Saturday, March 19, 2011
Response to Dave Dubya 2
I'd also, Dave, like to respond to this statement; "The Bush Administration exhibited FAR MORE (my emphasis) fascistic policies and actions than any previous one." Again, I'm not entirely sure that that's an accurate assessment. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus and arrested/detained dissenters. FDR interned tens of thousands (tens of thousands, Dave!) of innocent U.S. civilians, temporarily suspended the right of contract, and routinely used the IRS as a weapon against political opponents (in many case, Democrats). Nixon....well, we all know what Mr. Nixon did. To say that the Bush administration was "far more fascistic" than any of these administrations is exceedingly debatable, at least IMHO.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Maybe this is splitting some mighty thin hairs but Lincoln had an insurrection on his hands and if I am correct even mega-G man Hoover didn't believe in Japanese interment.
For right now I'll ignore the argument that the Bush presidency was illegitimate from the Florida debacle and a loaded Supreme Court but in a way I think it matters.
But the run up to the Iraq War had all the qualities of a Reichstag fire with near goose stepping mindless patriotism and calls of traitor/terrorist-sympathizer/evil boogieman menace for anyone who did not fall into the Fox News approved line. Throw in Cheney's unethical ties to both Haliburton and other energy corporations plutocrats and there is far more than enough to use the term fascist.
Dave wrote:My first point was liberals have endured the Commie card for much longer, and with less justification, than the radical Right has been called fascist. Why don’t you admit that Commie card is even more frayed than the fascist card
I wrote nearly the same thing but after thinking about it I remembered it was assault weapon ARMED Teabaggers at political rallies during the health care debate that took on the characteristics of 1930's brown shirts. Throw in the good governor of Wisconsin caught on the phone admitting to thinking about loading the protesting union folks with paid thugs to cause trouble and I'll be damn but I believe Goebbels would have been proud.
Now I'm not saying lefties are saints, far from it, but right now the threat of violence and unquestioned obedience is coming mainly from the right.
If I were Dave, I would just be proud to have made the news. Once people are dedicating whole posts to your words, you know you have made it!
so true John so true! LOL. Its especially grand when the posting is of a liberal on a conservatives blog!
Sue, Heathen Republican has me listed in the "liberal" column. That, plus your statement, leads me to think that I'm doing a pretty good job. And, besides, only in progressive la la land is the defending of Bush against fascism charges the same as the defending of Bush in general. a) I never supported Bush. b) I never voted for Bush. And c) I was against the Iraq War BEFORE BIDEN, BEFORE KERRY, and BEFORE HILLARY. This is only about perspective - pure and simple.
Actually, John, the only reason that I did it this way was because I had lost a humongous comment on a previous thread and thought that maybe this would be safer. But, yes, you're right, Dave is absolutely worthy of a singular posting.
Double b, one of my favorite analysts on foreign policy is Richard Haass. He presently works at the Council on Foreign Relations and has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. According to Mr. Haass (who was in the State department at the time), we didn't go to war because of oil, or because of Israel (the Israelis actually tried to talk us out of war with Iraq - Iran, now that obviously would have been a different story). We went to war because we wanted to send the world a message, a message that we were totally willing (and able) to shape history, and not simply be the victims of it. That, along with Scott McClellan's theory of group think, seems to me to be the most plausible (and least hysterical) explanation.
Will,
I gratefully appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.
John.
Will’s kind hosting is not that unusual in his circle of bloggers and I thank him for carrying on this discussion of an important topic.
Beach,
You draw a major contrast with that li’l ol’ “Northern War Of Aggression” Of course, Lincoln didn’t actually start that war. And he didn’t actually violate the Constitution nearly so much as Bush did.
Article 1, Section 9: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
FDR knew internment camps for tens of thousands would be a cruel and desperate measure. That was a dark and dire time in America. Pearl Harbor was bombed and we were preparing for a possible Japanese invasion of our west coast. FDR wore many hats in his job, and thank God he was there to do it when we needed him. If the Bush family were in power they would have already had very friendly business relations with the Nazis. Many Americans had Nazi sympathies. That’s another story.
LBJ had very bloody hands too, escalating a war, but his domestic crimes were far fewer than his successor’s.
Ah, Nixon. It took a real Shrub to push the boundaries further than he did. His list is impressive: Watergate, Secret war in SE Asia, various coups against democratically elected leaders, notions of purging Jews from the Administration, notions of bombing the Brookings Institute, clamping down with his war on drugs after his own commission urged the de-criminalization of weed, and lest we forget, his “Enemies List”.
We must include Obama as one with a blood-stained legacy too, with his targeted assassinations, drones, and surge in Afghanistan.
So how does G. Dubya compare? Let’s start with a guy who worked for Nixon, and see how he would compare them. In December 2001, John Dean wrote,” On November 1, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13233, a policy enabling his administration to govern in secrecy. For good reason, this has upset many historians, journalists, and Congresspersons (both Republican and Democratic). The Order ends 27 years of Congressional and judicial efforts to make presidential papers and records publicly available. In issuing it, the president not only has pushed his lawmaking powers beyond their limits, but he may be making the same mistakes as Richard Nixon.” (Except the Dems let him get away with it.)
With this new cover of secrecy, the Bush Administration launched into their agenda that pre-dated 9-11. It was time to “catapult the propaganda” in Bush’s words, the lies and fear-mongering needed to convert 70% of the Americans opposing an invasion of Iraq to 70% in favor. Thanks to the compliant parroting by corporate media and collaborating appeasement from Dems, they succeeded. Bush told us he would invade if he had a chance because a “war president” was usually the most effective. He saw war as a vehicle to more domestic political power and re-election. He and Dick also had many, many cronies who stood to profit immensely as well.
Bush then started a war of aggression based of falsehoods, after he rammed the Patriot Act down America’s throat, along with other violations of our Bill of Rights. Next came warrantless surveillance of Americans, detentions without charges, and torture. Bush shrouded his White House in secrecy and started two wars he couldn’t finish. He abused and politicized our Justice Department for purposes of voter suppression of his political opposition. Remember he pressured US Attorneys to prosecute non-existent cases of “voter fraud”. They were then fired for not engaging in his effort to suppress voters.
I grow weary with this list and declare him the most fascistic of presidents. If we need a point system to make the decision, how about tallying the abuses of our Constitution, four thousand dead Americans, plus maybe a million other dead human beings in ongoing wars we cannot afford to pay for, provided they ever really end?
will,
I have twice posted a place other than the place of the original discussion in order to post a very long response in an intense debate. Though I am a devout liberal, in both cases the gentlemen honored with my posts were conservatives.
I just wanted to comment on the iron of a rebuttal of any kind that seems to be mixed with a promotion of sorts.
That I think I probably annoy Dave the few times I have shared my voice with him, his blog is in my conceptual top ten.
As for your liberalism, I consider you somewhat of a moderate, but there is more to learn. I definitely would not classify you as a conservative or a liberal. Again, I have much to learn, so my opinion is meaningless, really.
Will I would classify you as moderately left leaning with some conservative values that you hold dear, including your love of lesbian porn. :-)))
You are just an all around nice guy who takes the progressive thinking things I say too seriously. Where's the sense of humor in the conservative party? Look what HR said to me when I said I was offended by his calling my commenters uncivilized. I was half joking but he called me a 5 yr old so that ended that conversation. I will just take my dolls home and not visit him again! :-)
Proof you are liberal-like...I can talk to you, I can not talk to wingnuts. They are miserable, humorless, and mean.
I personally am sick of a new excuse for the Iraq invasion coming out every week.
I've never heard of Mr. Haass? I've heard of WMD's. A smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud. "Tried to buy nucalar material from Africa." (When Bush said that is when I came out against the invasion.
Being greeted with flowers and candy. Iraqis will rise up to greet us as liberators.
It was all bullshit Will. And no matter how hard we try, it will still be bullshit.
"Fascist" is no more than an insult. It's meaning now has nothing to do with an economic theory. It's just a word to describe someone as a bully, prick or totalitarian or something akin.
Sue and John, I guess that you could call me a Rockefeller Republican/Boren Democrat (a dinosaur, in other words). I'm exceedingly liberal on social issues/civil liberties/foreign policy (significantly more supportive of the Powell Doctrine than the Rumsfeld Doctrine) but, yeah, a little bit more of a blue-dog on the economic stuff. I mostly vote Democratic but try to find moderate pro-choice Republicans to support as well. In retrospect, I'm probably not the type of person who should even BE blogging.
Will,
As a moderate myself, I stand with you, brother. I am generally liberal on social issues and on fiscal issues and on foreign policy, BUT, I do like the Conservative’s elephant more than my Jackass.
Truth, "War of Necessity, War of Choice" by Richard Haass. It's probably the best book that you could get about the 2 Iraq Wars.......And, no, he's probably not going to be getting any future invites to Crawford.
I look forward to your future postings, John (on both of your 2 fine blog-sites).
Will,
I gratefully appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.
John.
Will’s kind hosting is not that unusual in his circle of bloggers and I thank him for carrying on this discussion of an important topic.
Beach,
You draw a major contrast with that li’l ol’ “Northern War Of Aggression” Of course, Lincoln didn’t actually start that war. And he didn’t actually violate the Constitution nearly so much as Bush did.
Article 1, Section 9: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
FDR knew internment camps for tens of thousands would be a cruel and desperate measure. That was a dark and dire time in America. Pearl Harbor was bombed and we were preparing for a possible Japanese invasion of our west coast. FDR wore many hats in his job, and thank God he was there to do it when we needed him. If the Bush family were in power they would have already had very friendly business relations with the Nazis. Many Americans had Nazi sympathies. That’s another story.
LBJ had very bloody hands too, escalating a war, but his domestic crimes were far fewer than his successor’s.
Ah, Nixon. It took a real Shrub to push the boundaries further than he did. His list is impressive: Watergate, Secret war in SE Asia, various coups against democratically elected leaders, notions of purging Jews from the Administration, notions of bombing the Brookings Institute, clamping down with his war on drugs after his own commission urged the de-criminalization of weed, and lest we forget, his “Enemies List”.
We must include Obama as one with a blood-stained legacy too, with his targeted assassinations, drones, and surge in Afghanistan.
So how does G. Dubya compare? Let’s start with a guy who worked for Nixon, and see how he would compare them. In December 2001, John Dean wrote,” On November 1, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13233, a policy enabling his administration to govern in secrecy. For good reason, this has upset many historians, journalists, and Congresspersons (both Republican and Democratic). The Order ends 27 years of Congressional and judicial efforts to make presidential papers and records publicly available. In issuing it, the president not only has pushed his lawmaking powers beyond their limits, but he may be making the same mistakes as Richard Nixon.” (Except the Dems let him get away with it.)
With this new cover of secrecy, the Bush Administration launched into their agenda that pre-dated 9-11. It was time to “catapult the propaganda” in Bush’s words, the lies and fear-mongering needed to convert 70% of the Americans opposing an invasion of Iraq to 70% in favor. Thanks to the compliant parroting by corporate media and collaborating appeasement from Dems, they succeeded. Bush told us he would invade if he had a chance because a “war president” was usually the most effective. He saw war as a vehicle to more domestic political power and re-election. He and Dick also had many, many cronies who stood to profit immensely as well.
Bush then started a war of aggression based of falsehoods, after he rammed the Patriot Act down America’s throat, along with other violations of our Bill of Rights. Next came warrantless surveillance of Americans, detentions without charges, and torture. Bush shrouded his White House in secrecy and started two wars he couldn’t finish. He abused and politicized our Justice Department for purposes of voter suppression of his political opposition. Remember he pressured US Attorneys to prosecute non-existent cases of “voter fraud”. They were then fired for not engaging in his effort to suppress voters.
I grow weary with this list and declare him the most fascistic of presidents. If we need a point system to make the decision, how about tallying the abuses of our Constitution, four thousand dead Americans, plus maybe a million other dead human beings in ongoing wars we cannot afford to pay for, provided they ever really end?
I hope these comments post. I'm getting bad juju from Blogger about my blog being deleted.
Free Speech ain't easy these days.
John,
Could you email me please?
Will,
I gratefully appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.
John.
Will’s kind hosting is not that unusual in his circle of bloggers and I thank him for carrying on this discussion of an important topic.
Beach,
You draw a major contrast with that li’l ol’ “Northern War Of Aggression” Of course, Lincoln didn’t actually start that war. And he didn’t actually violate the Constitution nearly so much as Bush did.
Article 1, Section 9: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
FDR knew internment camps for tens of thousands would be a cruel and desperate measure. That was a dark and dire time in America. Pearl Harbor was bombed and we were preparing for a possible Japanese invasion of our west coast. FDR wore many hats in his job, and thank God he was there to do it when we needed him. If the Bush family were in power they would have already had very friendly business relations with the Nazis. Many Americans had Nazi sympathies. That’s another story.
LBJ had very bloody hands too, escalating a war, but his domestic crimes were far fewer than his successor’s.
Ah, Nixon. It took a real Shrub to push the boundaries further than he did. His list is impressive: Watergate, Secret war in SE Asia, various coups against democratically elected leaders, notions of purging Jews from the Administration, notions of bombing the Brookings Institute, clamping down with his war on drugs after his own commission urged the de-criminalization of weed, and lest we forget, his “Enemies List”.
We must include Obama as one with a blood-stained legacy too, with his targeted assassinations, drones, and surge in Afghanistan.
So how does G. Dubya compare? Let’s start with a guy who worked for Nixon, and see how he would compare them. In December 2001, John Dean wrote,” On November 1, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13233, a policy enabling his administration to govern in secrecy. For good reason, this has upset many historians, journalists, and Congresspersons (both Republican and Democratic). The Order ends 27 years of Congressional and judicial efforts to make presidential papers and records publicly available. In issuing it, the president not only has pushed his lawmaking powers beyond their limits, but he may be making the same mistakes as Richard Nixon.” (Except the Dems let him get away with it.)
With this new cover of secrecy, the Bush Administration launched into their agenda that pre-dated 9-11. It was time to “catapult the propaganda” in Bush’s words, the lies and fear-mongering needed to convert 70% of the Americans opposing an invasion of Iraq to 70% in favor. Thanks to the compliant parroting by corporate media and collaborating appeasement from Dems, they succeeded. Bush told us he would invade if he had a chance because a “war president” was usually the most effective. He saw war as a vehicle to more domestic political power and re-election. He and Dick also had many, many cronies who stood to profit immensely as well.
Bush then started a war of aggression based of falsehoods, after he rammed the Patriot Act down America’s throat, along with other violations of our Bill of Rights. Next came warrantless surveillance of Americans, detentions without charges, and torture. Bush shrouded his White House in secrecy and started two wars he couldn’t finish. He abused and politicized our Justice Department for purposes of voter suppression of his political opposition. Remember he pressured US Attorneys to prosecute non-existent cases of “voter fraud”. They were then fired for not engaging in his effort to suppress voters.
I grow weary with this list and declare him the most fascistic of presidents. If we need a point system to make the decision, how about tallying the abuses of our Constitution, four thousand dead Americans, plus maybe a million other dead human beings in ongoing wars we cannot afford to pay for, provided they ever really end?
Will,
I gratefully appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.
John.
Will’s kind hosting is not that unusual in his circle of bloggers and I thank him for carrying on this discussion of an important topic.
Beach,
You draw a major contrast with that li’l ol’ “Northern War Of Aggression” Of course, Lincoln didn’t actually start that war. And he didn’t actually violate the Constitution nearly so much as Bush did.
Article 1, Section 9: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
FDR knew internment camps for tens of thousands would be a cruel and desperate measure. That was a dark and dire time in America. Pearl Harbor was bombed and we were preparing for a possible Japanese invasion of our west coast. FDR wore many hats in his job, and thank God he was there to do it when we needed him. If the Bush family were in power they would have already had very friendly business relations with the Nazis. Many Americans had Nazi sympathies. That’s another story.
LBJ had very bloody hands too, escalating a war, but his domestic crimes were far fewer than his successor’s.
Ah, Nixon. It took a real Shrub to push the boundaries further than he did. His list is impressive: Watergate, Secret war in SE Asia, various coups against democratically elected leaders, notions of purging Jews from the Administration, notions of bombing the Brookings Institute, clamping down with his war on drugs after his own commission urged the de-criminalization of weed, and lest we forget, his “Enemies List”.
We must include Obama as one with a blood-stained legacy too, with his targeted assassinations, drones, and surge in Afghanistan.
(Continues)
So how does G. Dubya compare? Let’s start with a guy who worked for Nixon, and see how he would compare them. In December 2001, John Dean wrote,” On November 1, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13233, a policy enabling his administration to govern in secrecy. For good reason, this has upset many historians, journalists, and Congresspersons (both Republican and Democratic). The Order ends 27 years of Congressional and judicial efforts to make presidential papers and records publicly available. In issuing it, the president not only has pushed his lawmaking powers beyond their limits, but he may be making the same mistakes as Richard Nixon.” (Except the Dems let him get away with it.)
With this new cover of secrecy, the Bush Administration launched into their agenda that pre-dated 9-11. It was time to “catapult the propaganda” in Bush’s words, the lies and fear-mongering needed to convert 70% of the Americans opposing an invasion of Iraq to 70% in favor. Thanks to the compliant parroting by corporate media and collaborating appeasement from Dems, they succeeded. Bush told us he would invade if he had a chance because a “war president” was usually the most effective. He saw war as a vehicle to more domestic political power and re-election. He and Dick also had many, many cronies who stood to profit immensely as well.
Bush then started a war of aggression based of falsehoods, after he rammed the Patriot Act down America’s throat, along with other violations of our Bill of Rights. Next came warrantless surveillance of Americans, detentions without charges, and torture. Bush shrouded his White House in secrecy and started two wars he couldn’t finish. He abused and politicized our Justice Department for purposes of voter suppression of his political opposition. Remember he pressured US Attorneys to prosecute non-existent cases of “voter fraud”. They were then fired for not engaging in his effort to suppress voters.
I grow weary with this list and declare him the most fascistic of presidents. If we need a point system to make the decision, how about tallying the abuses of our Constitution, four thousand dead Americans, plus maybe a million other dead human beings in ongoing wars we cannot afford to pay for, provided they ever really end?
I think that historians will tell you that the best time to judge a President's value probably isn't right after he leaves the office. Yes, Mr. Bush strengthened the Presidency greatly but I haven't seen Mr. Obama cede any of these powers, either.......And then there's the historical perspective again. Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan all favored the expansion of slavery into the territories and none of them opposed secession. Andrew Johnson opposed reconstruction and he was also impeached. Harding's administration was possibly even more corrupt than Nixon's. Nixon and LBJ have far more blood on their hands than Bush (58,000 to 4,000 and civilian casualties WAY MORE). McKinley lied us into 2 wars. Polk lied us into the Mexican-American War (he said that it was to normalize the border with Texas when it was actually a land grab). Andrew Jackson led a war of extermination on the Native Americans. And Lincoln arrested and incarcerated a lot of people for speech and dissent, NOT because they were necessarily violent. Look, I'm saying that Bush was a good President or anything (I'd probably put him in the bottom 5 or 10). I'm just saying that it might be a tad too early to say that he was the most dictatorial EVER.
"he rammed the Patriot Act down America's throat" - Dave, the Senate passed that measure 99-1. Russ Feingold was the only Senator with the chutzpah to oppose it......."a million other dead human beings" - I'm not sure where you got that particular statistic but Iraq Body Count has the civilian death tally at 109,000, with most of those deaths coming as a result of the ethnic conflict and not American firepower. Now, yes, we were the ones who popped the cork and started this carnage and, yes, because of that, Mr. Bush needs to be held accountable (at least in terms of historical analysis). No argument from me on that.......
You're right, many Americans DID have Nazi sympathies. Can you say Joseph Kennedy Sr.?......"He saw war as a vehicle to more domestic political power and reelection." That's pure speculation, Dave. You're attributing the most sinister motivation possible. Maybe he thought that he was doing the right thing and made a huge (and, yes, tragic) miscalculation.......And your list of Bush's transgressions. Let's take a little stock of them. Warrantless wiretaps - yep, still got 'em. Detentions (unlimited) without charges - yep, still got 'em. Rendition - yep, still got 'em. Granted, no more water-boarding but Mr. Obama has replaced that crap with drone attacks and an idiotic surge in Afghanistan (talk about a guy looking to get reelected). It sounds to me, based upon your criteria, that Mr. Obama is pretty damned fascistic also.
Wow. Between the two of us we pretty much painted a portrait of an evil empire.
Let's hope the American people are not judged according to their politicians' behavior.
Oh, Dave, the firing of those attorneys was atrocious and obviously politically motivated. I'm not sure that it was illegal (the President can supposedly fire whoever he wants whenever he wants), but it was definitely sleazy and will no doubt take him (Mr. Bush) down a notch in the history books.
Post a Comment