I feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family. Millions of Americans feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family. But we can't do anything about the injustice that has been done. Nor can we do anything to avert a further injustice looming on the horizon--Judge Reggie Walton seems inclined not to let Libby remain free pending appeal.Breaking up is so hard for Neo-Cons to do. Paul Wolfowitz is having the same problem with Shaha Ali Riza.
Unlike the rest of us, however, George W. Bush is president. Article II, Section Two of the Constitution gives him the pardon power. George W. Bush can do something to begin to make up for the injustice a prosecutor appointed by his own administration brought down on Scooter Libby. And he can do something to avert the further injustice of a prison term.
Will Bush pardon Libby? Apparently not--even if it means a man who worked closely with him and sought tirelessly to do what was right for the country goes to prison. Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, noting that the appeals process was underway, said,Given that and in keeping with what we have said in the past, the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and he is going to decline to do so now.So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?
He has been an enthusiastic cheerleader and collaborator to Bush's Iraq-Nam. He has robotically repeated NeoCon lies and mistaken assumptions which have caused immense suffering and waste in the entire region, and has badly expanded the cycle of terror and brutal counter-violence in the name of fighting terror. He has been a champion of misdiagnosis of the problem of terrorism. His subservience to the United States in Iraq and Palestine-Israel has been a shameless and humiliating example of obsequious spinelessness. He was also a conspicuous opponent to a 'premature' cease-fire in Israel's attack on Lebanon last summer.That this ex-prime minister, this man who took his country into the sands of Iraq, should actually believe that he has a role in the region . . . . Not once--ever--has he apologized. Not once has he said he was sorry for what he did in our name. Yet Lord Blair actually believes--in what must be a record act of self-indulgence for a man who cooked up the fake evidence of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"--that he can do good in the Middle East. . . . For here is a man who is totally discredited in the region--a politician who has signally failed in everything he ever tried to do in the Middle East--now believing that he is the right man to lead the Quartet to patch up "Palestine".So is Blair ditching complicity in one occupation and hitching himself up to another?
No. It's much beside the point. Bush has pushed Blair into this position. Because, to Bush, loyalty is the supreme political value and needs to be rewarded. Like Wolfowitz before him, Blair needs an international imprimatur and diplomatic immunity from persecution and prosecution. Bush, left behind, senses that's what every ex-war criminal seeks.
He is also remembered for his efforts to establish an international exchange program, which thereafter bore his name, the Fulbright Fellowships. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he opposed Lyndon Johnson's intervention in the Vietnamese civil war from 1966-1974. As a member of the president's own party, his breaking ranks with LBJ over the Vietnam War was one of the decisive factors in Johnson's retiring as a discouraged wartime president after his first term of office. Senator Lugar also said that America owes the President "constructive engagement".I rise today to offer observations on the continuing involvement of the United States in Iraq. In my judgment, our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world. The prospects that the current “surge” strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the President are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate. And the strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that our involvement in Iraq will end in a poorly planned withdrawal that undercuts our vital interests in the Middle East. Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of U.S. national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world.
In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.
. . . . three factors – the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military, and the constraints of our own domestic political process -- are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to engineer a stable, multi-sectarian government in Iraq in a reasonable time frame.
. . . . it is very doubtful that the leaders of Iraqi factions are capable of implementing a political settlement in the short run. I see no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy.
. . . . The second factor working against our ability to engineer a stable government in Iraq is the fatigue of our military. The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength or our ability to respond to other national security priorities is closing. . . . . American armed forces are incredibly resilient, but Iraq is taking a toll on recruitment and readiness.
. . . . The President and some of his advisors may be tempted to pursue the surge strategy to the end of his administration, but such a course contains extreme risks for U.S. national security.
. . . . In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Its prospects for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do not share our agenda. It relies on military power to achieve goals that it cannot achieve.
. . . . Our security interests call for a downsizing and re-deployment of U.S. military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East.
. . . . Our struggles in Iraq have placed U.S. foreign policy on a defensive footing and drawn resources from other national security endeavors, including Afghanistan.
From his radical stance on abortion to his prominence in the corruption scandals that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media, Barack Obama is not fit to be Senator -- not to mention the next President of the United States.I just wanted to present the other side, because this website is strictly nonpartisan.
Obama has declared his presidential intentions, but it is up to well-informed and energetic conservatives like you to spare our nation from the scourge of a far-left President Barack H. Obama.
Get your FREE PDF copy of HUMAN EVENTS' new special report - Barack Obama: EXPOSED! - when you sign up for our free email newsletters. It's the only way you'll get all the ammunition you need to end Obama's White House dreams once and for all.
From where did this dream or fantasy come to me in my early morning waking hours? The only antecedent that comes to mind is Secretary of Defense Gates's optimism, as he recently strolled the streets of the Iraqi capitol like John McCain before him.I found astonishing signs of normalcy. . . I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks, big ones, markets that are very vibrant. . . . It's a very mixed picture. . . It remains to be seen where we'll be in September.Anyways, in this dream, I was a reporter in a poorly-lit Baghdad Bowl arena football game. Even though this was the final championship game, there were many teams contending. Only one team was wearing helmets, pads and uniforms. (Yeah, it was tricolors, probably red, white and blue.)
This game was extremely physical with injuries, even fatalities, on every play. This didn't seem to be a problem for the highly partisan, blood-thirsty crowd. And, as far as the teams were concerned, there were always a supply of fresh replacements. Even coaches were frequently replaced. Of course, referees were dutifully blowing their barely audible whistles on all infractions. However, the penalty yardage assessed was never material because other barely noticed hooded field officials were always capriciously moving the line of scrimmage, ten-yard marker and the goal posts. The score board was the most erratic feature in my nightmare. Scores for all four or five teams were constantly being adjusted. And the time remaining? It was always the same: 6 
I was about to settle for a description of the physical beauty and architectural features of the stadium. I reached for my camera and snapped off a hurried panoramic shot of my surroundings just as my faithful and merciful Dobie awakened me with his imperious cold wet nose.
This unique image shows the interdependence of man, woman and the major religions of the world, in capturing the positive life-sustaining messages of coexistence and peace.Whatever. It works for me today, anyways.
One candidate for the American Presidency foresaw all of this.. . . I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.America is in dire need of competent media and leadership.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
On the same weekend that Thomas Ricks (WP) writes that Pentagon officers are planning a small 'Post-Occupation' Force for Iraq, Leiberman (on Face the Nation) appeals for war against Iran:I think we've got to be prepared to take military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me, that would include a strike into - over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.There's a simpler, less bloody, cheaper solution to this disastrous occupation towards which Lieberman has turned his blind eye.
Can we afford to sit back and wait?Today, by almost all objective measures, the United States sits on top of the world. But . . . . We have become a nation consumed by fear, worried about terrorists and rogue nations, Muslims and Mexicans, foreign companies and free trade, immigrants and international organizations. The strongest nation in the history of the world, we see ourselves besieged and overwhelmed. While the Bush administration has contributed mightily to this state of affairs. . . .Aye, there's the rub! A review of the recent Republican debate is indicative of what they have coming down the pike: extra-constitutional and theocratic governance, war, terror and empire-building. If repulsed in 2008, the same crowd - both indicted and unindicted - will be back at it in 2012 or 2016: the Iran-Contra's 3rd generation morphed and metastasized into more virulent anti-democratic strains.
In any event, it is time to stop bashing George W. Bush. We must begin to think about life after Bush—a cheering prospect for his foes. . . . . In 19 months he will be a private citizen, giving speeches to insurance executives. America, however, will have to move on and restore its place in the world. To do this we must first tackle the consequences of our foreign policy of fear. Having spooked ourselves into believing that we have no option but to act fast, alone, unilaterally and pre-emptively, we have managed in six years to destroy decades of international good will, alienate allies, embolden enemies and yet solve few of the major international problems we face.
In a global survey released last week, most countries polled believed that China would act more responsibly in the world than the United States. How does a Leninist dictatorship come across more sympathetically than the oldest constitutional democracy in the world? Some of this is, of course, the burden of being the biggest. But the United States has been the richest and most powerful nation in the world for almost a century, and for much of this period it was respected, admired and occasionally even loved. The problem today is not that America is too strong but that it is seen as too arrogant, uncaring and insensitive. Countries around the world believe that the United States, obsessed with its own notions of terrorism, has stopped listening to the rest of the world.
More troubling than any of Bush's rhetoric is that of the Republicans who wish to succeed him. . . .
. . . it is time to stop bashing George W. Bush.is both premature and minimalist. With 592 days to go, the full extent of the Cost of Bush to America (COBTA) cannot be fathomed.
George Bush as sort of a post-mortem "lessons learned" going forward to 2006. Needless to say, this publication was not intended for general circulation, which makes it all the more interesting.September 11th changed everything. So start with 9/11.This is the context which explains and justifies why we have 500 billion dollar deficits, why the stock market tanked, why unemployment climbed to 6% and why we are still in a rebuilding mode. Much of the public anger can be immediately pacified if they are reminded that we would not be in this situation today if 9/11 had not happened, and that it is unfair to blame the current political leadership or corporate America for the consequences of that day."Answer" applies to prescribed directions as to how Republicans are to respond to questions or compose attacks.
Without the context of 9-11, you will be blamed for the deficit. The deficit is a touchy subject for both Republicans and Democrats - your supporters are inherently turned off to the idea of fiscal irresponsibility, and Democrats see nothing but hypocrisy. The trick then is to contextualize the deficit inside of 9-11 and the war in Iraq, which Republicans some times do, but not early enough in the answer.
Dennis Milligan, owner of a water treatment company, was elected chairman of the Arkansas State Republican Party two weeks ago. In his first interview, Milligan told a reporter from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country:At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on Sept. 11, 2001 and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.Not surprisingly, Milligan says he is “150 percent” behind Bush in the occupation in Iraq.
So I have been asking every time Gore's name comes up, 'What's in it for him?' The obvious answer is that America needs Al Gore more than Al needs to be president. Or, as Eugene Robinson puts it, America Likes an Idiot, but It Needs Al Gore. I keep hearing snippets of brilliance. C-Span recently aired Gore's 50 impromptu minutes at George Washington University to which you can catch a link on SwiftSpeech. Trophy Wife Tivo-ed Charlie Rose's priceless interview for me, which you can grab on BlueMassGroup. (You can listen in the background while your 'Net surfing continues, as I am as I write this.)Things just keep on getting better for Al Gore. He is not only a global-warming guru—the man who changed the climate of opinion on climate change—he is also an all-purpose political guru as well. He was mocked back in 2000 for accusing George Bush of “risky schemes”. Since then Mr Bush has turned into a Pandora's box of risky schemes. He was ridiculed in America back in 2002 for denouncing the invasion of Iraq. Few would ridicule him today. Europeans only have to look at Mr Gore (and these days there is slightly more of him to look at) to think of what life might have been like without the Toxic Texan. Surely he will soon have a Nobel peace prize to add to his Oscar.
In a few short years he has established himself as an authority on American Media and its uncritical fraudcasting of errant political mythologies. Reason is the foundation of political democracy and Gore's critique, The Assault on Reason, seizes at the roots of the current American malaise. Gore speaks directly to the need to harness scientific methods to redress multi-faceted American crimes of commission and omission 
by “faith-based policies” in this short century. Not the least of these, of course, is Republicans' denial of An Inconvenient Truth, which is nothing short of appeasement of a future global holocaust. 
For Gore to become president would be for the earth-antagonist and government-hostile Republicans their worst nightmare. For Gore to become president eight years after the great train robbery in Florida would be a revenge served cold of Nixonian and Shakespearian proportions. Under a more positive interpretation, a Gore presidency would correct the course of American history and come the closest - of all Democratic alternatives - to annulling the Bush era.
