Fightin' Dem wants to slug presidency-stealing POTUS (Bush) in nose...!
It is our belief here at C-Dems.blgspt.com that George Bush won neither the popular vote majority OF ALL THOSE WHO VOTED ON ELECTION DAY in Florida in 2000, nor the popular vote majority of Ohio voters in 2004 (and other states as well), which if true would mean that Mr. Bush never truly 'won' the true electoral college majorities in either of his presidential elections.
As to whether Mr. Bush is a squatter in the White House, the jury (on those uncounted votes) may be out for years or decades. But one thing IS CERTAIN: in 2000 Texas Governor Bush made a campaign pledge to run "A MORE HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY," to run as a "UNITER, NOT DIVIDER," and he pledged to bring "A MORE BIPARTISAN TONE TO WASHINGTON" if he won the election.
On all three signature themes of his 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush was lying at his very core. We now know that Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and even Jeb Bush had all three personally signed the PNAC "Project for a New American Century" statement of principles in 1997 (a statement that also included the signatures of Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Paul Wolfowitz), and in 1998 the think-tank formalized its call for US military force in Iraq to displace the Iraqi dictator there (Saddam Hussein) and assert American authority over the area in a letter to then President Bill Clinton- - - what foreign policy academic/intellectual/policy leaders call a "MUSCULAR" or "HARD" foreign policy.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Thus while Governor Bush was PLEDGING a "MORE HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY" on the campaign trail, he already had his core foreign policy staff assembled around him, those who would soon be the nation's very top foreign policy architects, men who PROUDLY and PUBLICLY advocated a "hard" or military "solution" to "the problem" posed by Saddam' Hussein's rule over Iraq - and, not so incidentally, secretly harbored the desire to extend the same hard-edged unilateralism to ALL of America's other strategic and economic problems in the region.
Today we call adherents to this foreign policy vision (the call for US unilateralism overseas) "neo-cons," although the term "neo-conservative" hardly applies to Dick Cheney and others like him. Cheney has been a through-and-through "conservative" his entire career, no "neo" about it. Even the term "CONSERVATIVE" is a misnomer in this context, because "conservative" implies 'to conserve,' and in actuality the agenda of Dick Cheney and many of those around him - the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond/Jesse Helms/Texas oil billionaire-tycoon school of American 'conservatism - do not want to "CONSERVE" the America we know today - the America of high wages, upward mobility, race and cultural integration, public education and job safety standards and even the mass enfranchisement of mass-participation democracy - but want to REVERT to the America of the pre-New Deal Era, the decades when not only did America have NO "social safety net," but SEGREGATION was the "rule of law" throughout a dozen state, and very cheap, nonunion labor was an essential component of not only agricultural plantations (read sharecropping) but of northern industry as well. (Pennsylvania's steel and mining industries, for example, welcomed new waves of immigrants who all worked for less than those who had preceded them, creating resentments as new minorities displaced established ones.) Note: the 15th Amendment is one of the clearest and most concise amendments to the US Constitution, and thus SHOULD be the "supreme law of the land." But since segregation for over 100 years _did_ "ABRIDGE" or deny the right of citizens of the United States to vote, what we had was a situation where millions of Americans PLEDGED themselves to upholding the CONSTITUTION of the United States, while actually putting LOCAL laws (state laws decreeing segregation) OVER and ABOVE (the 15th amendment to) the Constitution.
This slight digression into constitutional amendments and voting rights _denied_ merely to illustrate that "CONSERVATIVES" often have NO interest in "CONSERVING" the America we know today - the America that nominally abides by the Bill of Rights and the Amendments, voting rights, and constitutional law - and instead the adherents of the radical-right agenda and philosophy prefer a REGRESSION to an earlier, less sophisticated era. In short, far from being "conservative" the ideologues of the Dick Cheney wing of the Republican Party are REACTIONARY, and it has only been because of the massive media BIAS _FOR_ this reactionary right-wing (fusion of corporate and fundamentalist) agenda that that the full extent of that agenda has not been disclosed to the American public more fully and explicitly. (For example, just as the PNAC agenda is the manifesto of the neo-cons and radical-right foreign policy acolytes, the PLATFORM of the TEXAS REPUBLICAN PARTY is practically a manifesto of the reactionary-right social agenda, a platform and agenda which the media/press does NOT disclose fully to the American public.)
http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=library_platform
In Sum: Mr. Bush probably did NOT "win" the White House in either of his two presidential elections, the "conservative agenda" in America is often REACTIONARY, not "conservative," and despite PLEDGING "A MORE HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY," Mr. Bush and his radical-right/neo-cons have ALWAYS INTENDED TO EMBARK ON A "MUSCULAR" exertion of US foreign policy abroad. All they needed (after winning the election of 2000) was a significant provocation to embark on a war with Iraq, which the PNAC neo-cons of course painted as a mere prelude to invasions of Iran and other countries.
The usefulness of a "new Pearl Harbor" to justify a muscular exertion of the US military (US hegemony) was actually even mentioned somewhere in neo-con circles, but more importantly, within DAYS of 9-11, Donald Rumsfeld (as Secretary of the War Department) was demanding of his aides and advisors that they prepare ways to use the attack on America as a means to launch a war with Iraq. A sentiment that was seconded in other testimony as well, including Paul O'Neill writing after he resigned as Treasury Secretary that the intention to ATTACK IRAQ was one of THE FIRST policy considerations discussed by the new, incoming Bush-Cheney administration early in 2001... That is, months before 9-11 provided the justification for a US war in Afghanistan that would be hijacked to justify the war in Iraq as well.
Mr. Bush's 2000 pledge to exert a "MORE HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY" was a premeditated lie, with Mr. Bush intending at the early possible moment to "undo" his father's policy of not invading Baghdad to eliminate Saddam Hussein at the end of the first US Gulf War against Iraq (1991). In the five years since his "humble" pledge, Mr. Bush has sought to USE American troops and service members as PAWNS in his "GREAT GAME" of extending US HEGEMONY overseas, into regions that empires have fought and bled for over centuries. For example, despite its vaunted greatness, the Roman empire never extended its reach into the far Mideast - into Iraq and Persia and Arabia - though Alexander the great had done so, at least temporarily, centuries before.
Up until this past month, Mr. Bush has avoided any personal responsibility for misleading American citizens into this great scheme, because so many Americans have bought into the notion that the US invasion of Iraq was an urgent necessity and not a premeditated agenda. The pain and trauma of those whose lives have been impacted by Mr. Bush's "untruths" and callow leadership are FINALLY starting to be felt, even within the walls of the stolen White House.
=====================================
Note: One of the laws that Mr. Bush, his neo-cons, and his Reactionary Right-WIng supporters despise and consistently try to undermine:
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
=============================
Note 2: Eleanor Clift reports that Senator-elect Jim Webb's son narrowly missed being hit or killed by a bomb (IED) in Iraq, the explosion killed 3 Marines in another vehicle next to Webb's.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15990689/site/newsweek/
==============================
Note 3: New Yorker columnist Jeffrey Toobin reports that the 1,000 year principle of Habeus Corpus - that even kings and dictators must show and prove just cause to arrest and detain citizens or subjects - is now all but dead in America, waiting only for the next national emergency to be formally buried and dispensed with.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061204fa_fact
=============================
Son also rises in testy Webb-Bush exchange
By Emily Heil
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/112906.html
President Bush has pledged to work with the new Democratic majorities in Congress, but he has already gotten off on the wrong foot with Jim Webb, whose surprise victory over Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) tipped the Senate to the Democrats.
Webb, a decorated former Marine officer, hammered Allen and Bush over the unpopular war in Iraq while wearing his son’s old combat boots on the campaign trail. It seems the president may have some lingering resentment.
At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.
Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.
“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.
Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.
“Jim did have a conversation with Bush at that dinner,” said Webb’s spokeswoman Kristian Denny Todd. “Basically, he asked about Jim’s son, Jim expressed the fact that he wanted to have him home.” Todd did not want to escalate matters by commenting on Bush’s response, saying, “It was a private conversation.”
A White House spokeswoman declined to give Bush’s version of the conversation.
As to whether Mr. Bush is a squatter in the White House, the jury (on those uncounted votes) may be out for years or decades. But one thing IS CERTAIN: in 2000 Texas Governor Bush made a campaign pledge to run "A MORE HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY," to run as a "UNITER, NOT DIVIDER," and he pledged to bring "A MORE BIPARTISAN TONE TO WASHINGTON" if he won the election.
On all three signature themes of his 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush was lying at his very core. We now know that Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and even Jeb Bush had all three personally signed the PNAC "Project for a New American Century" statement of principles in 1997 (a statement that also included the signatures of Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Paul Wolfowitz), and in 1998 the think-tank formalized its call for US military force in Iraq to displace the Iraqi dictator there (Saddam Hussein) and assert American authority over the area in a letter to then President Bill Clinton- - - what foreign policy academic/intellectual/policy leaders call a "MUSCULAR" or "HARD" foreign policy.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Thus while Governor Bush was PLEDGING a "MORE HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY" on the campaign trail, he already had his core foreign policy staff assembled around him, those who would soon be the nation's very top foreign policy architects, men who PROUDLY and PUBLICLY advocated a "hard" or military "solution" to "the problem" posed by Saddam' Hussein's rule over Iraq - and, not so incidentally, secretly harbored the desire to extend the same hard-edged unilateralism to ALL of America's other strategic and economic problems in the region.
Today we call adherents to this foreign policy vision (the call for US unilateralism overseas) "neo-cons," although the term "neo-conservative" hardly applies to Dick Cheney and others like him. Cheney has been a through-and-through "conservative" his entire career, no "neo" about it. Even the term "CONSERVATIVE" is a misnomer in this context, because "conservative" implies 'to conserve,' and in actuality the agenda of Dick Cheney and many of those around him - the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond/Jesse Helms/Texas oil billionaire-tycoon school of American 'conservatism - do not want to "CONSERVE" the America we know today - the America of high wages, upward mobility, race and cultural integration, public education and job safety standards and even the mass enfranchisement of mass-participation democracy - but want to REVERT to the America of the pre-New Deal Era, the decades when not only did America have NO "social safety net," but SEGREGATION was the "rule of law" throughout a dozen state, and very cheap, nonunion labor was an essential component of not only agricultural plantations (read sharecropping) but of northern industry as well. (Pennsylvania's steel and mining industries, for example, welcomed new waves of immigrants who all worked for less than those who had preceded them, creating resentments as new minorities displaced established ones.) Note: the 15th Amendment is one of the clearest and most concise amendments to the US Constitution, and thus SHOULD be the "supreme law of the land." But since segregation for over 100 years _did_ "ABRIDGE" or deny the right of citizens of the United States to vote, what we had was a situation where millions of Americans PLEDGED themselves to upholding the CONSTITUTION of the United States, while actually putting LOCAL laws (state laws decreeing segregation) OVER and ABOVE (the 15th amendment to) the Constitution.
This slight digression into constitutional amendments and voting rights _denied_ merely to illustrate that "CONSERVATIVES" often have NO interest in "CONSERVING" the America we know today - the America that nominally abides by the Bill of Rights and the Amendments, voting rights, and constitutional law - and instead the adherents of the radical-right agenda and philosophy prefer a REGRESSION to an earlier, less sophisticated era. In short, far from being "conservative" the ideologues of the Dick Cheney wing of the Republican Party are REACTIONARY, and it has only been because of the massive media BIAS _FOR_ this reactionary right-wing (fusion of corporate and fundamentalist) agenda that that the full extent of that agenda has not been disclosed to the American public more fully and explicitly. (For example, just as the PNAC agenda is the manifesto of the neo-cons and radical-right foreign policy acolytes, the PLATFORM of the TEXAS REPUBLICAN PARTY is practically a manifesto of the reactionary-right social agenda, a platform and agenda which the media/press does NOT disclose fully to the American public.)
http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=library_platform
In Sum: Mr. Bush probably did NOT "win" the White House in either of his two presidential elections, the "conservative agenda" in America is often REACTIONARY, not "conservative," and despite PLEDGING "A MORE HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY," Mr. Bush and his radical-right/neo-cons have ALWAYS INTENDED TO EMBARK ON A "MUSCULAR" exertion of US foreign policy abroad. All they needed (after winning the election of 2000) was a significant provocation to embark on a war with Iraq, which the PNAC neo-cons of course painted as a mere prelude to invasions of Iran and other countries.
The usefulness of a "new Pearl Harbor" to justify a muscular exertion of the US military (US hegemony) was actually even mentioned somewhere in neo-con circles, but more importantly, within DAYS of 9-11, Donald Rumsfeld (as Secretary of the War Department) was demanding of his aides and advisors that they prepare ways to use the attack on America as a means to launch a war with Iraq. A sentiment that was seconded in other testimony as well, including Paul O'Neill writing after he resigned as Treasury Secretary that the intention to ATTACK IRAQ was one of THE FIRST policy considerations discussed by the new, incoming Bush-Cheney administration early in 2001... That is, months before 9-11 provided the justification for a US war in Afghanistan that would be hijacked to justify the war in Iraq as well.
Mr. Bush's 2000 pledge to exert a "MORE HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY" was a premeditated lie, with Mr. Bush intending at the early possible moment to "undo" his father's policy of not invading Baghdad to eliminate Saddam Hussein at the end of the first US Gulf War against Iraq (1991). In the five years since his "humble" pledge, Mr. Bush has sought to USE American troops and service members as PAWNS in his "GREAT GAME" of extending US HEGEMONY overseas, into regions that empires have fought and bled for over centuries. For example, despite its vaunted greatness, the Roman empire never extended its reach into the far Mideast - into Iraq and Persia and Arabia - though Alexander the great had done so, at least temporarily, centuries before.
Up until this past month, Mr. Bush has avoided any personal responsibility for misleading American citizens into this great scheme, because so many Americans have bought into the notion that the US invasion of Iraq was an urgent necessity and not a premeditated agenda. The pain and trauma of those whose lives have been impacted by Mr. Bush's "untruths" and callow leadership are FINALLY starting to be felt, even within the walls of the stolen White House.
=====================================
Note: One of the laws that Mr. Bush, his neo-cons, and his Reactionary Right-WIng supporters despise and consistently try to undermine:
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
=============================
Note 2: Eleanor Clift reports that Senator-elect Jim Webb's son narrowly missed being hit or killed by a bomb (IED) in Iraq, the explosion killed 3 Marines in another vehicle next to Webb's.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15990689/site/newsweek/
==============================
Note 3: New Yorker columnist Jeffrey Toobin reports that the 1,000 year principle of Habeus Corpus - that even kings and dictators must show and prove just cause to arrest and detain citizens or subjects - is now all but dead in America, waiting only for the next national emergency to be formally buried and dispensed with.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061204fa_fact
=============================
Son also rises in testy Webb-Bush exchange
By Emily Heil
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/112906.html
President Bush has pledged to work with the new Democratic majorities in Congress, but he has already gotten off on the wrong foot with Jim Webb, whose surprise victory over Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) tipped the Senate to the Democrats.
Webb, a decorated former Marine officer, hammered Allen and Bush over the unpopular war in Iraq while wearing his son’s old combat boots on the campaign trail. It seems the president may have some lingering resentment.
At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.
Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.
“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.
Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.
“Jim did have a conversation with Bush at that dinner,” said Webb’s spokeswoman Kristian Denny Todd. “Basically, he asked about Jim’s son, Jim expressed the fact that he wanted to have him home.” Todd did not want to escalate matters by commenting on Bush’s response, saying, “It was a private conversation.”
A White House spokeswoman declined to give Bush’s version of the conversation.
posted by verifi at 9:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home