Question anything about George W. Bush and you are "trolling for trash" and engaging in "gutter politics."
The only sorry pieces of trash are in the White House and it's time for someone to take out the garbage.
The things the Bushies are good at are lying, intimidation and harassment. But Bush and all his men are not making the questions about his service in the Texas Air National guard -- or his lack of service -- go away, as they did four years ago. Despite Bush's lie to Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he would release all his military records to prove he completed his obligation, so far what has been produced raises more questions.
Now, the more they fuss, fume, waffle and spin, the more determined even the corporate media are now to join us in digging even deeper.
The true heroes in this effort are Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, now retired, who served under then-Adjutant Gen. Daniel James of the Texas Air National Guard, and Iowa farmer Martin Heldt. Online Journal, among other online publications, broke the stories about what Burkett had to say and Heldt obtained through Freedom of Information requests, beginning in June 2000 (See Bush Military Info), but after buying into the Bushies' "explanation" the corporate media, with a few exceptions, gave the revelations short shrift.
The White House would have you believe that Burkett is either a disgruntled former officer or just plain crazy. Yet, The Dallas Morning News took him seriously enough to report today that "Burkett told the AP that he saw documents from Bush's file discarded in a trash can a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas. Burkett described them as performance and pay documents. He said the documents bore the header: 'Bush, George W. 1lt.' -- meaning first lieutenant."
The Boston Globe today said Bush's removal from flight status should have sparked a probe. The Globe went on to report, "Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969."
The horror of it all is that this privileged son, who threw away the best schooling money could buy, jumped ahead of hundreds of his contemporaries to secure a place in the TANG and zoomed to the head of a three-year waiting to become a fighter pilot, could not even complete that service while other people's less fortunate sons were being killed or maimed in Vietnam. And it is this same privileged son, who likes to don military uniforms, who is now sending other people's sons and daughters to be killed or maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who know where next.
Trolling for trash? No, Mr. Bush, we are trolling for truth and truth knows no ideology or political party.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
In whose interests is MoveOn working?
As this year's Super Bowl approached and CBS still refused to run MoveOn's "Child's Pay" commercial, MoveOn came up with the wimpy idea for a one-minute viewer boycott during the game's half-time, as a way of punishing CBS for its censorship, rather than calling for a boycott of the whole game.
After all, said a MoveOn supporter, people would be more likely to go along with a one-minute boycott than a boycott of the whole game. Translated that means a football game is more important than a tiny step toward letting the corporations know we are going to fight back.
Oh yeah, that worked so well that if anyone turned off Super Bowl for the prescribed minute, CBS didn't notice. Instead, the talk was all about Janet Jackson and an exposed breast.
To compound its fuzzy thinking, MoveOn is now back to where it started, when it called for censuring Bill Clinton and moving on. This time, it is calling for Congress to censure George W. Bush.
Where in the constitution is the provision for censuring a president -- elected or unelected?
Under the constitution, each house of Congress has the right to make its own rules regarding members' behavior, which means the houses can censure members for inappropriate or unethical conduct; even go so far as to expel a member.
Congress, though, has no constitutional right to censure a president -- an argument we made when MoveOn was calling for the censure of Clinton. The only constitutional provision for dealing with a president alleged to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is by impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate.
There is more than enough to draw a bill of impeachment against Bush, given that the evidence suggests he either was complicit in or had foreknowledge of Sept. 11, 2001; that he blatantly lied to the American people, Congress and the world in order to wage an illegal war on Iraq; that he bribed nations into becoming part of his Iraq war's "coalition of the willing;" that he or his subordinate illegally told some six reporters that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA operative; that he has been complicit in keeping from the American people who was involved with Dick Cheney in drawing up a national energy policy; that he has bankrupted the country with his tax cuts and "wars;" that he may have covered up a criminal record that goes beyond one DUI, two pranks while in college and the killing of an endangered species bird; and that he may have deserted the Texas Air National Guard.
After being handed the presidency by the US Supreme Court, Bush has violated the oath he took to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by taking unto himself powers the constitution does not give a president; by violating the separation of church and state; by signing the USA PATRIOT Act and creating the Department of Homeland Security, thusly curbing the people's rights of free speech and assembly, and their rights to privacy; by setting up First Amendment Zones into which peaceful protesters and peace advocates are herded so he doesn't have to see or hear them. Moreover, his bogus "war on terror" has made us less secure, not more.
Why then is MoveOn calling for, as they say in spookville, a limited hangout: censure? Yet, the gullible keep pouring their money into MoveOn at the expense of the real journalists who are working to get back the country. Is feel good all that matters?
Yes, MoveOn has gotten some excellent issue commercials on television. Since the presidential election isn't until November, might it have been premature in airing them now or does it plan to keep extracting money from its followers to keep the commercials on the air?
The pie is only so big, so more money for MoveOn means less money for journalists laboring to shed light on the truth.
It is hard these days to separate the good guys from the bad, so one must keep in mind hidden agendas.
After all, said a MoveOn supporter, people would be more likely to go along with a one-minute boycott than a boycott of the whole game. Translated that means a football game is more important than a tiny step toward letting the corporations know we are going to fight back.
Oh yeah, that worked so well that if anyone turned off Super Bowl for the prescribed minute, CBS didn't notice. Instead, the talk was all about Janet Jackson and an exposed breast.
To compound its fuzzy thinking, MoveOn is now back to where it started, when it called for censuring Bill Clinton and moving on. This time, it is calling for Congress to censure George W. Bush.
Where in the constitution is the provision for censuring a president -- elected or unelected?
Under the constitution, each house of Congress has the right to make its own rules regarding members' behavior, which means the houses can censure members for inappropriate or unethical conduct; even go so far as to expel a member.
Congress, though, has no constitutional right to censure a president -- an argument we made when MoveOn was calling for the censure of Clinton. The only constitutional provision for dealing with a president alleged to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is by impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate.
There is more than enough to draw a bill of impeachment against Bush, given that the evidence suggests he either was complicit in or had foreknowledge of Sept. 11, 2001; that he blatantly lied to the American people, Congress and the world in order to wage an illegal war on Iraq; that he bribed nations into becoming part of his Iraq war's "coalition of the willing;" that he or his subordinate illegally told some six reporters that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA operative; that he has been complicit in keeping from the American people who was involved with Dick Cheney in drawing up a national energy policy; that he has bankrupted the country with his tax cuts and "wars;" that he may have covered up a criminal record that goes beyond one DUI, two pranks while in college and the killing of an endangered species bird; and that he may have deserted the Texas Air National Guard.
After being handed the presidency by the US Supreme Court, Bush has violated the oath he took to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by taking unto himself powers the constitution does not give a president; by violating the separation of church and state; by signing the USA PATRIOT Act and creating the Department of Homeland Security, thusly curbing the people's rights of free speech and assembly, and their rights to privacy; by setting up First Amendment Zones into which peaceful protesters and peace advocates are herded so he doesn't have to see or hear them. Moreover, his bogus "war on terror" has made us less secure, not more.
Why then is MoveOn calling for, as they say in spookville, a limited hangout: censure? Yet, the gullible keep pouring their money into MoveOn at the expense of the real journalists who are working to get back the country. Is feel good all that matters?
Yes, MoveOn has gotten some excellent issue commercials on television. Since the presidential election isn't until November, might it have been premature in airing them now or does it plan to keep extracting money from its followers to keep the commercials on the air?
The pie is only so big, so more money for MoveOn means less money for journalists laboring to shed light on the truth.
It is hard these days to separate the good guys from the bad, so one must keep in mind hidden agendas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)