Tag Archive for 'bush_administration'

Links: Newt, Drugs and Frenchy

A notable quote from Newt Gingrich this week:

This is … one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration. The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ‘Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.

Orson Scott Card makes the case against legalizing drugs.

Laws against drugs are like stoplights put up at dangerous intersections. They don’t go up until somebody has died. And then people get irritated because they have to stop at the light all the time “even when there’s no cross traffic.” Yeah, well, the light is there because we know what happens when there isn’t a stoplight.

Outcry after French court rules on virginity

Marine removed from duty for evangelism.

One Final Goodie from Bush & Co.

Originally Published at Don Emmerich’s Blog.

Ruining our economy wasn’t enough. Nor was waging an immoral, unnecessary war. No, it seems that the Bush Administration might have one final goodie for the American people. Yes, that’s right, a war with Iran.

Not only does the administration continue saber rattling over Iran, but it’s now known that the Pentagon is planning for “potential military courses of action.”

The stated reasons for this potential attack are that (1) Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and (2) Iran has for some time been waging a proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq.

So these are the charges. Of course, charges are not always factual, and we should keep a few things in mind.

First, according to the U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran terminated its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Now, of course, Dick Cheney claims that he knows better, that he knows what Iran is really up to with its uranium enrichment program. But this guy doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to making predictions; moreover, I think it’s safe to say that the 16 U.S. spy agencies know more about the inner workings of Tehran than our Rambo-wannabe vice president.

But why then, some have asked, does Iran insist on enriching uranium? Surely, they must be lying when they say they have peaceful intentions; surely they must want to blow up the world. But that doesn’t at all follow. Just three short decades ago, Henry Kissinger claimed that Iran needed nuclear energy because its economy demanded that it save its oil for other purposes. (We should also keep in mind that, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.)
Let’s move on to the second charge, which is that the Iranian government is arming many of the Iraqi insurgents. Now, for obvious reasons, even if it could be shown that the insurgents have arms that were made in Iran, it wouldn’t follow that the Iranian government was responsible for the attacks. Among others, this point has been made by Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In February 2007 when the Bush gang began claiming that the Quds Force was sending explosives to Iraqi insurgents, Pace told the Voice of America,

It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.

This should all sound very familiar. The same people who lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and al Qaeda ties (and in case you didn’t hear, there were no WMDS and no al Qaeda ties)—these same people are now trying to hoodwink the country into another war.

I’m certainly not defending Tehran, which is repressive and undemocratic. I personally think the Iranian people were much better off under Mohammad Mossadegh, who was a peace-loving and democratically-elected prime minister in the 1950s, a man who—oh by the way—was driven from power by the CIA and replaced by a brutal monarch. (And what, you’re asking, did Mossadegh do to deserve such treatment? The answer is that he thought Iran’s oil reserves should be owned by Iran, not the British government. A very heretical belief in Western minds.)

Now it’s certainly possible that, despite its claims, Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And I certainly don’t think the world would be a better place with a nuclear-armed Iran. But it’s simply absurd to believe that, if Iran got nukes, it would use them against the U.S. and/or Israel. If nothing else, the Iranian government is rational. And therefore it realizes that using nuclear weapons against nations with superior military forces and enormous nuclear stockpiles would result in its own annihilation. So if Iran is seeking nukes—and again, our intelligence agencies tell us that such is not the case—but if it is, then it would only want them as a deterrent.

Now is not the time for another war. Now is the time to talk, something the Iranians have been trying to do for several years. In May 2003, for instance, Iran’s leaders sent a negotiating package to the U.S. through a Swiss diplomat. There wasn’t anything Tehran wasn’t willing to discuss: “everything was on the table—Iran’s nuclear program, policy toward Israel, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and control over al-Qaeda operatives captured since the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan.” Yet the Bush administration not only refused to talk to the Iranians but even reprimanded the Swiss diplomat for conveying the message.

It seems that all we can do at this point is pray.

Democrat’s New Surveillance Bill Reveals the Futility of Political Idealism

Everyone was ticked off a couple months ago (well, everyone except the Bush Administration, their lackeys and the telecommunications corporations) when congress gave these companies retroactive immunity from possible lawsuits resulting from them handing over all manner of personal information to the government.

When it happened, the democrats were absolutely indignant - vowing to do everything in their power to fix this aggregious violation of citizen’s basic rights. Chris Dodd even made a whole page on his website devoted to stopping the bill. He pleaded:

Email the Senate and ask that they vote against any legislation that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms. It’s time to see the Senate stand up for the rule of law. You don’t demonstrate leadership in the footnotes of a press release, or parroting responses from focus groups. Leadership is demonstrated through action.

Naturally, the democrats went on to totally cave.

But never fear, House democrats have proposed a new security bill. As I ran to read the press release, I couldn’t wait to see the fighting words that would ensure. This is what I got:

Under the proposed legislation, the companies would be able to argue their cases in court and present classified evidence to a judge during a closed proceeding without the presence of the plaintiffs.

So basically, the telecommunications lawyers will get to make their defense in secret, without the prosecution witnessing their arguments or evidence. No constitutional violation there! The democrats are going to trade immunity for more secret courts and infallibly powerful judges. It’s like a contest to see who can set up the largest, most secretive government in the name of national security.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. We always have to take a step back in situations like this and remember that we are dealing with politicians - they are the scum of the earth for a reason. In order to succeed in politics, one must have no backbone, no ideals and no courage. Politicians argue to define the extremes of an issue and than come together in agreement to blindly follow the middle course - no matter how skewed it has become.

This is how the republican party has shifted from constitutional conservatism to big-brother fascism, and the democratic party has shifted from working-class compassion to international socialism. The art of compromise is clearly not about finding the best option through rational debate and institutions, but about figuring out by how many degrees the heat can be turned up on the proverbial frog in boiling water.


Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'bush_administration' tag.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'bush_administration' tag.

WordPress database error: [Out of memory (Needed 1046536 bytes)]
SELECT DISTINCT DAYOFMONTH(post_date) FROM wp_posts WHERE MONTH(post_date) = '10' AND YEAR(post_date) = '2008' AND post_type = 'post' AND post_status = 'publish' AND post_date < '2008-10-11 05:02:41'

October 2008
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'bush_administration' tag.