The Swift Boats are setting sail again!
You may recall that during the 2004 election, a GOP front group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made a lot of hay out of trashing Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam War record, saying that he didn't really deserve his decorations. President Bush (who was schmoozed into the Texas National Guard and promptly went AWOL) and Vice President Cheney (who defended his five Vietnam-era deferments by saying "I had more important things to do") remained noticeably silent as their minions smeared Kerry eight ways to Sunday. Indeed, the attacks and Kerry's weak response to them were a significant factor in his election loss.
Now it's happening all over again.
In November, Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Marine Corps veteran who fought in Vietnam, came out against the Iraq War, saying we had accomplished all we could over there and it was time to bring the troops home. Nor surprisingly, he was promptly attacked by war supporters as someone who, in the uproar-causing words of Rep. Jean Schmidt, would "cut and run." Murtha's long history of supporting the military combined with his weekly visits to military hospitals to visit wounded troops made him a difficult target for the swift-boating treatment that Kerry received.
Now they're trying.
The Cybercast News Service posted an article last week claiming that Murtha did not deserve the two Purple Hearts he won back in 1967 while fighting in Vietnam. CNS is a hard-right website run by David Thibault, an acolyte of Brent Bozell, the self-proclaimed "media critic" who says the media is filled with liberals, unreformed Communists, gays, lesbians, al Qaeda sympathizers, and so on.
There is, of course, no serious reason to doubt that Murtha earned his decorations honestly and honorably. Demonstrating admirable restraint, Murtha said that "questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue" and that "my record is clear."
Thibault, to his (very small) credit, doesn't even try to pretend that his smear is unrelated to Murtha's antiwar statements. "The congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement," he told the Washington Post. "He has been placed by the Democratic Party and antiwar activists as a spokesman against the war above reproach." In other words, if Murtha had just kept his opinions to himself, echoed whatever is the latest mantra for staying in Iraq, and not raised a peep, nothing would have been said.
Once again, we see how the Republicans, who claim to venerate military service above all else, won't hesitate to slur any veteran who fails to toe the line. Max Cleland, who dared to dissent from the Bush Administration's war plans, lost his Senate seat in 2002 thanks to GOP ads smearing him as an ideological comrade of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. John McCain, the fiercely independent Republican senator who was a POW in Vietnam for five years, was attacked by his own party during the 2000 primaries. Not only was he called a possibly traitorous nutcase, but he was the target of a truly despicable whispering campaign saying there was something wrong with him because he and his wife adopted their daughter from Bangladesh.
It seems that some veterans are more worthy of praise than others. If you shut up and salute at the right times, you are held up as a paragon of military virtue. If you dare express any dissenting opinion, you are smeared as a fake hero, a fifth columnist, an enemy within. Insisting that veterans are required to hold certain political beliefs while attacking anyone who thinks differently is wrong, and smearing veterans who don't fall into line is just plain evil.
1/18/2006
1/09/2006
Picking and Choosing
When Senator John McCain, a dedicated Vietnam War veteran and survivor of Viet Cong torture, introduced an amendment to the Defense Department funding bill banning all forms of torture by the American government, he was speaking from hard experience. Americans, he said loud and clear, are better than to stoop to torture. Displaying a truly stunning political tone-deafness, the White House fought hard to derail the amendment, claiming that Americans should be able to torture prisoners. Fortunately, the American people loudly disagreed, and President Bush was forced to back off and sign the bill.
Well, not quite. For Bush also issued a "signing statement" claiming:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005."
Translated into plain English, this means three things:
This is not new from this Administration. From warrantless spying on American citizens to secret overseas prisons to redefining torture to a host of other outrages, President Bush has always said he has the unilateral power to do whatever he wants, the law be damned. When Congress and the courts dare tell him what he can and cannot do, he just flips them off them and goes on his merry way.
When the President says he can override any law at will, regardless of the justifications, that is not democracy. That is a dicatorship in the making.
This is why Democrats have to take back the Senate and the House this year. Once we have a Democratic Congress in place, we can impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney for flagrant abuse of power and have the Democratic Speaker of the House become President.
Well, not quite. For Bush also issued a "signing statement" claiming:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005."
Translated into plain English, this means three things:
- The President has the unilateral power to ignore this law as he sees fit.
- Anyone who claims to have been tortured in violation of this law cannot go to court for redress.
- Federal courts are barred from taking the case of anyone declared by the President to be an "enemy combatant," even for habeas corpus (wrongful imprisonment) petitions.
This is not new from this Administration. From warrantless spying on American citizens to secret overseas prisons to redefining torture to a host of other outrages, President Bush has always said he has the unilateral power to do whatever he wants, the law be damned. When Congress and the courts dare tell him what he can and cannot do, he just flips them off them and goes on his merry way.
When the President says he can override any law at will, regardless of the justifications, that is not democracy. That is a dicatorship in the making.
This is why Democrats have to take back the Senate and the House this year. Once we have a Democratic Congress in place, we can impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney for flagrant abuse of power and have the Democratic Speaker of the House become President.
1/04/2006
If At First You Don't Succeed...
Even having filled his Administration with cronies and yes-men, it appears President Bush had a hard time getting his own people to sign off on his plan to secretly wiretap Americans' communications without the legally required court orders. According to the New York Times, the White House in 2004 asked the Justice Department to approve the continuation of its secret spying program, but Deputy Attorney General James Comey balked, saying the program was most likely illegal.
In response, chief of staff Andrew Card and counsel (now Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales went to Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside - he was recovering from gall bladder surgery - to get him to overrule his deputy and approve the wiretapping. Ashcroft also said no.
While neither Ashcroft and Comey have commented on the story, neither one is a particular friend of terrorists and neither one would have given it a second thought. Indeed, Ashcroft has publicly called antiwar activists terrorists, and he would not have hesitated for a moment in giving his approval to spying on them.
The fact that both of them refused to approve the wholesale spying should raise the serious question of just who was being tapped. Rumors are flying that the program's target was not al Qaeda sympathizers or even antiwar activists, but prominent Democrats and the Kerry campaign.
Where will this lead?
In response, chief of staff Andrew Card and counsel (now Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales went to Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside - he was recovering from gall bladder surgery - to get him to overrule his deputy and approve the wiretapping. Ashcroft also said no.
While neither Ashcroft and Comey have commented on the story, neither one is a particular friend of terrorists and neither one would have given it a second thought. Indeed, Ashcroft has publicly called antiwar activists terrorists, and he would not have hesitated for a moment in giving his approval to spying on them.
The fact that both of them refused to approve the wholesale spying should raise the serious question of just who was being tapped. Rumors are flying that the program's target was not al Qaeda sympathizers or even antiwar activists, but prominent Democrats and the Kerry campaign.
Where will this lead?
1/03/2006
Just a Piece of Paper?
"It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
According to three witnesses, that's what President Bush called the United States Constitution in November. Republican congressional leaders had gone to the White House to talk with Bush about the difficulties involved in renewing the USA Patriot Act. In the four years since the law's post-9/11 passage, some conservative leaders have joined with prominent liberals in expressing uneasiness about the Act's reach and its effect on civil liberties. In general, the Administration's relationship with the GOP right wing has been strained of late, most notably in Bush's doomed attempt to nominate the highly unqualified (and insufficiently conservative) crony Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
In the meeting, GOP leaders reportedly told Bush that his high-pressure sales pitch to renew the Patriot Act was pushing more conservatives further away.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush said. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one lone brave aide piped up, "there is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush shot back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
If Bill Clinton had called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" or called political dissenters "motherf---ing traitors," Congress and Fox News would be building a bonfire on the White House lawn. But since it's George W. Bush we're talking about, such revelations are barely mentioned, if at all, and quickly allowed to be forgotten.
In his actions as President, from classifying everything possible to his warrantless spying on the American people, Bush doesn't strike me as someone who has a lot of respect for the Constitution. It is, after all, only the bedrock of our civil society. And since he feels the need to spit all over everything this country was founded upon, you'd think he'd hold back on invoking the Constitution in his speeches all the time.
But then again, it's apparently just a goddamned piece of paper.
According to three witnesses, that's what President Bush called the United States Constitution in November. Republican congressional leaders had gone to the White House to talk with Bush about the difficulties involved in renewing the USA Patriot Act. In the four years since the law's post-9/11 passage, some conservative leaders have joined with prominent liberals in expressing uneasiness about the Act's reach and its effect on civil liberties. In general, the Administration's relationship with the GOP right wing has been strained of late, most notably in Bush's doomed attempt to nominate the highly unqualified (and insufficiently conservative) crony Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
In the meeting, GOP leaders reportedly told Bush that his high-pressure sales pitch to renew the Patriot Act was pushing more conservatives further away.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush said. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one lone brave aide piped up, "there is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush shot back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
If Bill Clinton had called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" or called political dissenters "motherf---ing traitors," Congress and Fox News would be building a bonfire on the White House lawn. But since it's George W. Bush we're talking about, such revelations are barely mentioned, if at all, and quickly allowed to be forgotten.
In his actions as President, from classifying everything possible to his warrantless spying on the American people, Bush doesn't strike me as someone who has a lot of respect for the Constitution. It is, after all, only the bedrock of our civil society. And since he feels the need to spit all over everything this country was founded upon, you'd think he'd hold back on invoking the Constitution in his speeches all the time.
But then again, it's apparently just a goddamned piece of paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)