Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditJohn Dean knows something about White House abuse of power. He wrote a bestseller in 2004 on the Bush White House called "Worse Than Watergate." In a recent interview I asked him what he thinks of that title now. Now, he replied, a book comparing Bush and Nixon would have to be called "Much, Much Worse."
"Look at the so-called Watergate abuses of power," he said. "Nobody died. Nobody was tortured. Millions of Americans were not subject to electronic surveillance of their communications. We're playing now in a whole different league."
And how does Bush compare with the Republicans seeking to succeed him? "If a Rudy Giuliani were to be elected," Dean said, "he would go even farther than Cheney and Bush in their worst moments."
What about the rest of the pack? "I'm very concerned about the current attitude in the Republican party," he said. "However there are candidates on the Republican side who are not quite as frightening as Giuliani." When I asked who he had in mind, he laughed and said "Ron Paul." He conceded that "there's no chance he's going to be president."
Dean's new book is "Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches." It's a massively documented and thorough indictment, arguing that, over the last 30 years, Republicans have broken or ignored laws, rules, and the Constitution. He's especially critical of the growth of presidential power under Bush II, and what he calls the "corruption" of the courts by "radical conservatives."
I asked Dean to imagine the moment when Bush leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009, presumably to be replaced by a Democrat, presumably Hillary -- will it then be possible to say "our long national nightmare is over"? Dean replied with one word: "Yes."
He quickly added, "I do feel strongly that the Republicans have so abused the law and embedded so many people within the system, within the executive branch, that's it's going to take a couple of terms of Democratic presidents before you have people there who are representing the American people."
Does that mean he is supporting Hillary? "She's obviously the one the other Democrats have to beat," he said, "but I don't take any position."
How then would he describe his political position? He says in his new book that he's left his "former tribe" - does that make him a Democrat today? "It doesn't," he replied. "I carry water for nobody. My only interest is being an honest information broker about what's happening. I have no agenda other than explaining - and being shocked at my former tribe."
"I've had invitations to become involved with Democrats," he added, "and have turned them all down. I'm an independent. That happens to be the largest group of voters in the country today - we're about 40 per cent strong."
When I pressed Dean to comment on the Democratic candidates, he said he was more interested in whether any Democrats would raise what he called "process" issues - "kind of a dull-sounding word, but actually it's about the machinery of democracy. I was stunned when the Kerry campaign in 2004 totally ignored the remarkable secrecy of the Bush administration. I called the Kerry campaign after the election, and asked them why they hadn't raised this issue. The Kerry people told me, 'We didn't raise it because it's a process issue.'"
"I began making inquiries," he continued, "and found that lots of Democratic party campaign consultants believe that the candidates shouldn't mention process issues. Democrats thought it would make them look wimpy to say 'we're being excluded from the legislative process.' Kerry didn't want to raise secrecy for the same reason - he thought it would sound wimpy."
Was Kerry right about the electorate? "I found that's exactly 180 digress away from the truth," Dean replied. "Most people can't tell you what a motion to recommit is. They don't know about that kind of process. But they know when they're getting screwed. And process is designed to protect the public interest. So people get it when the game of politics is not being played fairly, when one party is using the process for their own benefit. These kinds of things are of great interest to about 20 to 30 million voters."
What about the many more who are apathetic and ignorant -- doesn't that make him pessimistic about political change? Dean conceded that "large segments of the American public are turned off and tuned out from the democratic process. They can't name their senators. They don't know who's the Chief Justice. But the reason I'm optimistic is that I think we have enough proxies in those who are interested. They are fairly representative of those who are not. When you give them the information they need, they do the right thing. That's why I'm trying to give people good information and hard facts to show people what's gone wrong."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
if hillery gets the nomination...i'm writing in john dean...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 11:41am
But the reason I'm optimistic is that I think we have enough proxies in those who are interested.
if only i could vote..................
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 11:45am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 11:41am
sorry, no convicted felons.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 11:46am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/28/2007 @ 11:46am | i
just unconvicted felons...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 11:50am
WIENER: Dean conceded that "large segments of the American public are turned off and tuned out from the democratic process. ....But....I think we have enough proxies in those who are interested. They are fairly representative of those who are not. When you give them the information they need, they do the right thing. That's why I'm trying to give people good information and hard facts to show people what's gone wrong."
I don't follow Mr. Dean's post-Watergate whatevers....but his statements above is ludicrous and exceptionally SELF-SERVING!
Reasonably aware bloggers and activists, per Dean, "are fairly representative of those who are not"? And Dean expects to sell his NEW books to us?
Well, for someone obviously wishing Watergate would fade and be replaced with NEWxyz-gate.......can't get down on him for effort!
Posted by Happy at 09/28/2007 @ 11:51am
See, though I agree with him on the abuses of the Bush Admin....kinda dubious of Mr Dean's claim to "independence", since he almost never says an unkind word about the Democrats
Posted by Mask at 09/28/2007 @ 12:02pm
i have nothing against the republican party per se...but it is not the republican party mr. dean joined as a young man...
the ideology that most modern pubs follow is scary, intransigent, and undemocratic.
a pub party of ford, specter, dean, eisenhower would attract me greatly...
but these days...thats called "the democrats"
read dean's books...well written, well thought out.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 12:23pm
just unconvicted felons...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 11:50am
17,453,978 points for thee
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 12:27pm
dammit! do i have to write an effin web letter to bitch about hayes's raw dealing of burns' ww2 thing?
HAYES - BURNS IS AN HISTORIAN WHO MAKES FILMS - NOT AN IDEOLOGICAL ACTIVIST! WHAT THE HELL DOES HE HAVE TO DO? MAKE IT SOME KIND OF NEO MARXIST CLAPTRAP INDICTMENT OF THE OBVIOUS?
WAR BAD. WE KNOW. BURNS KNOWS.
ITS ABOUT WW2 - NOT NOW...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 12:29pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 12:29pm
There's a radical pacifist element, IBB....that doesn't even want WORLD WAR-II to be known as a "good war".
Posted by Mask at 09/28/2007 @ 12:36pm
Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 12:36pm
*sigh*
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 1:06pm
Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 12:36pm
even i, fz, say that ww2 was a very necessary evil, considering just how much greed had consumed the nazis.
and i feel bad for days if i squish an ant by accident
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 1:16pm
no war is good. its all evil.
but more vile by far to bury one's head so far into goodyness that vileness triumphs.
the reason ww2 is seen as the good war is the fact that we have indeed engaged ourselves in 2 inexcusably vile and unnecesary wars in which our motivation and virtuous intent has been questionable to say the least, in the last half century plus and long for the days when we were undeniably the good guys...
not perfect, but good nonetheless.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 1:25pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/28/2007 @ 1:16pm Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 1:25pm
Let me make a semantical clarification. "A war for a good cause".
Of course there are no "good wars". But the revisionism that we must PLAY UP the bad deeds of the "good guys" to be politically correct AND to point out the horrors of war, cannot stand. There was no general, and little specific "moral equivalence" (as Mr Hayes brought up in his "GI digging out gold teeth" example) between the Americans and the Imperial Japanese or especially the Nazis. Isolated incidents, sure. The injustice of the internment camps, of course. But we weren't the "Bataan Death March" side...nor the "Auschwitz/Dachau/Bergen-Belsen" side.
Posted by Mask at 09/28/2007 @ 1:38pm
as I have suggested before, the war in the pacific was one of two imperialist nations, US and Japan, fighting over the spoils of colonialism of the fading powers of France and England. Ideals had little to do with it. as for Pearl Harbor, a near state of war existed for four months between the two nations, an embargo will do that.
the war in Europe was a bit more complex. many historians believe it to be a continuation of WW1, to the extent that they consider it one war, with a brief cessation of hostilities.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2007 @ 1:48pm
incidentally I agree with Hayes.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2007 @ 1:49pm
actually not so sure hayes even watched the whole thing...some of his criticisms are directly contradicted by some of the parts i've seen.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 2:13pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 2:13pm | ignore this person
he acknowledged that in the article.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2007 @ 2:19pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/28/2007 @ 11:51am
I don't follow Mr. Dean's post-Watergate whatevers....but his statements above is ludicrous and exceptionally SELF-SERVING!
Reasonably aware bloggers and activists, per Dean, "are fairly representative of those who are not"? And Dean expects to sell his NEW books to us?
Well, for someone obviously wishing Watergate would fade and be replaced with NEWxyz-gate.......can't get down on him for effort!
Ah! How classically Greek of you Happy, shooting the messenger...
But I fear you've fallen wide of the mark all the way around. First, Dean has never belittled the seriousness of the Nixonian abuses of executive power (indeed, he was instrumental in exposing them in the first place) nor sought to reduce the importance of Nixon's faults and the rightness of the move to impeach. So you fail on the basic premise immediately.
Second, the idea that his equation of those who are aware of "process" questions with the basic attitudes of those in the electorate who are not is as sound a logical analogy as you can make. You are simply refusing to follow the argument Dean is making here, that those who don't understand process still understand the results and that those who do understand it will largely agree with them (being otherwise no different from the majority in the sense of opinion) on those results and will affect the electoral outcome accordingly in favor of the candidate who takes up process issues. Or to put it more simply: "if you talk about process, many voters won't notice but those that do will tend to pull in others seeking the same end results." I don't doubt the book has real numbers to back that idea up, especially given the mention of "20 to 30 million voters" in the following quotes on the subject from Dean. So here too, you've struck at an idea that's really fairly common sense logic and that Dean seems to be backing with polling and other data, and in so doing have once again fallen well outside your target zone.
Finally, there's the fairly obvious dig that this is all to sell Dean's new book. Well, at least here you managed to get a shot in the general direction of the target, but once again (as with the "excusing Watergate" tactic above) that relies on impugning the messenger (this time for pecuniary rather than reputational motives) but is still no more valid as a counter-argument. It is, in fact, as classical a logical fallacy as is possible (the venerable argumentum ad hominem) and it has only grown more rank with age.
Really Happy, if you want to argue against Dean's ideas, go ahead. But most of us will want some actual data or logic of your own if you expect to refute his argument. Until then, you're just shooting off at random...and not even touching the messenger you'd so like to silence.
Posted by Stwriley at 09/28/2007 @ 2:31pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2007 @ 2:19pm
well, not calling for a lynching, but just seems to reinforce many's view of the left as self destructively peaceful and autoflagellent. especially when featured front and center...
i also think he misses the point that burns is an historian, trying to record human events, not an ideological activist trying to spin history within the context of current events.
i just think he is missing the whole point and discreditting the left in the process...
suprised someone like ll hasnt called hayes an america hater by now...(like he has me...lol).
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 2:33pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 2:33pm | ignore
its like he's criticising a cat for not being a dog...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 2:47pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 2:47pm |
or more appropriately, an artist's rendition of a cat for not looking like a dog...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 2:48pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2007 @ 2:19pm
ROSALIND
.... make the doors upon a blogger's
wit and it will out at the casement; shut that and
'twill out at the key-hole; stop that, 'twill fly
with the smoke out at the chimney.
GRATIANO
Thanks, i' faith, for silence is only commendable
In a neat's tongue dried and a maid not vendible.
QUEEN KATHARINE
Turn me away; and let the foul'st contempt
Shut door upon me, and so give me up
To the sharp'st kind of justice
FROSTY ZOOM
an ignore for an ignore will only lead us to a world of mirrors
Verstehst du mich?
Posted by frosted zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 3:05pm
Posted by STWRILEY 09/28/2007 @ 2:31pm
Whatever...if you're into into all this, power to you! Just a bunch of blah, blah, blah...selling books to make money, that I understand!
Posted by Happy at 09/28/2007 @ 3:25pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 2:33pm
Basic point you need to realize....Professor ROLF, a first generationer German....thinks the Allies could have fought a "nicer war" against his Volk. Dig deeper and you'll find out some Germano-philic apologia the likes of which Nuremburg could have used in 1946!
Posted by Mask at 09/28/2007 @ 3:31pm
Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 3:31pm
lol - whatever did you say to get on his shit list, mask? you've been there for months...
heehee...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 3:37pm
Professor ROLF, a first generationer German....thinks the Allies could have fought a "nicer war" against his Volk. Dig deeper and you'll find out some Germano-philic apologia the likes of which Nuremburg could have used in 1946!
Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 3:31pm
probably something like that!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 3:39pm
Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 3:31pm
lol - whatever did you say to get on his shit list, mask? you've been there for months...
heehee...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 3:37pm
being nice worked for me.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 3:58pm
LOL. Nice comeback Happy. Well put. But in all fairness, I have yet to see a poster have a cogent response to STWRILEY, who consistently brings the heavy artillery.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/28/2007 @ 3:58pm
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 4 MONKS OF BURMA
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 4:04pm
Ib, I would thank you not to repeat Mask's post directed at me, as it defeats the purpose of the ignore function.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2007 @ 4:19pm
on second thought, I will no longer read you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2007 @ 4:20pm
I will put on ignore ANYONE who quotes anything by mask directed at me.
not that I think that I am that important. I don't mind anyone ignoring me, for instance. but the ignore function is important to me.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2007 @ 4:30pm
on second thought, I will no longer read you.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2007 @ 4:20pm
c'mon JR
don't you realize that the ignore function doesn't function because it is silly.
ROSALIND
.... make the doors upon a blogger's
wit and it will out at the casement; shut that and
'twill out at the key-hole; stop that, 'twill fly
with the smoke out at the chimney.
Posted by frosted zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 4:32pm
I will put on ignore ANYONE who quotes anything by mask directed at me.
not that I think that I am that important. I don't mind anyone ignoring me, for instance. but the ignore function is important to me.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2007 @ 4:30pm
well you could have said that a long time ago
Posted by frosted zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 4:33pm
well you could have said that a long time ago
Posted by FROSTED ZOOM 09/28/2007 @ 4:33pm
wait. i just contradicted myself.
IGNORE IS DUMB
that's better.
Posted by frosted zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 4:36pm
Of course there are no "good wars". But the revisionism that we must PLAY UP the bad deeds of the "good guys" to be politically correct AND to point out the horrors of war, cannot stand. There was no general, and little specific "moral equivalence" (as Mr Hayes brought up in his "GI digging out gold teeth" example) between the Americans and the Imperial Japanese or especially the Nazis. Isolated incidents, sure. The injustice of the internment camps, of course. But we weren't the "Bataan Death March" side...nor the "Auschwitz/Dachau/Bergen-Belsen" side.
Posted by MASK
And how many civilians did British and US strategic bombing incinerate?
War is bad; it reduces all to horrific levels. Sometimes you have to fight, though, as was necessary against the Nazis. It's not grand, good or anything else other than fighting, killing. The vast majority of Americans that have served and fought appreciate just how nasty a business it is. (All those Marines storming Tarawa, Iwo Jima were not the gung-ho types of today; they were just men drafted to do a dirty, dirty job.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/28/2007 @ 5:14pm
Professor ROLF, a first generationer German....thinks the Allies could have fought a "nicer war" against his Volk. Dig deeper and you'll find out some Germano-philic apologia the likes of which Nuremburg could have used in 1946!
Posted by MASK
Yeah, how many of those responsible for atrocities really paid for their crimes? The US was instrumental in letting so many off the hook.
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/28/2007 @ 5:16pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2007 @ 4:30pm
aw c'mon JR...life's to short...laugh....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 5:21pm
Whatever did John Dean do to get on Happys unhappy side? Tell some truths, have some well reasoned opinions, join the republican party, expose the crooks for what they were? Of course happy will attack the messenger, that is what he has been trained to do when he cannot defend his side.
Frosty, feel free to post my slaps at happy, he is a cowardly nationalist partisan who refuses to even answer why it is he won't go to Iraq and help the guvt restore some order out of the chaos he helped create. Aren't ya HAP?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/28/2007 @ 5:25pm
HAPPY, i preface the next post by saying i must return CRABS favour.
this ignore business is so silly..............
and to you HAPS, don't forget: STUPORBOWL XLII -- LIONS 17,342,678; TITANS 40 BELOW ZERO
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 5:48pm
Whatever did John Dean do to get on Happys unhappy side? Tell some truths, have some well reasoned opinions, join the republican party, expose the crooks for what they were? Of course happy will attack the messenger, that is what he has been trained to do when he cannot defend his side.
Frosty, feel free to post my slaps at happy, he is a cowardly nationalist partisan who refuses to even answer why it is he won't go to Iraq and help the guvt restore some order out of the chaos he helped create. Aren't ya HAP?
Posted by CRABWALK 09/28/2007 @ 5:25pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 5:49pm
I have yet to see a poster have a cogent response to STWRILEY, who consistently brings the heavy artillery.
Posted by HMAN23 09/28/2007 @ 3:58pm
3rd Quarter is a wrap! And, for the most difficult/time-consuming to read TN bloggers, HAPPY's new ranking is as follows:
1) STWRILEY (Fairly new to me, judgment reserved for now....but HMAN's point noted!)
2) SRJENKINS (who would be #1 but has `disappeared' on us for what, a month or more....arguments are always tough to dispute....got to research...get killed to just mouth off!)
3) FROSTY ZOOM (when his post extends to more than 5 lines.....takes me longer to read/understand/appreciate than probably the time for him to `originate' them....alos, too many links...got a confession, FROSTY, I only read SOME of your creative juices and almost never the links)
4) ZERO (Often forces me to very deliberately, put on my anti-Feminist hat on to ENJOY...and even then, my hat ain't BIG enough)
5) MASK (Got to always keep a sharp eye on your own words taking on new meanings...like Creeping Entitlement Expansions w/HIS intended consequences)
6) V (where are thou?)
Now, anyone wants to fight for a higher/lower ranking, I'm here! LOL!
Posted by Happy at 09/28/2007 @ 5:56pm
...don't forget: STUPORBOWL XLII -- LIONS 17,342,678; TITANS 40 BELOW ZERO
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/28/2007 @ 5:48pm
OK, I'll make another confession....I didn't get it the first time....
What CRABBY favor are you talking about?
Posted by Happy at 09/28/2007 @ 5:58pm
FROSTY:
Now I see CRABBY's usual CRAP! He used to be someone I regularly chatted with until he got on this `chickehawk' track and I see he hasn't reverted to the `original' CRABB! I let him out of `ignore' after Michigan beat Notre Dame and he said exactly the same thing as above post....
Besides, I HAD to make room for you, dear Zoomer!
You can `pass' messages from CRABB to me but ONLY IF there is something worthy! I think you would know it when you read it! You are pretty original (as I hope I am as well)...let that be the standard!
Posted by Happy at 09/28/2007 @ 6:05pm
3) FROSTY ZOOM (when his post extends to more than 5 lines.....takes me longer to read/understand/appreciate than probably the time for him to `originate' them....alos, too many links...got a confession, FROSTY, I only read SOME of your creative juices and almost never the links)
Posted by HAPPY 09/28/2007 @ 5:56pm
no problem, brotherly.
I don't understand half of what i write!
the football things just a joke. the superduperbowl #42 in arizona is gonna be steelers 24; cowboys 20
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 6:08pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/28/2007 @ 6:05pm
check
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 6:09pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/28/2007 @ 5:56pm
butt's twelve buy pi!
how's that?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 6:50pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/28/2007 @ 5:56pm
3rd Quarter is a wrap! And, for the most difficult/time-consuming to read TN bloggers, HAPPY's new ranking is as follows:
1) STWRILEY (Fairly new to me, judgment reserved for now....but HMAN's point noted!)
[kingmode]Thank you, thank you very much![/kingmode]
Posted by Stwriley at 09/28/2007 @ 7:02pm
i have nothing against the republican party per se...but it is not the republican party mr. dean joined as a young man...
. . . . . . .
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 12:23pm
I DO...
The Republican party AS a political party has an atrocious record, especially in the selection of Presidential candidates. (The last "decent" Republican, to my mind, was Dwight Eisenhower.) It seems no matter how bad a Republican President is, they can always find somebody worse next time around. I would even vote Libertarian (god help, faced with such a choice) before I would vote Republican. In fact, I would not vote at all if that were my only choice....
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/28/2007 @ 7:45pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/28/2007 @ 6:05pm
I SEE YOU HAVEN'T STOPPED BEING A COMPLETE IDIOT, HAPPY...
I HOPE I'm on your "ignore" list because I don't want to waste time replying to your inane replies to MY posts. The only reason you're not on MY ignore list is because I don't believe in putting people on it just because they're total idiots. The only way you'll get there is to pull a Rese and post so many long cut-and-paste posts that it makes it nearly impossible to follow a thread.
So if I'm on your ignore list, I can have all kinds of fun with your posts without worrying about "ripostes," eh?
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/28/2007 @ 7:51pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 3:39pm
Actually, IBB, I DID do the one thing that the Professor doesn't take kindly too...well before that....
I didn't accept that his vast intellect was superior...that his opinions were always right...and that to DARE to disprove anything he said meant immediate dismissal from "his" class!
It was only later that I started calling him "Doctor Zachery Smith"...dunno why, it just struck me. (Smith when he's pompous to the Robot or Don West...not the scared "oh the pain, the pain" Smith)
Posted by Mask at 09/28/2007 @ 8:27pm
Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person
you...bubble headed boobie!
danger! danger! dan.....
hate it when he pulls out that power pack...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 9:42pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/28/2007 @ 9:42pm
You cantankerous clod!-----Dr. JOHANNES Smith
Posted by Mask at 09/28/2007 @ 9:47pm
Her e ya go...the real deal, the one and only, the great Jonathan Harris [youtube.com]
Posted by Mask at 09/28/2007 @ 9:53pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/28/2007 @ 5:16pm | ignore this person
you are correct, many Nazis were denazified and got off. the entire judiciary for instance, but many didn't. many were hanged and imprisoned. and that is the important part. what were they accused of? of starting an aggressive war.
if Bush and Cheney and the rest of the lying scum were before the Nuremberg tribunal, what do you think would happen?
I make no apologies for the Nazi regime, just as I make to apologies for the merciless and strategically futile bombing of civilian populations, in Japan and Germany. the ones carrying out those policies acknowledged that they would be the war criminals had it turned out another way. you can look it up.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2007 @ 10:49pm
So if I'm on your ignore list, I can have all kinds of fun with your posts without worrying about "ripostes," eh?
Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/28/2007 @ 7:51pm
Nah, not yet! You have an important role on the blog! For me, YOU represent the `best' of the Ivory Tower & Nat'l Edu. Ass.es and most every post of yours, confirms to me why our educational system is BEARing so much of our esteem.......
Bet you didn't want to know, nor care, that other than collegiate athletes, the next lowest SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT scorers end up majoring in Education, particularly MALE Ed majors! You don't disappoint me at all! I know rhetorics means a lot to teachers and results NOT so important. YOU're one nice `Shock and Awe' representative of America's teachers!
On the other hand, thanks for your honesty.....that you have the character it takes to backstab people IF they, for heaven sake, put you on ignore! YOU are the MAN! There is so much the younger folks can learn from you, so, tell them how to sign up for one of your classes?
Posted by Happy at 09/28/2007 @ 10:50pm
Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 9:53pm | ignore
fiddledy fi major. your barbs have no affect on me!
heehee...reminded me of the crush i had on penny as a kid...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/28/2007 @ 11:27pm
So, happycoward, simple question:
why are you not taking a job in the Iraqi private sector, an NGO or the State dept, for example?
By your own estimation you are wise, clever, right, knowledgeable, brave, confident in the mission and positive that if it fails chaos will reign down upon us all. Some people are getting fabulously wealthy over there. Seems to me you NEED to go. Or are you a chickenhawk? You seem awful sensitive.
RIO won't go.
LUVSDESPOTS won't go.
MAASCH won't go, and he'll do business anywhere else.
BARRY certainly won't put his boxers on the line.
DAVEB hasn't been seen snoozing lately but we can bet the farm he hasn't gone.
USC1 won't go.
WOODYEE won't risk the fratricide potential.
Nobody wants ALUDRA.
PONTIFICUS couldn't find the recruiting station
But, none of them have me on ignore. Even though I have asked (and never have they answered) why they will not go to Iraq.
I guess you are just too precious to risk.
(BTW, Ponti, still waiting for the list of dems involved in that witch hunt. Or we could end it, you could admit you were full of hot air for a year on that one. And that the pundits you lernt it from pulled one over on you)
Posted by crabwalk at 09/28/2007 @ 11:40pm
Then, ponti, we could begin an honest assessment of other falsehoods that may have infested your bean. It may take a while, that is probably quite a snakes nest in there, but it can be done with only slight amounts of pain.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/28/2007 @ 11:44pm
I let him out of `ignore' after Michigan beat Notre Dame and he said exactly the same thing as above post....HAPPYLIAR
when did he do this? He opened my cage and I missed it? I must have been reviewing the convicted republicans list. It takes awhile.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/28/2007 @ 11:51pm
Anyway, back on thread.
A little confusion. "Some" people have been saying that CHIMPCO is not truly a conservative admin, that we need a return to the Old Ways. Along comes another of the Old Guard pointing out ways in which Chimpy has lost his way. He is not alone, he is even joined by people fresh out of uniform. Yet "some" people then turn on one of their own for pointing out ways in which Chimpy is not conservative.
I don't think Dean has any stain on his career or personal life since Watergate. During his 15 minutes he did the right thing, he blew the whistle on lawbreaking. That is a good family value. He has been successful in his profession. He makes good scratch. He should be on the side of real conservatives but he has to fight a tide of neo-cons.
What's up with that?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2007 @ 12:00am
From: Ending the War for Profit by KvH....on Prof. ROLF---
"That plus his INCESSANT Germano-philia, where everything good and proper is German (like Michael Constantine's char in "Big Fat Greek Wedding" about the Greeks)...and "Dresden was bad too" when somebody mentions the Holocaust."----Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 9:40pm
And one hour later.....
"I make no apologies for the Nazi regime, just as I make to apologies for the merciless and strategically futile bombing of civilian populations, in Japan and Germany. the ones carrying out those policies acknowledged that they would be the war criminals had it turned out another way. you can look it up.----Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2007 @ 10:49pm
"I love it when a plan comes together"---"Hannibal Smith" (George Peppard)
Posted by Mask at 09/29/2007 @ 08:16am
Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 8:27pm
"pretty, handsome dr. smith" -- athena, the girl from the green dimension
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2007 @ 09:17am
hey there, HAPPY!
you said i could re-post if it were worthwhile. well, i found this today:
I let him out of `ignore' after Michigan beat Notre Dame and he said exactly the same thing as above post....HAPPYLIAR
when did he do this? He opened my cage and I missed it? I must have been reviewing the convicted republicans list. It takes awhile.
Posted by CRABWALK 09/28/2007 @ 11:51pm
c'mon guys.
make peace,
AND START ARGUING!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2007 @ 09:26am
What's up with that?
Posted by CRABWALK 09/29/2007 @ 12:00am
he's still blowin' that whistle!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2007 @ 09:27am
Posted by CRABWALK 09/28/2007 @ 11:44pm
CRABBY,
Given that PONTI has weighed in here in favour of POL POT & THE KHMER ROUGE, he may be too busy to answer: Y'know, setting his calender to Year Zero, trying on the black pajamas, cutting down trees because they are decadent, committing Moaist sayings to memory for repetition on cue.
You certainly should ask him about it next time PONTI POL POT emerges from The Killing Fields of his truly weird imaganinings...
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/29/2007 @ 1:19pm
I wouldn't be venturing far when stating that John Dean is agreeable to an Al Gore 2008 presidential candidacy:
"Having watched the GOP's evolution as it embraced the radicalism of authoritarian conservatism, slowly ceding control to its most strident faction, the authoritarian conservatives, I can no longer recognize the party. These new conservative leaders have not only sought to turn back the clock, but to return to a time before the Enlightenment when there were no clocks. As former vice president Al Gore nicely stated it, the Republicans have undertaken an "assault on reason." Indeed, they have rejected their own reasoned philosophy by ignoring conservatism's teachings -- based on well-documented history -- about the dangers of concentrations of power. They have done so by focusing on the presidency as the institution in which they wish to concentrate the enormous powers of the federal government. Nixon led the way, and Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II learned from his mistakes. Nixon scowled as he scolded and secretly investigated his opponents in the name of national security; his GOP successors have smiled and reassured Americans they are operating to protect them as they have proceeded to convert the American presidency into an elective monarchy, with its own high council, which was once known as the federal judiciary."
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/11/dean/
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2007 @ 1:42pm
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/29/2007 @ 1:19pm |
I missed that from PONTI. Do tell, what were his thoughts?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2007 @ 2:03pm
when did he do this? He opened my cage and I missed it? I must have been reviewing the convicted republicans list. It takes awhile.
Posted by CRABWALK 09/28/2007 @ 11:51pm
c'mon guys....make peace,...AND START ARGUING!
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/29/2007 @ 09:26am
Fair enough, I know that I made no formal Announcement post-game (and I also did ASSUME he read my pre-game `parole deal' if UM did win)....so, I'll accept FZ's sporting advise!
Alright, CRABB, come home to HAPPY...damn, that sound really corny!
Posted by Happy at 09/29/2007 @ 2:04pm
And the reason Al Gore isn't rated higher in the polls:
"Virtually all of the other pollsters that include non-candidates like Gore, Gingrich and (technically) Fred Thompson start with a trial-heat question that includes all possible candidates and then ask respondents for their "second choice." They can then re-allocate the second choices of Gore supporters to calculate a "vote without Gore."
EPIC/MRA, on the other hand, did things differently. For each party, they first asked voters to choose from the "announced candidates" for president and then presented a choice from what they described as an "expanded list" of candidates.
That their approach showed greater support for Gore is not surprising. Presumably, many of Gore's potential backers take him at his word when he says he has no plans to run and tend to choose other candidates. However, Gore does much better when a pollster plays "what if" and says, in essence, "imagine that Al Gore decides to run."
EPIC/MRA for The Detroit News WXYZ TV
8/11/2007 Michigan
Al Gore _________ 36%
Hillary Clinton ____ 32%
Barack Obama ____16%
John Edwards ______8%
Joe Biden _________1%
Bill Richardson _____1%
Dennis Kucinich ____1%
Wesley Clark ______1%
Unsure ___________4%
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/al_gore_ahead_in_michigan.php
******************
Gore Ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire
This poll convinces me more than ever that Al Gore is Hillary Rodham's only credible threat regarding the Democratic nomination:
A New Hampshire presidential poll by WHDH-TV and Suffolk University shows that local Democrats prefer Al Gore to any of the current contenders.
Hillary Clinton has a solid lead over the rest of the current Democratic field. The poll, released this afternoon, shows 37 percent of likely Democratic voters backing Clinton or leaning towards her. Barack Obama was at 19 percent, with both John Edwards and Bill Richardson at 9 percent.
Al Gore, however, could enter the race as the leader. When his name is added, Clinton loses more than a quarter of her support, while Gore is backed by 32 percent.
http://race42008.com/2007/06/30/gore-ahead-of-hillary-in-new-hampshire/
******************
"Former Vice President Al Gore, who has not declared his candidacy for the 2008 presidential nomination, runs better in Pennsylvania than any Democrat against the Republican front runner, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: Gore has 45 percent to Giuliani's 44 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1070
******************
http://tinyurl.com/yrpeep
http://tinyurl.com/3crql8
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2007 @ 2:29pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/29/2007 @ 2:04pm
¡si señor!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2007 @ 4:38pm
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27273
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2007 @ 5:16pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8-m5P3KDwU&NR=1
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2007 @ 5:36pm
We need to unveil the new con repubs, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, for the ignorant and corrupt war mongers they are. For if Islam can face their own demons-- why can't we:
Unveiling men in the Arab world By Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS
"Most men in our societies are more veiled than any of these women. A man's veil is an abstract one, created by him at will and not imposed by God. It is a veil against freedom and education. It is a veil against new ideas and dialogue. It is this man-veil that makes him walk up to the Danish Embassy and set it ablaze, thinking that this will lead him directly to heaven.
It is this man-veil that accounts today for so much ignorance in the Arab and Muslim world, and results in statements like those of Ezzat Attiya or the recent one pertaining to actresses and their marriage scenes. It is this man-veil that produces men who cannot accept women as equals, or lets them debate whether a woman's toes should be revealed in public, while other people around the world are studying astronomy, genetics, and informatics.
It is this man-veil that wrongly dwarfs Islam in the eyes of the West from a great religion discussing grand ideas to a mob movement against a bunch of silly cartoons, or Rushdie. It is this man-veil that lets men fear and hate the West. It is this man-veil that has produced men who value and have nourished themselves on ignorance and violence - at will - and contributed nothing to civilization for the past 500 years.
When Mustapha al-Akkad produced Al-Risala (known as Mohammad, Messenger of God or The Message in English) in the 1970s, a Hollywood classic about the early days of Islam starring Anthony Quinn, Muslim scholars outlawed the film because it showed the cane and camel of the Prophet. That movie, however, had done Islam and the Arabs a great service in the Western world. Akkad met with Iranian president Mohammad Khatami - a truly unveiled and intelligent Muslim - who said that in spreading the faith, the movie ranked second only to the Koran, because it attracted people to Islam.
Yes, men (before women) should unveil their minds throughout the Arab and Muslim world."
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II29Ak03.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2007 @ 7:11pm
I totally agree with the author. Reps seem to be worse every day, including some that defend them in this blog.
For one thing, in the past at least they cared to look decent and moral, and not greedy. Now they don't care. Listen to Giuliani addressing a conservative audience: "My private life has nothing to do with my political stand (on family values??)..." I agree that the man has all the right to divorce three times, but to pretend to defend "family, moral and Christian values" when even your son(s) have grievances against you, well that is another thing. And we can go on with that people that have been condemning gays but propose in public baths or take advantage of student workers at the House...(Thid is a free country they can be whatever they choose to be, but they should not lie saying they are the party of morals and family!!) Or by the way all the members of the House that last week voted against the bill extending health care to children... but the best I think is our dear President who still calls himself "'compassionate' conservative"...(I am just thinking how would he be if he weren't 'compassionate', would the people in New Orleans love him more?) Reps don't have blood on their face! And when someone does not get embarrassed, conscience is lacking.
Bottom line: the Republican public out there are that votes for "values", should think it three times. Selfishness and hypocrisy are among the worst in the moral scale and certainly they were exactly the two features of character most criticized by Jesus all over the Gospels.
Posted by Frank42 at 09/29/2007 @ 10:12pm
From: Ending the War for Profit by KvH....on Prof. ROLF---
"That plus his INCESSANT Germano-philia, where everything good and proper is German (like Michael Constantine's char in "Big Fat Greek Wedding" about the Greeks)...and "Dresden was bad too" when somebody mentions the Holocaust."----Posted by MASK 09/28/2007 @ 9:40pm
And one hour later.....
"I make no apologies for the Nazi regime, just as I make to apologies for the merciless and strategically futile bombing of civilian populations, in Japan and Germany. the ones carrying out those policies acknowledged that they would be the war criminals had it turned out another way. you can look it up.----Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/28/2007 @ 10:49pm
"I love it when a plan comes together"---"Hannibal Smith" (George Peppard)
Posted by MASK 09/29/2007 @ 08:16am | ignore this person
Masky, thanks for giving me my opportunity to join you on JR's ignore list, LOL!
Posted by davebarlett at 09/29/2007 @ 10:41pm
Selfishness and hypocrisy are among the worst in the moral scale and certainly they were exactly the two features of character most criticized by Jesus all over the Gospels.
Posted by FRANK42 09/29/2007 @ 10:12pm
yep.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2007 @ 10:59pm
Frosty, the ability to win can excuse a multitude of sins......
RUDY! RUDY!! RUDY!!!
Posted by davebarlett at 09/29/2007 @ 11:14pm
Frosty, the ability to win can excuse a multitude of sins......
RUDY! RUDY!! RUDY!!!
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 09/29/2007 @ 11:14pm
hey DAVE B.
are you referring to this:
"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."--rudy g.
that's pretty scary.
careful what you wish for.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/29/2007 @ 11:25pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/28/2007 @ 10:50pm
That's a relief actually. Now I can pound on you and know you'll read it. Listen, buddy, I helped elect a Marxist president of the Modern Language Association back in the days when leftists were LEFTISTS. Shut It Down! Gingrich & Co. were doing a pale imitation of us when they chanted this under Clinton. The Right copies the left at every turn. Now it's copying the old Soviet Union re torture, surveillance, and general asshole-ish behaviors. I was out in the streets BEFORE Bush invaded Iraq. I'm sure you're underwhelmed by my creds.
Anyway, as they say, back on topic. Why is it that the absolute WORST GOP candidate (i.e., Giuliani, in this case, evidently) is always the one with the highest poll numbers? Must be a plot. (The Bad President Conspiracy, let's call it.)
Giuliani's just smarter enough than Bush that he might make all of Bush's incompetent fascist shit actually WORK! Wouldn't THAT be fun? -- And it sounds like he intends to. Scary quote from him on "Freedom," FZ. "Freedom is Slavery." (George Orwell, "1984")
O Ye Democratic campaign orgs: Can someone please, please, PLEASE out Rudy's cross-dressing in the Mainstream Media. Sure, it's a non-issue and one of your basic political dirty tricks. But hey, if it's that or President Giuliani....
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/30/2007 @ 12:53am
IF ELECTED, GIULIANI...
Would be the first president in American history whose name ends in a non-silent vowel other than "y." I suppose that's something (but not nearly enough).
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/30/2007 @ 01:08am
Anyway, as they say, back on topic. Why is it that the absolute WORST GOP candidate (i.e., Giuliani, in this case, evidently) is always the one with the highest poll numbers? Must be a plot. (The Bad President Conspiracy, let's call it.)
Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/30/2007 @ 12:53am
same goes for the democrats......................
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/30/2007 @ 01:37am
I didn't know that hsuB was a direct descendant of F'in Pierce via Barbara. Worst pres to worster pres... Sorta makes sense.
Does anyone know whom in Giuli's ancestry we could be mis-inheriting?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2007 @ 01:57am
OMG-- think hsuB is a direct reincarnation too?
Franklin Peirce-- (His fervor for expanding the borders--thereby adding several slave states--helped set the stage for the Civil War.) Elected as the 14th president, the handsome Mexican War veteran believed ardently in national expansion even at the cost of adding more slave states. To that end, he vigorously supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which, along with the earlier Compromise of 1850, effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Less successfully, he proposed annexing Cuba, by arms if necessary, but his opponents, suspecting the addition of a new slave state, outed the plan and ultimately forced him to renounce it. He did manage to secure U.S. recognition of a dubious regime in Nicaragua, presided over by an American proslavery adventurer, William Walker, who had instigated an insurrection and installed himself as president. Theodore Roosevelt later wrote of Pierce that he was "a servile tool of men worse than himself ... ever ready to do any work the slavery leaders set him." Not even a fawning campaign biography written by Pierce's college friend Nathaniel Hawthorne could offset such damning reviews.
http://tinyurl.com/2vfqnw
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/30/2007 @ 02:06am
Posted by HAPPY 09/29/2007 @ 2:04pm
then take a gander above. Answer the question and we can "move on".
THE Ohio State University will CRUSH UM come November. Will it be the Badgers or some kind of nut that makes the Big Ten Champ this year?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/30/2007 @ 10:04am
Still no answer from the neo-cons about this Posted by CRABWALK 09/29/2007 @ 12:00am
Posted by crabwalk at 09/30/2007 @ 10:05am
RUDY! RUDY!! RUDY!!!
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 09/29/2007 @ 11:14pm
his own kid can't stand his BS, and you want to vote for him? Why?
Do you sell brooms?
time for yo to wake up and see the world you folk have wrought, Iran rising, terrorism up, country going bankrupt. Do you want more of that? Damn silly if you ask me.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/30/2007 @ 10:09am
John Dean needs to be reminded that Watergate was about Vietnam -- breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office looking for records to smear him after he leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press. The Pentagon Papers were the record of our conduct in that war, detailing the lies that the (Democratic) Johnson administration told to get our troops there and our actions once we got there ... The American government tortured suspected Viet Cong members during the Vietnam War and published a handbook showing how to do it. Go to the National Security Archive online -- they've scanned & posted it!
Nixon campaigned on peace but expanded the war. (Today's surge was yesterday's escalation.) His National Security Advisor & then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger basically prolonged the war with his "peace negotiations." (See the documentary "The Lies of Henry Kissinger.") Nixon talked about "peace with honor," but there was nothing honorable about our conduct in Vietnam. Between 2 and 4 million Vietnamese civilians were killed from 1954 to 1974, North and South. About 3 million were affected by Agent Orange.
But that's not all! Many of the Watergate burglars and higher ups (people Dean was associated with in 1974) had worked in Latin America, destabilizing democracy & protecting the economic interests of the American elite.
SO, although I respect greatly John Dean's recent investigative work -- it's service to our citizens and to our fellow humans on the planet -- he needs to make the link between Watergate, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Argentina, and then later on, with many of the same people working in government, Nicaragua and El Salvador. The American people need to connect these dots and many more! To do so, start with Norman Soloman's documentary "War Made Easy," or read his book of the same title.
Posted by margarets at 09/30/2007 @ 10:16am
I thank John Dean for reminding us of what the republican agenda really is.
Folks, you've got to understand that we NEED our government. All one has to do is look at what has taken place over the past 20 years to see that consumers are loosing their protections and their right to sue for damages when harmed. The republicans told us it drives up costs and that only attorneys benefit from lawsuits...WRONG.....the real fact is, companies get to keep ALL the money and pay very little liability to maintain it. If our government were in the business of protecting the consumer, we would suffer less harm, because lawsuits use to at least ensure that companies performed tests to detect the level of harm that a product may cause a customer. When we are hurt by a product today, industry want to accuse us of not using the product as intended. Look at the toys coming from China. How will the American people hold Mattel accountable for putting large amounts of lead into their manufactured toys? Who? The agency that is slated to perform that function is heavily underfunded, not to mention being understaffed. People do you want safety, or do you want damages without equitable compensation? The math is easy, you pay more taxes for MORE protection OR you pay less to no taxes if you want LESS protections.
I prefer to pay more to ensure a legacy for my children and their childrens children!
Posted by blkmadness at 09/30/2007 @ 12:27pm
Damn silly if you ask me.
Posted by CRABWALK 09/30/2007 @ 10:09am
the problem is that they don't ask themselves.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/30/2007 @ 3:31pm
John Dean makes being an Independent sound proactively patriotic.
War Made Easy, eh? Thanks.
Posted by lewwelge at 09/30/2007 @ 8:38pm
Apologies to the well-informed for my reiteration of a string of depressing facts you already know -- it just seemed no one had commented on what, the more I think about it, is a comment that betrays a still willfully blind ambition...
Here's the quote I was reacting to earlier: "Look at the so-called Watergate abuses of power," he said. "Nobody died. Nobody was tortured. Millions of Americans were not subject to electronic surveillance of their communications. We're playing now in a whole different league."
Millions of people died, thousands were tortured, and I forgot to mention COINTELPRO, the FBI group that did indeed illegally surveil members of the antiwar movement. So all of what is going on today happened as well during Nixon's administration, while John Dean was there. The Watergate burglary itself was a smear campaign during an election year designed to divert voters' attention from the Administration's culpability in these crimes. (Smear campaign -- sound familiar?) The Watergate coverup was a coverup of a coverup of war crimes committed in utter contempt of our constitution, and that's the crucial link to stess when we decide if the present day administration's actions are indeed Worse than Watergate.
Posted by margarets at 09/30/2007 @ 9:48pm
MARGARETS, you have to keep in mind that COINTELPRO and The Plumbers were GOOD in the eyes of the neo-cons. Guvt is bad, except when THEIR president THINKS subverting our democracy MIGHT keep him safe from citizens that have valid complaints. This is why they applaud "free speech zones", kidnapping innocent foreign nationals. This why their heroes are Oli, G. Gordon and Achmed Chalibi.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/01/2007 @ 07:54am
The Founding Fathers knew there were people in the world like Bush and Cheney with there right wing groups. That's why we have checks and balances. As a WWII history buff, I have studied the Third Reich extensively. While those guys were more extreme, these guys display the same modus operandi. For example, in Mein Kampf, Hitler talks of telling big lies because no one would think anyone would lie to that degree. Karl Rove learned a lot from Joseph Goebels. The burning of the Reichstag in 1934 is similar to the taking over of the US Congress. The assasination of Erich Roehm is similar to the destruction of John McCain's character in the South Carolina primary. The parallels go on and on. Just pick up any history book about that era. These right wing nut cases have tried to take over America many times in the past, but the Constitution has always stopped them without actually requiring a civil war (except once). It will stop them again. It will be many decades before this insanity is repeated in our country. Fear not, the average voter has awaken to their perfidy and the Constitution will survive again as it has every time someone has attempted to destroy it since 1791.
Posted by richschneid at 10/01/2007 @ 4:32pm
The assasination of Erich Roehm is similar to the destruction of John McCain's character in the South Carolina primary.
you have got to be kidding. mass murder the same as libel? in what universe?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/02/2007 @ 10:15am
Dear Johannesrolf: As I said the Nazi's were more extreme, but the psychological thought process is similar, destroy your opponent by whatever means neccessary. However, according to the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, as published in The Lancet, one of the most prestigous medical journals in the world, in 2006, the number of excessive deaths among the Iraqi population caused by our invasion of Iraq, based on statistical and epidemiologic calculations, was between 400,000 and 800,000 at the P=0.05 level, or a 95% confidence level, with the highest probability being 650,000. The was more than a year ago, so the numbers would be much higher now. So, this qualifies as mass murder by the Bush administration for anyone who can count. In addition, 4 million Iraq's have had to flee their homes, 2 million left Iraq and 2 million have been internally displaced. Young Iraqi's girls (including prepubsent ones) have been prostituted in Syria to support their families because their parents are not allowed to hold jobs there. When Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, he told the German people that Poland had attacked Germany. This is no different than Bush intimating that Hussein had WMD or was in some way invloved in 9/11. As I said the parallels are quite evident. The true analogies between WWII and the Iraq War include the one between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of Iraq, both being totally unprovoked attacks. It's true WWII resulted in the deaths of more than 80 million people and the invasion of Iraq will ultimately result in the deaths of "only" a million or so people. In my Universe, the killing of a million innocent people is not much less of a crime than killing 80 million. This is the truth, these are the facts, period. No amount of mental machination or psychological denial can change this. All criminals have a natural predisposition to deny the reality of their crimes. This is what Bush and Cheney and their supporters are doing. They seem to posit that the deaths of a million people can somehow be justified because it occurred in their crusade for gobal democracy or the "War on Terror". They will never, ever, be able to accept the reality of what they have done. Of course, a lot of people around the world, including many Americans, agree with Alan Greenspan's view that the invasion of Iraq was largely about oil. Stangely, one of Hitler's main goals in the invasion of Russia in June, 1941 was to get control of the oil fields in the Caucuses.
Posted by richschneid at 10/02/2007 @ 1:25pm