture — which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.And there it is, sir:

Are yours the actions of a true American?

I’m K.O., good night, and good luck.

Coming off the rails for Rove

This week the President's plan to "reinterpret" the Geneva Conventions ran into a bit of a snag - three snags - named McCain, Warner and Graham. But there's a subtext to this story of Republican vs Republican, if the President, Vice President and Secretary Rumsfeld's claims that anyone who disagree with them is "confused", "aiding the enemy" or an "appeaser" -- does that also apply to their Republican critics such as Colin Powell?

In opposing the President's plans Senator McCain stated Sunday on This Week.

"When in our custody Al-qaeda deserve nothing - except the fundamental rights that all prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. The Vietnamese treated us rather badly, but that didn't mean that responded by altering the Geneva Conventions".

"I believe this has nothing to do with politics," McCain said. "No matter what the political impact is, this is a matter of conscience."

But can McCain truly be taken seriously after his recent rightward turn and embracing of old foes such as Jerry Falwell? He seems to be the epitome of an opportunist, last year he fought hard to implement a torture ban, despite fierce Administration opposition only to have that ban implemented with a poison pill (the Graham/Levin Amendment) which denied detainees access to the courts and effectively rendered the entire bill moot and unenforceable. What is the point of banning torture if you also gag anyone who might have been tortured and deny them access to lawyers or the courts?

This is merely an exercise in political theater. But along the way McCain may have just step seriously on not just the President's shoes - but Karl Rove, the clear architect of the current"Democrats are weak" strategery.

The money quote however was this one:

"We have to hold the moral high ground. We're the nation that people look up to. We can't lower our standards simply because others do. We hold no respect for al-Qaeda. We don't think al-Qaeda will observe those Conventions - but we're going to be in other wars. And there's two reasons why all these retired military guys - who are not soft on terror or al Qaeda - are coming down vehemently against modifying the Geneva Conventions. 1) is the Moral High Ground. We are not like al Qaeda. There's a war on the battlefield and a psychological/idealogical war going on and 2) They are very worried about American forces who will fall into the hands of nations who will "reinterpret" or modify the Geneva conventions."

I would argue that there is a third reason that we shouldn't modify Geneva, because it can be considered a War Crime. And as I diaried on Dkos the other day, a country that sets and maintains a standard of treating it's captives well - has a greater chance for ultimate victory than one that mistreats them and provides further motivation for their opposition. This was made clear to us during WWII in Europe as Italian and German forces were far more likely to surrender to us, rather than the Russians and face their Gulags. And it was also made clear during the first Gulf War when most of Saddam's forces were more than eager to give up rather than be slaughtered. Now - partly because of Abu Ghraib and many other abuses such as Haditha and Fallujah - we face an enemy that would much rather die than be defeated and surrender.

However, the devil is in the details. Listening to Laura Flanders this weekend, she made the point that this isn't a case of three-card Monty with our rights. They aren't hiding under the House Bill, the Senate bill or the WhiteHouse Bill. All of these bills, like the Graham/Levin Amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, essentially toss habeas corpus out the window.

We may formally acknowledge that we will not violate Geneva. Fine. But if persons such as Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, who was apparently kidnapped by the CIA in Italy and sent to Egypt where he claims to have been tortured until they discovered he knew nothing and was released - would have no legal recourse. Olbermann has speculated about what happens when Khallid Sheik Mohammad, who has now been transfered to Gitmo begins talking to the Red Cross -- but the answer to that is nothing. He has no ability to sue under Graham/Levin, and that is likely to remain true under any bill that exits Congress before the Election.

Further, there is still the issue of evidence gathered using coercive means being introduced secretly at trial - where they would not be subject to a fruits of the poison tree challenge and the fact that Bush continues to claim special super-dooper executive powers that allow him to fore-go and ignore laws which he disagrees with (such as FISA). So what exactly is there to stop him from continuing to ignore Geneva no matter what Congress decides?

In the end, all the bluster, strum and drang between Powell, McCain and Bush is likely to amount to big hill of nothing. Bush will - must - do everything in his ability to protect himself from possible War Crimes prosecution, and if he has to use this ex post facto method of covering his tracks while giving a tacit nod to the continuance of Geneva - he will. But that doesn't mean he'll abide by the law. In the meantime, McCain's words that those who oppose the President - ARE NOT SOFT ON AL-QAEDA - should not go unrepeated.

Say it with me now - John McCain is not soft on Al Qaeda. John Murtha is not soft on Al-Qaeda. Neither is John Kerry or Russ Feingold.

The big loser in all of this - is Karl Rove - as it appears that some Republicans have not only abandoned the President, they've chosen to completely undercut the insult politics that this Administration thrives on. How do they now repeat the kinds of attacks we've seen on decorated veterans - who happen to be Democrats- such as Murtha, Max Cleland or Kerry?

How can they continue to argue that these guys are "traitors" or "appeasers" when their standing shoulder to shoulder with Powell, McCain, Graham and Warner?

I don't think they can.

Less than 60 days to the election and Rove has already played his trump card and had it fail. The Republicans are going to lose Congress, probably both Houses. Rove probably knows this well, as does the RNC. Their next likely strategy is to let the Democrats take control -- and then play the "see, look at what they do once their in power" game and argue for retention of the Presidency in 2008 by a Republican - an "independent" Republican (with Jerry Falwell's hand in his pocket) like McCain. A strategy that might prove very effective if Democrats attempt to impeach George Bush without first laying the groundwork and making the need for such an action clear in the minds of the American people.

Although the ranting of John Yoo in the New York Times Post should make the grave danger of the Bush Administration to the fabric of our Democracy obvious, it still hasn't sunk in yet. Glenn Greenwald shines a spotlight on it:

Why is it even necessary to point out that the U.S. President does not have the power to violate laws which he thinks are "wrongheaded or obsolete," or that Presidents have no authority to disregard "wrongheaded or obsolete judicial decisions" (whatever that might mean)? And what permits a "law professor" to claim otherwise on the Op-Ed page of the NYT? Under this administration, there is no notion too radical or authoritarian to be off limits not only from being subject to debate, but from being implemented.

Just look at the things we're debating -- whether the U.S. Government can abduct and indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens without charges; whether we can use torture to interrogate people; whether our Government can eavesdrop on our private conversations without warrants; whether we can create secret prisons and keep people there out of sight and beyond the reach of any law or oversight; and whether the President can simply disregard long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws because he has deemed that doing so is necessary to "protect" us.

It should be obvious that the people who are "confused" are inside BushGov. The ones who have further "emboldened the enemy" with their tactics aren't Kerry or Murtha, it's Bush and Cheney with their torture fetish. Unfortunately, I don't believe most of the American people truly realize just how fucked-up we've really become over the last five years - or that they'll finally figure it out over the next two.

But one can always hope.

Vyan

John Dean, Proto-Fascism and the Third Wave

Crossposted on Dailykos and Democratic Underground.

John Dean appeared this week on the Daily Show to discuss his new book Conservatives Without Conscience.

From Crooks and Liars:
Video -WMP Video -QT
Transcript by The Third Path

Dean: Unfortunately, it could happen here, and it hasn't happened here -- we don't typically talk about authoritarianism in democracy -- but indeed there is an authoritarian strain that has gotten into the conservative movement.

Dean and Stewart go on to discuss exactly how close we've come to Authoritarianism, or "Fascism" as Stewart suggest and Dean repeats his earlier statements from his Olbermann appearance that we "aren't there yet. It's only proto-Facism so far".

Dean: In dealing with that, in the Milgram experiments, where he brought people in off the street, and indeed found that he could get them to administer high voltage -- what they thought was high voltage, and it wasn't. I deal with that to show how people can set their conscience aside. In other words, how do people go into the CIA every day and carry out some of the orders for torture? How do people go into NSA and turn that incredible apparatus against Americans? This is a typical Milgram situation. I actually go beyond that to find the nature of the authoritarian personality that will follow a leader who is an authoritarian.

Stewart: Do you believe that the conservative movement has been overtaken by -- I mean, authoritarianism is another word, I guess, for fascism -- or do you think it's a weird confluence of events: an attack on American soil, a government that is unchecked by an oppositional party, in some respects -- Dean: First of all, it's proto-fascism. We're not there yet....read on

What Dean is describing reminds me of a fairly old story I'd heard. This High School History teacher was describing Nazi Germany to his students and one of them stood up and argued that what happened in that nation - couldn't happen here. His teacher begged to differ, and then went on to prove it. He began a student/school organization called the "Third Wave" - which was based entirely on authoritarianism. Facism. The movement swept through the school and create some rather intense results.

Ok, so I checked the web - and here's one racist right-wing site that discusses a TV movie that was eventually made about the event - and which rather frighteningly, misses the point entirely -- but then again maybe they don't.

BACK IN 1967 a very strange thing happened in a high school history classroom in California. Something amazing. Something that turned the then-emerging "me generation" on its head -- and showed us how we could have a real youth revolution, a White youth revolution, instead of the synthetic destruction-of-youth revolution we got instead. Something that was intended to be a "lesson against hate" -- but which quickly turned into a demonstration of something quite different indeed.

'It happened at Cubberly High School in Palo Alto, California. Remember, this was the height of the "do your own thing" Haight-Ashbury movement -- you know, Janis Joplin and that kind of stuff... Big Brother and the Holding Company. That crazy Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters were running around with their yellow bus, sipping LSD, and all that "groovy" stuff... the Doors, et cetera.

'And a man by the name of Ron Jones was a liberal teacher out there in Palo Alto. They didn't believe in bells and they didn't believe in textbooks. But they were talking about the "Holocaust" nonetheless.

'This was on a Friday afternoon. And Mr. Jones, the teacher, was asked "Well, listen, Mr. Jones, if they really killed six million Jews, why was it that the German people just stood around and did nothing? I mean, they could have seen the trains, they could have seen the smoke, the bones... I mean, they could have seen something. Why didn't they try to stop it?" And Jones didn't know. You know, being a good liberal, the lobotomized front part of his brain just shut off when he heard that. He didn't have an answer.

'So what he decided to do after he went home that day was to show these kids how easy it is to become a cog in a totalitarian machine. Supposedly, I mean -- this was his outlook.

But apparently not the outlook of the site I found this text on - their view was that Jones was really "on to" something, but just didn't have the heart or character to follow through on it.

Yeah - I know.

'On Monday morning he came into his classroom and began his experiment. Remember, these are 10th graders -- about 14 years old, probably. All White. All affluent. And all freaky -- with the long hair and all the rest of it.

Jones countered the students skeptism with insipiring platitudes:

"No, I'm just going to talk to you... about The Beauty of Discipline and Strength Through Discipline.

"Strength Through Discipline is going to take self training, through control, into the power of the will."

"That's the ultimate triumph that we can have: power through the will."

Eventually:

'And he went on to demonstrate that through a simple seating exercise. He had everyone line up against the wall and then quickly return to their seats, in the same position. And everyone kind of liked it. I quote him: "It was strange how quickly the students took to the uniform code of behavior. I began to wonder just how far they could be pushed. Was this display of obedience a momentary game we were all playing, or was it something else? Was the desire for discipline and uniformity a natural need?" I'll tell Mr. Jones right now: It is. As a teacher, I can see it.

The lessons went on for several more days, and eventually parents began to notice the difference in their kids.

'Wednesday night the rabbi called when Jones got home. He said "Mr. Jones, what are you doing to my kids? I've had many conversations with parents, and they don't like this... what is it? ...this Third Wave thing. It looks like a Nazi salute." Jones said, "Now listen, Finkelbaum, I'm just messing with their minds. I'm going to stomp on them. All I'm doing is just showing them how easy it is to become a Fascist."

The school began to change, as more students become Third Wave-ers and began to bully and intimidate those who were not. Jones continued the experienment directing the movement through various catch phrases.

STRENGTH THROUGH DISCIPLINE

STRENGTH THROUGH COMMUNITY

STRENGTH THROUGH ACTION

STRENGTH THROUGH PRIDE

But eventually the facade had to be broken:

On Friday he said "What's going to happen is we're going to go to the auditorium, and we'll meet the national leader. The national leader will be on television. We'll see him on television and we tell us exactly what to do." On Friday, there wasn't a set left in the auditorium. And here's what happened.

'Jones made a very big issue out of taking the TV set -- it was a portable TV set -- and plugging it in to the auditorium's AV system, and just letting it sit there, turned on but with no signal. He had tuned it between channels, and all you could see was fuzzy snow on the screen. And he just left it there, and closed the kids up in the auditorium.

'After about five minutes, a girl shrieked out: "There's no leader!" And she started to cry. And the entire audience started to cry and yell. And they broke up the TV set. They almost, to use the vernacular, trashed the place.

Now, some argue that the entire Third Wave incident is merely urban legend which has been embellished by Jones over the years -- maybe it has. I found nothing when searching for the supposed TV movie on IMBD.com where they list The Burning Bed (1984) and the original Charlie's Angels show from 1976(on DVD) - so you'd think they'd have this too unless it was just too long ago and too obscure.

From what I can tell this appears to be Jones own article on the event. Some details are different from the first version I found above, but the essentials are the same.

Most sites which tend to recount this story that I've found on the net so far are Aryan Supremacist to one degree or another, and that tends to make the larger point that what Jones describes seems to dovetail quite strongly with what Dean writes. Although there are certainly authorian tendencies on the left (Communism, Socialism) the rising tide of authoritarianism and proto-Facism in modern times is coming from the Right.

These various racist sites may quibble and wring their hands over Jones' apparent ambivelence about his experiment, and the fact that Jones himself was Jewish , they still nonetheless are highly motivated by his ability (or even the suggestion that it's fairly easy) to convert these "loser surfer" kids into jack-booted thugs within a few days.

Little do they contemplate that the same thing could happen with black or brown skinned kids - and one might say that the attractiveness of an authoritarin structure is exactly what drives kids into the arms of Black and Latino gangs.

Of course Skinheads are attracted to the idea that the Third Wave could lead to the rise of the Fourth Reich, and some might argue that the methods used by Jones way back in 1967 may have already be doing exactly that - programming many in nation into Sheeple - though the constant bleat of authoritarian views on Faux News and implementation of the strictly structured standardized tests of No Child Left Behind which seek to discourage independance and originality of thought or action by our youth.

While I admit this seems a bleak outlook, I have to point to the real life - and quite verified story - of an ex-neo nazi/skinhead recruiter T.J. Leyden.

Growing up in Fontana, CA T.J. was a directionless youth until he was spotted by Skinhead scouts. They took him in, gave him "direction" -- only that direction was ultimated soaked in hate. He spent the next 15 years of his life as a member of the movement - including a stint in the Marines - until finally he saw that save hate reflected in his children - and he said "No".

He turned away from the movement (and unfortunately his wife and family who remained members), joining with the Southern Poverty Law Center and Simon Weisenthal Center/Museum of Tolerance to teach anti-facism where he worked for fives years.

He was invited by President Clinton to be a featured speaker at the White House Conference on Hate, and he has trained at the Pentagon, the FBI, military bases, and for numerous law enforcement agencies. He has spoken to more than 650,000 students. He has also testified against individuals on trial for hate crimes. Although he receives regular death threats and must take extraordinary measures to protect himself from his former friends, Leyden is committed to being a fierce advocate for the importance of appreciating the differences in all people.

T.J. describes just how easy it was to recruit skinheads, particulartly while he was in the military.

[Leyden] A former Marine who regularly recruited fellow skinheads and hate-mongers into his group while wearing the uniform of his country, Leyden said the military environment - regardless of the branch of service - is a terrific feeding ground for a hate-group recruiter. "It was easy. ... The military is a great place to recruit people like I once was. They're trained, physically fit, disciplined, ... and many are away from home for the first time. Easy pickings. They're looking for anyone who will be their friend and defender," he said. "And that's just what we offered them."

That to me sounds a bit like:

Strength through Discipline - Strength through Community - Strength through Pride - Strength through Action.

At a time when reports are that skinheads are once again beginning to infiltrate our military, adn the military/authoritarian mindset is slowly creeping it's way into the national conscienceness in the wake of 9-11, and the midst of the growing Israel/Lebanon conflict - I'd say it's just too damn easy if you ask me. 23% of us can fil a whole lotta jack boots.

We can already see the trains and see the smoke, but are we - like Dean and T.J. - standing up to stop it?

Vyan

Update from Dkos Comments: The movie was called "The Wave" (1981) and is listed on IMDB here, it won Two Emmys, a Peabody Award and a Young Adult Award for best Television special, the Novel by Todd Stassel is available on Amazon.com.