I have added a new section to the Index of the Forum:

The Corruption of George Bush

Military Industrial Complex: Bush and Halliburton
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1160

A New Watergate
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5272

Military Industrial Complex: Bush and Halliburton
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6116

Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799

Military Dictatorship in the US
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6341

Iraq, 9/11 and the MICIC
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6214

Kenneth Lay: Another suspicious death?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7304

Karl Rove and the CIA
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4297

Halliburton and the JFK assassination
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2700

9/11 and the JFK Assassination
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2507

Simkin, you're a disgrace. The fact that you're allowed anywhere near a classroom is terrifying. You're not an "educator" of any kind; you're a left-wing radical socialist who long ago dispensed with any of notion of fairness or objectivity. Your hate-fueled anti-Americanism has reached OCD levels. There are 193 countries in the world, but you're fixated on just one. Incredibly, every negative event in the last 75 years has somehow been traced back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. America can never be a victim; only an aggressor. The stupefying, murderous crimes of the Communist world and the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism elicit nary a mention. Why worry about Bin Laden when you can rehash a bogeyman like Joe McCarthy for the umpteenth time, right? Why despair about the lack of civil liberties and human rights in the Arab world when you can kick around a dead horse like Watergate, right? Why scrutinize the anti-democratic and corrupt reigns of Castro, Assad, Putin and the Palestinian Authority when you can ascribe crazy, sinister motivations to an innocent collegiate group like YAF? Why recognize a demonstrably guilty man like Lee Harvey Oswald when you can make all sorts of reckless, fact-free accusations instead. You don't know a goddamn thing about this country, other than you wish it and its leaders ill will. Bush isn't dangerous; you're dangerous. Men like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and Joe Kennedy were wrong in the early 1940s and you're just as clueless today. I believe the Soviets coined a term for Western apologists seduced by tyrannical regimes: "useful idiots." Try making yourself a little less "useful" to democracy's enemies before entering your twilight years.

When the patronising tone ceases, in favour of angry, self rightous personal rants, you just know you have hit a nerve. LOL. Brendan, that "If you dont like Bush your a Communist/Terrorist"B/S might have some clout in the US, but over here its about as effective as a chocolate radiator. Oh, and BTW, quite a few of us here are Socialists, now I realise what that little fact must do to your blood pressure(hope you have good health insurance, over here its FREE) but do try and calm down sir. regards, Steve.

Getting a little hysterical aren't we, Brendan? All John's done is create a new category in the index section--something he does periodically. Boy, what a performance!

Having read Brendan's little rant I am intrigued to know why he objects to socialists being educators? Perhaps he could explain why.

I suggest the following topic additions:

Bush Crime Family
Bush Mafia
Bush Savings and Loan scandal
Bush Nazis
Bush Eugenics
Bush Skull and Bones
Bush Bohemian Grove

Google any of these for hundreds of references.

Jack

Jack,

The resemblance between George Bush and Lance Link is striking. I like your style.

I see. So the key to being taken seriously here is to make the most outlandish claims in a clear, civilized tone.



I'm not trying to win you over. Why would I? You're incorrigible. Nor do you deserve any form of deference.



Socialists in 2006. What a tragedy.

Brendan, why don't you go back to the JFK section on the IMDB where you're known as DVP, David Von Pein, NickSlick, and other names, and keep misinforming and attacking those who don't know any better.

JWK

Hello again Brendan,

This might be off topic in this section but during our last exchange you listed your motivation for participating on this board. I thought you might be joking with your first rationale-meeting crazy women-but I did read your subsequent reasons. It would appear that you are more interested in engaging in political debate and identifying aspects of this forum you described as a "political cesspool" requiring some type of "disinfectant". It appears that you have formed a pretty solid opinion about this particular "conspiratorial message board". When you are actually discussing the Kennedy assassination, you make clear your theory of Oswald acting alone and point to many of John McAdams points. There's certainly nothing wrong with that but when, I for one, recently challenged you with an actual scientific study complete with statistical analysis, it appeared as though you only read the rebuttal to the study, again on McAdams sight, but did not read the D.B. Thomas study where the actual controls and statistical values are listed. If you cannot understand the science behind the study or just prefer to rely on an opinion essay which has not been replicated that's fine; however, you yourself stated, " I hate it when uninformed buffs try to play Johnny Scientist". Wouldn't you find better discourse in the "Political" forums here? I'll bet you'd get a lot of response there and perhaps find adversaries that you don't feel the need to say " I look forward to the defamation lawsuits you nuts so richly deserve". You already know who killed Kennedy. Why stay and create/experience a lot of ill will? Being a PR man, you probably have to wear your smiley face all day and so when work's over, it might seem kind of enjoyable to come to a forum such as this and wreak havoc but my guess is that this has backfired on you in the past which may explain why you keep your bio is so short and generic. I'm guessing, using your words again, that someone got really pissed and ended up "bitchslapping" Brendan. I'd bet that wouldn't happen if you found yourself on a forum with similar personalities.

Jason Vermeer

One part of this ridiculous rant caught my eye.



And just how is Putin especially anti-democratic and corrupt? Is it because he's Russian? It seems that for some people (including you apparently) the Cold War never ended. Undoubtedly Russia is on the hit list of some very important people; just witness the recent spate of "democratic pro-Western revolutions" (courtesy of the CIA) in eastern European countries backed by Russia and the campaign against Russia coming from certain think-tanks and Soros-funded "non-governmental organizations."

Luckily, the UK education system does not remove teachers from the classroom for holding left-wing views. Of course, the United States famously did this during the 1950s. I suppose you would like to return to those days. Maybe you already have. I believe in some states like Texas you control the purchase of textbooks in the same way that the Soviet Union did during its period of communist rule. All dictatorships take a special interest in the way that history is taught in schools. That is the one thing that Hitler and Stalin had in common. As Khrushchev once said: “historians are dangerous people”.

The problem for conservatives like you is that you are losing control of the situation. Texas might be able to control the textbooks that their students can use, but they cannot stop them using the internet. I have recently had a series of complaints from the people who administer the Texas school system about my website. They have become concerned about the large number of their students who have been using my page on the Ku Klux Klan. At Google it is ranked 1st out of 4,490,000 pages.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm

The Texas authorities are especially concerned about my explanation of the role played by Nathan Forrest in the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan. As you probably know, Forrest was the KKK’s first Grand Wizard. That is very embarrassing for the Texas school system as they portray him as a national hero.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWforrest.htm

As you see it is quiet a problem for those who wish to brainwash their students. Maybe you will have to act like China and do a deal with Google concerning the censorship of the web.

I assume that the "the" in that last sentance was a typo, since Hitler and Stalin had much more in common than a need to control how people think about history. For one thing, the history books tell us they both devoted enormous resources to the mass slaughter of human beings.

Of course those same history books do not tell us (or at least do not emphasize) that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were never held to account for devoting enormous resources to the destruction of Indochina and the mass slaughter of human beings there.

Maybe Khruschev was wrong about historians being dangerous when they are mostly pussycats, after all.

Seriously, try reading a newspaper or surfing the Net sometime:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5167784.stm

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...-+Op-ed+columns

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....4857&EDATE=

Horror of horrors, Putin shut down Voice of America and Radio Free Europe programming! Some of us are a little more jaded regarding these "independent" "American voices of freedom."

But lets take a closer look, shall we?





As for the appointment, rather than election of governors, Putin points out that this is the case in India and no one debates that India is democratic. He also points out that the candidate he selects is then sent to the local parliament, which is directly elected by the people, to confirm or deny. (source)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a man whom I admire and I'm sure you would claim to admire, makes precisely my point about western arrogance.

John unconvincingly wrote:



Wanna be a lefty? Do it on your own time. You have zero right to proselytize or indoctrinate a captive audience. Spartacus is not "education"; it's a laughably biased, one-sided stroll through the darkest recesses of your mind.



Sorry, wasn't alive yet. It this some sort of veiled allusion to so-called McCarthyism, another of your pet obsessions? Far-left classroom radicals like John tend to invoke phrases like "witch-hunt" to remind their charges that witches never actually existed. While that may have been true in 17th century America, that was hardly the case in the 1950s. I hate to break this to you, but Communists in the State Department, Pentagon, and Hollywood did exist, except that McCarthy never found them. The witches were there (ever read the Venona papers?), but the hunt was incompetent and spectacularly flawed. And no, you had no right to a classroom or the airwaves if you were Communist at the height of the Cold War, just as unrepentant Al Qaeda/terrorist sympathizers (hello, Ward Churchill) have no such rights today. It's not that complicated.



Please take off your dunce cap. Every state has a department of education that works closely with local leaders to determine the best resources for each school district. Furthermore, each local board of education has to conduct monthly, on-the-record meetings/q&a sessions with the public. Then there are the bi-annual parent-teacher conferences. It's democracy at its finest, which makes your Soviet analogy all the more bizarre and repugnant. BTW, some people have accused Texas textbooks of being too liberal:

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2003/jun...textbooks.shtml



Yep, 50 different dictatorships, from Maine to Hawaii. God I love living in this totalitarian hellhole.

Aren't you the guy who's supposedly concerned about corruption everywhere, and not just the US? Then I look forward to your voluminous, critical posts addressing Saudi Arabian textbooks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6051901769.html



Oh? Who was the last self-identified, proud liberal to win the White House? I'd say I'm in total control of the situation.



Gid forbid they wash up on Spartacus' shores.



Because it's a jaundiced, hate-filled clearinghouse of crap with zero redeeming academic value.



Obsessed with the Klan, eh? How many trains and buildings have they blown up recently? How many kidnappings and beheadings? When was their last lynching? Why oh why did I accuse you of being fixated on American shortcomings? You should sue me for defamation.



Good for him. I like people who show initiative, like the former KKK Grand Wizard who is now a US Senator. Of course, he's a Dem, so that means we have to sweep it under the rug.



Actually, I'm much more concerned by anti-democratic events unfolding on your home turf, where lefties are attempting to make the expression of unpopular political opinions in the context of voting punishable by law:

From the Independent:


A branch of one of the world's biggest banks has been found guilty of racism after a senior member of staff told a colleague she would be voting for Robert Kilroy-Silk [head of the United Kingdom Independence Party] at the last general election because she said he promised to "get rid of the foreigners".

The remark was overheard by another employee, who sued the bank, HSBC, for race discrimination. Ruby Schembri, 35, a Maltese national, reported the remark. This week an employment tribunal ruled the remark could be construed as racist and ordered HSBC and the supervisor to pay compensation. The case is one of the first to find that a comment not directly made to another person can constitute racism.

This is an expansion of Britain's pernicious "hate" speech codes because now one can be sued for having been overheard. Please remember this travesty of justice the next time you itch to accuse Bush of curtailing civil liberties. Otherwise, I'll just have to throw it in your face. Cheers.

Yeah, have you? The Venona intercepts show Julius Rosenberg to be guilty of spying (not so much Ethel). Alger Hiss, Lauchlin Currie, and Harry Dexter White are looking as innocent of espionage as ever, though. See here and here.

Yes, I'm sure you'd be just as cavalier if Bush tried to shut down CNN, NPR, or the Wash Post. Riiiight.

I dunno Brendan, would you like it if a "Voice of Cuba" or "Voice of People's Republic of China" was broadcasting anti-American propaganda into the States? In any case, it appears you missed the part about the stations violating their licenses.

You didn't even address the rest of my post, particularly Solzhenitsyn's comments. Not that I'm surprised.

I'd like it just fine because I'd still have the power to, you know, NOT LISTEN. Don't you think the Russian people deserve that same CHOICE? And please don't tell me you're so naive as to think the licensing issue is anything more than a ruse to suppress opinions they don't like. BTW, Beeb World Service is state-sponsored radio. Are they propagandists too?

Of course they deserve that choice. And they still have it. If you hadn't noticed, there are four stations that didn't violate their licenses. They continue to broadcast the VOA propaganda. There are many other American/NATO propaganda outlets that continue undisturbed.



It probably is a ruse, but that doesn't mean that the stations didn't actually violate their licenses. What Putin did was perfectly legitimate and legal, even if the motives were probably not exactly "pure." And yes, I am aware the BBC is state-sponsored. It serves the interests of the British government when necessary, but it is nowhere near VOA in propaganda output.

If Brendan's political orientation is typical of Washington's new breed of opinion leaders and movers and shakers then it's a more scary place than I had previously imagined. Don't think I'll visit the US again.

You're right. It's pretty damn scary. Please stay away.

Well, it looks like Brendan is done attempting to defend his ludicrous opinions about Russia. Now we move on to attacking Cynthia McKinney with embarrassing screen caps taken from Fox News.

Because we all know W hasn't been attacked, lampooned, maligned, or satirised on this forum. You can dish it out ...

Yeah, but the discussion was at no point about Cynthia McKinney. This is just a diversionary tactic on your part to avoid serious discussion and scrutiny.

Not true. Mark invoked "crazy" leaders in DC, and she's certainly one of them. I win.

No, you lose. Mark didn't use the word "crazy." He used the word "scary" (quite appropriately, IMO) to describe people holding political views much like your own who are currently on the rise in my country. The McKinney picture didn't address anything he said.

This guy Slattery is SCARIER than Bush. Bush lies to cover up his Nazism most
of the time*, but Slattery is upfront about his neonazi beliefs. Does somebody
pay him to troll around and scare us?

Jack

*George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -
just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000.

I covered the "scary" part in post #25. I have moved on to crazy. Please try to keep up.

Sounds like you'd be much happier in Putin's Russia, although I can't vouch for the radio reception over there. Bon voyage.



Jack, I think that alleged ice pick did more damage than you realize. Were you a normal person before the attack?

Hey, I'm not the one making up quotations as I go along.



I probably wouldn't. Free market "reforms" screwed things up pretty badly (see Solzhenitsyn), although Putin's doing a pretty good job of pulling things back together.



Were you ever a normal person?

Nostalgic for the good ol' days of centralized Politburo planning, eh? Your ex-KGB buddy's autocratic ways didn't escape the notice of today's Wash Post opinion section:


Putin's 'Sovereign Democracy'

By Masha Lipman
Saturday, July 15, 2006; Page A21

MOSCOW -- In the weeks before the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, two things went on at once: There was an intense public relations effort to improve Russia's image and, along with it, a widening crackdown on democracy and individual freedoms. The reality, not obscured by the PR, is that the Russian government has resorted recently to police practices strongly reminiscent of those used some three decades ago in the Soviet Union.

On the public relations side, one of the most influential Kremlin aides, Vladislav Surkov, met with Western journalists to explain that Russian "sovereign democracy" is not much different from democratic practices of the Western countries. "Sovereign democracy" is a Kremlin coinage that conveys two messages: first, that Russia's regime is democratic and, second, that this claim must be accepted, period. Any attempt at verification will be regarded as unfriendly and as meddling in Russia's domestic affairs.

About a week after Surkov's media session, President Vladimir Putin attended the "civil G-8," an international conference of human rights and nongovernmental organizations. For two hours he listened politely to the participants' concerns and told them that he was pleased to be among like-minded people and glad to talk about human rights in Russia. He then spent three more hours at dinner with a group of conference members representing international public organizations.

But the performance wasn't entirely convincing. The day after their meeting with the president, representatives of many leading Russian and foreign human rights organizations issued a statement in which they expressed "deep concern about the situation with human rights in Russia" and cited a "systemic crisis in the field of human rights and democratic institutions." "Concealment of these issues," the statement says, "will promote further degradation of the situation with human rights and the erosion of democracy in Russia."

These concerns are fully justified by the government's consistent effort to clog up every channel for public participation in politics and to block every opening for the emergence of an autonomous force on the Russian political scene. In the course of Putin's presidency, such fundamental elements of democracy as separation of powers, an independent judiciary, the rule of law and press freedom have been gravely undermined. Over the past year and a half the Kremlin has conducted an ongoing electoral reform aimed at consolidating the dominance of the pro-Kremlin party United Russia. The most recent legislative initiatives further broaden the administrative and legal authority to exclude candidates from party slates and to bar or remove parties from the race altogether. According to a Communist deputy in the Duma, the Russian legislation provides more than 60 pretexts for eliminating the unwanted.

In one of the most notorious recent innovations, the practice of early voting has been reintroduced after being removed from Russian law just a few years ago. The practice, in which ballot boxes are brought to voters prior to the election so they can vote outside regular polling stations, where no public observer can watch them, provides an easy way to rig the election results. During the Belarusan presidential elections in March, the "early vote" accounted for at least 20 percent of the turnout, with President Alexander Lukashenko winning over 80 percent of it.

A new alarming development is the use of police-state practices. Much as they did when President Richard Nixon visited Moscow in 1974, authorities are arresting and detaining public activists, with no legal basis for doing so. Three decades ago Communist authorities prevented dissidents and refuseniks from contacting the members of Nixon's delegation. This month, in the days before the G-8 summit, more than 100 people were intimidated, harassed or beaten by the police in various Russian cities. In some cases their passports were taken away from them for no legal reason. Some were young radicals headed for St. Petersburg to rally against the summit; others were on their way to Moscow to attend "The Other Russia," a meeting of Kremlin political opponents and human rights NGOs held Tuesday and Wednesday.

"The Other Russia" was attended by a few prominent foreign diplomats as well as U.S. administration officials who had been warned by the Russian authorities that they should stay away from the event: A high-ranking Kremlin official said that attendance would be treated as an "unfriendly gesture."

Foreign officials ignored the Kremlin message and attended the event, at which four young activists were arbitrarily arrested and a German journalist beaten when he tried to photograph the arrests. Thus it's likely that Putin's PR effort was lost on the foreign dignitaries who attended "The Other Russia" -- just as it is lost on anyone who has been paying heed to actual developments in Russia rather than to the official pre-summit rhetoric. Increasingly, the work of improving Russia's image seems a ritual gesture rather than a serious objective of the government.

The country's abundant energy assets have freed it to practice "sovereign democracy" and act with little or no regard for the judgments of outsiders. By no means does Russia or its wealthy elite want to be isolated. Putin wants recognition of Russia's leading position on the world scene and respect for its economic and geopolitical interests. But he demands that it be recognized as is, not at the cost of softening his increasingly authoritarian policies.

Masha Lipman, editor of the Carnegie Moscow Center's Pro et Contra journal, writes a monthly column for The Post.

What ALLEGED ICE PICK?

Please check with my insurance company which paid $55,000
to my four doctors and the hospital for my 24 days in the hospital
with my ALLEGED wounds. Those were 1991 prices; double that
in 2006. My heart attack in 2005, with only one doctor and four
days in the hospital cost $50,000. It pays to have good insurance.

Jack

Whatever Ms. Lipman believes it "conveys," when Putin speaks of "sovereign democracy" he means "democracy" not imposed from the outside, as is happening so often now (here).



Yes, there are various "non-governmental" organizations who make irresponsible charges in the interests of the NATO governments. A study of what happened in Yugoslavia will show how this game is played.



Here's the real story:





The "four young activists" were members of the National Bolshevik Party; the German photographer only appears to have had his camera taken from him. (link) Read more about this party here. Its a strange mix of Leninism and Fascism.



Carnegie Moscow Center, huh?

Bush: Worse Than Nixon
The writer was on Richard Nixon's "enemies list," but Bush's power grab has him really worried.
By Morton H. Halperin
MORTON H. HALPERIN served in the administrations of presidents Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. He is a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress and the director of U.S. Advocacy for the Open Society
Los Angeles Times

July 16, 2006

THE BUSH administration's warrantless wiretapping program may have shocked and surprised many Americans when it was revealed in December, but to me, it provoked a case of deja vu.

The Nixon administration bugged my home phone — without a warrant — beginning in 1973, when I was on the staff of the National Security Council, and kept the wiretap on for 21 months. Why? My boss, national security advisor Henry Kissinger, and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover believed that I might have leaked some information to the New York Times. When I left the government a few months later and went to work on Edmund Muskie's presidential campaign (and began actively working to end the war in Vietnam), the FBI continued to listen in and made periodic reports on everything it heard to President Nixon and his closest associates in the White House.

Recent reports that the Bush administration is monitoring political opponents who belong to antiwar groups also sounded familiar to me. I was, after all, No. 8 on Nixon's "enemies list" — a curious compilation of 20 people about whom the White House was unhappy because they had disagreed in some way with the administration.

The list, compiled by presidential aide Charles Colson, included union leaders, journalists, Democratic fundraisers and me, among others, and was part of a plan to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies," as presidential counsel John Dean explained it in a 1971 memo. I always suspected that I made the list because of my active opposition to the war, though no one ever said for sure (and I never understood what led Colson to write next to my name the provocative words, "a scandal would be helpful here").

As I watch the Bush administration these days, it's hard not to notice the clear similarities between then and now. Both the Nixon and Bush presidencies rely heavily on the use of national security as a pretext for the usurpation of unprecedented executive power. Now, just as in Nixon's day, a president mired in an increasingly unpopular war is taking extreme steps, including warrantless surveillance, that many people believe threaten American civil liberties and violate the Constitution. Both administrations shroud their actions in secrecy and attack the media for publishing what they learn about those activities.

But there also are important differences, and at first blush, it is hard to say which administration's policies are worse. Much of what the Nixon administration did was clearly illegal and in violation of the Constitution. Nixon and his colleagues seemed to understand that and worked hard to keep their activities secret. On the occasions when their actions became public, administration officials tried to blame others for them.

These actions were not limited to its warrantless wiretap program and the investigation of political opponents by the IRS and other agencies. They also included, among other things, the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist (to find evidence discrediting Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times) and the effort to have the CIA persuade the FBI to call off the investigation of the Watergate burglary (by asserting that it threatened national security).

Although the Nixon administration did argue (like the Bush administration) that virtually anything the president did to promote national security was lawful, it never presented an argument to justify these particular transgressions.

By contrast, as far as we know, the Bush administration has not engaged in any such inherently illegal activities. Nor has it, to our knowledge, specifically targeted its political opponents (aside from the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame).

But even though Nixon's specific actions might have been more obviously illegal and more "corrupt" (in the sense that they were designed to advance his own career over his rivals), President Bush's claim of nearly limitless power — including the ability to engage in a range of activities that pose a fundamental threat to the constitutional order and to our civil liberties — overshadows all comparisons.

Among the many such activities are the seizure of U.S. citizens and their indefinite detention without charge or access to lawyers; warrantless wiretaps of citizens in violation of procedures mandated by Congress; and the seizing of individuals in foreign countries and their movement to third countries, where they have been subjected to torture in violation of U.S. laws and treaty obligations.

When these activities have leaked out, the president has not sought to deny them but has publicly defended them (and attacked the press for printing the information). The administration has vigorously opposed all efforts to have the courts review its actions, and when the Supreme Court has overruled the president, as it has several times now, the administration has given the court holdings the narrowest possible interpretation.

Congress has been treated with equal disdain. When the Senate voted overwhelmingly to prohibit torture and cruel and degrading treatment by all agencies, including the CIA, Vice President Dick Cheney warned lawmakers that they were overstepping their bounds and threatening national security. When Congress persisted and attached the language to a defense appropriations bill, the president signed the law with an accompanying statement declaring his right to disobey the anti-torture provisions.
The administration has repeatedly failed to inform Congress or its committees of what it was doing, or has told only a few selected members in a truncated way, preventing real oversight. Even leading Republicans, such as Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have voiced strong concerns.

During the Nixon years, the laws governing what the president could do and under what circumstances he needed to inform Congress were murky. There were no intelligence committees in Congress, and there was no Intelligence Oversight Act. There was no legislated prohibition on national security surveillance.

In response to Watergate and the related scandals of the Nixon years, however, Congress constructed a careful set of prohibitions, guidelines and requirements for congressional reporting.

Bush's systematic and defiant violation of these rules, as well as of the mandates of the Constitution and international law, pose a challenge to our constitutional order and civil liberties that, in the end, constitutes a far greater threat than the lawlessness of Richard Nixon.

... and where are we today?

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02...eech/index.html

Bush: Ending Saddam's regime will bring stability to Mideast
Thursday, February 27, 2003 Posted: 0955 GMT




WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday said ending the "direct and growing threat" posed by Saddam Hussein will create a "free and peaceful" Iraq and bring stability to the entire Mideast.

"The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted," Bush said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

The administration hopes that the Iraqi regime will meet U.N. disarmament requirements, he said. If not, force will be used to make Baghdad comply.

"Either way, this danger will be removed," he said.

Creating a free Iraq will be a difficult task requiring a "sustained commitment" from the United States and other countries, but a new Iraq could serve as "a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom" throughout the Middle East, Bush said.

"Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet, that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation," Bush said.

"Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them," he said, adding "we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another."

Bush said the United States does not plan any permanent occupation of Iraq, but he did not offer a timeline.

"We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more," he said.

If war does come, coalition forces will protect oil fields "from sabotage by a dying regime and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the Iraqi people," Bush said.

The president compared the rebuilding of Iraq to U.S. efforts after World War II to rebuild war-ravaged countries, including wartime enemies Germany and Japan.

"After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies. We left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could built lasting institutions of freedom.

"In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home."

Reminding Americans of the price the nation paid on September 11, 2001, Bush said the "safety of the American people depends on this direct and growing threat" posed by Saddam.

"The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning: That support for terror will not be tolerated."

An end to Saddam's reign also would have positive ramifications on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said it would set in motion "progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state," and Palestinians would be rid of Saddam's "outside support for terrorism."

"The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life, and there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East," Bush said.

Earlier in the day, Bush's father, former President George Bush, spoke at Tufts University in Massachusetts and detailed his view for the Middle East. He said stability requires a "new vision to be advanced by the region's leaders and embraced by the people. It will require them to once again rise above violence and recrimination, and to choose hope over hate."

"I believe in the longer run the 21st century will offer leaders throughout the eastern Mediterranean a real chance to emerge from their current period of conflict and begin building a brighter future worthy of their proud peoples," he said.

At one point, antiwar protesters interrupted the speech by shouting at the elder Bush. As security escorted the demonstrators away, the former president said, "We've now found another real good reason to use duct tape."

----End -----



... and where are we today?

I'm glad that went well. How many people (American and Iraqi) are dead now and counting? Is oil and gas any cheaper (stability to the region)?

Has the threat of terrorism lessened (stability to the region)?

Ok, Saddam is in court, was it worth it (stability to the region)?

Nice going, really nice.
Stability to the region my ***!

Year 5 of a long war with global jihadists. But I think you already knew that.



Little over 3,000 Americans, or what you call a "grim milestone." Number of Americans and Iraqis who would have died had we done nothing? Unknowable. I'm curious: are you nostalgic for the peaceful, "stable" days of Baathist torture, rape rooms, and mass graves?



Nope, which only disproves the hysterical "blood for oil" mantra.



That depends. The US hasn't been hit since 9-11. You remember Sept 11th, don't you? It happened during your mythical era of "stability." If only we could return to the peaceful, stable, pre-Bush days of the first WTC bombing, or the bombing of the Khobar Towers, or the bombing of the USS Cole, or the bombing of our embassies in Africa. Wouldn't life be grand.



Show me where Bush promised to turn a troubled region into Disneyland in three scant years.

Brendan,

Get a life.

Try a dose of reality.

Better yet, go to Iraq and support your position in the best way possible.

What's that? You've got flat feet? Figures....matches your flat head view of your flat world.

I smell chicken.

Chuck

So Mr. Slattery,

You have no regrets of the action taken by the Bush administration (and the "coalition")? Are you trying to say that you are satisfied with the situation and it will merely need some more time to resolve?




I'm saying the situation in Iraq went from bad to way worse. I fear the world may be falling into WWIII due to events which have transpired in the middle east over the last 3 years.




Nevertheless, a little progress (less killing) would be comforting?



Things have escalated to new levels since the Iraqi campaign and the situation is definitely not under (any nations') control any longer. The events you listed are terrible events indeed. I agree that some action was needed to retaliate against these acts of terrorism. Regarding the perpetrators of these tragic events you listed, how many of them were Iraqi national or individuals residing in Iraq? Would you know?

I'm trying to ask what the direct links are between the second gulf war in Iraq and say, 9/11?

To be frank with you, times did seem more peaceful during the Clinton era, and yes fuel was a lot cheaper (stability in the region). Also something called a "Palestinian and Isreali road map" was being worked on... I guess that's history now. There was a lot less fighting and killing (stability in the region), actually yes, reality was a lot closer to Disneyland then than now.

Guys I don't understand the waste of time with Bunion. He's saying NOTHING insightful, intelligent or new really. Currently, he's rubbing mint oil onto Limbaugh's hairy back while Rush whispers whitless comebacks for him to use on Bunion's current sounding board. He won't disclose personal info 'cause he's got his ass kicked before. Check out the sanitized bio.

He argues JFK topics extremely poorly. He marginally studies the side he's going to argue but doesn't bother to read alternative material. Once he has 50 words he feels he can type with some accuracy, he waltzes back proclaiming the shadows on the cave wall caste by the fire ARE reality. The dude doesn't bother to walk out of the cave and the pity is, he probably knows where the entrance is.

Most conservatives are put off by people like Bunion. They give the right a bad name. He's not even overly political really. He just likes to piss people off.

Bunion's kind of like a retarded kid on the block who suddenly walks out of the house with his dad's shotgun. Everyone just kind of freezes or starts shouting or maybe running and all the while hoping the retarded kid doesn't blow someone's head off. Now the retarded kid, Bunion in this instance, is apt to become really excited because of all the action and dust up...but...the problem is you have a retarded kid in the neighborhood holding a shotgun.

Jason Vermeer

I don't think anyone here (except maybe Sid Walker) thinks that a world isn't better with out Saddam, the question is the price that was paid by Iraq, the US and it allies and the world worth it?. Number of Americans that would be dead if we hadn't invaded, probably only a handful of tourists in Israel. Number of Iraqi's who would have died, probably a fair amount but less than have died since the invasion



But of course even the Bush administration admitted there was no connection between Al-Queda or 9/11 and Iraq. The lack of attacks on US targets probably has more to do with increased vigalance and the invasion of Afghanistan than that of Iraq. Don't forget there have been several attacks against US allies (London, Madrid, Bali, Bombay, Istanbul, Israel)


Is this close enough?



Also explain your boy Bush proposing to create a false pretense for war by painting a U-2 in UN colors and hoping the Iraqi's would shoot it down. This shows he has no qualms about lying to and fooling the American public (and the rest of the world too) to achieve his objectives. It also show that he is quite stupid.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=7118&st=0

And you right-wing types get so worked up about Clinton being "dishonest"

If it weren't so tragic, it'd be funny.

Gee Brandan Intersting Cartoon. I wonder which of the guys spends 51% of ALL GLOBAL MILITARY SPENDING? Is it the guy with the boxing gloves, or the dude with the sword?

SECOND thing we do, kill all the lawyers.

John Dean derides 'imperial presidency'
July 27, 2006
MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - John Dean, the White House lawyer who famously helped blow the whistle on the Watergate scandal that drove Richard Nixon from office, says the country has returned to an "imperial presidency" that is putting the United States and the world at risk.

In his new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience," Dean looks at Republican-controlled Washington and sees a bullying, manipulative, prejudiced leadership edging the nation toward a dark era.
"Are we on the road to fascism?" he writes. "Clearly, we are not on that road yet. But it would not take much more misguided authoritarian leadership, or thoughtless following of such leaders, to find ourselves there.

"I am not sure which is more frightening," he adds, "another major terror attack or the response of authoritarian conservatives to that attack."

Dean, who served 127 days in prison for his part in the Nixon administration's Watergate cover-up, recently talked to The Associated Press about the ascendancy of the conservative right and the two-fisted style of political leadership he says was central to its rise.

"We have returned to the imperial presidency," he said. "We have an unchecked presidency."
More than three decades ago, the 67-year-old Dean was a young White House lawyer when he warned President Richard M. Nixon that the cover-up of a break-in at Democratic national headquarters in Washington's Watergate complex was "a cancer growing on the presidency."

Dean, who later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, went on to become the star witness at the congressional Watergate hearings, implicating several high-ranking administration officials.
His book is anchored to a discussion of authoritarianism, a school of thought that, in the simplest terms, tries to explain why some people lead and others follow. The classic authoritarian personality - mostly found in men - thirsts for power, is exploitive, cheats to win, opposes equality, intimidates and is mean-spirited.
This headstrong leadership style marks the current Republican right in varying degrees, he says, starting with President Bush and moving on down through the leadership ranks. The Bush White House, Dean says, has "given authoritarianism a new legitimacy," the same legitimacy he says it enjoyed before Nixon's presidency unraveled.

Authoritarian thinking, Dean writes, "was the principal force behind almost everything that went wrong with Nixon's presidency."

For anyone familiar with Dean's writing, the sharp stabs at the Bush administration will come as no surprise. His latest book is a sequel of sorts to his 2004 best seller, "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush."

Dean's current book has been steadily climbing best-seller lists, with publisher Viking ordering a second run for a total of 180,000 copies.

Booksellers pointed to Dean's prominence and his engaging writing style for the book's success despite a flood of political commentaries in recent years.

"Books like this one, whether they be on one side or the other, there is a lot of interest from consumers," said Bill Nasshan, senior vice president of books for Borders Group, Inc.

Booksellers also are not concerned about oversaturation in the current events section.
"
We expect a lot more of these books to be published. With the coming midterm election, the country is more divided than it's ever been," said Bob Wietrak, vice president of merchandising at Barnes & Noble Inc.
In "Conservatives Without Conscience," Dean pays Bush a backhanded compliment, saying that while the president is "not a puppet" it is Vice President Dick Cheney who is the White House's dominant authoritarian.
"
Cheney has swallowed the presidency," Dean says.

While his journey from Nixon White House insider to Bush administration antagonist has evolved over the years, Dean told the AP that his politics haven't changed drastically during that time. He still sees himself as a defender of the conservative values championed by the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Republican icon to whom his latest book is dedicated.

But Dean says his version of Republicanism doesn't square with the authoritarians who have dominated his former party in recent years, from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to White House strategist Karl Rove.
He sees them drifting from traditional conservative values, citing, among other examples, deficit spending and the federal budget debt.

"My views have changed very little over the last 40 years," Dean said. "The Republican Party and conservatism have moved so far to the right that I'm now left of center.

"This country works best as a centrist nation. I think, basically, the electorate is centrist. You have the debate being set by the extremes."

Hi-larious. Once upon a time, the Left hated this four-eyed wimp like poison (except when he was ratting out his boss). Now he's a media darling. Since when did Dean become an authority on the conservative movement? Come to think of it, what has this man done with his life since leaving the White House in disgrace more than 30 years ago? Perhaps his long-lost brother is Howard Dean, another authority on civil discourse. Sorry, but Dean's moment in the spotlight, not unlike disco, is dead.

Sure you're not referring to the world's favorite nitwit, George Dubya Bush?

Times change the Right used to hate the likes of David Horowitz and Irving Kristol. As he himself said America esp. the Republican Party has moved so far right he’s now left of center, as I noted elsewhere EVEN Goldwater complained about the GOP’s rightward lurch.



If he left the White House in disgrace then what about the likes of Tricky Dick Nixon, Mitchell and the rest. How qualified is he to write about Conservatives? I’d say about a thousand times more qualified that Ann “the plagiarist” “strawman fighter” Coulter but that doesn’t stop her from spewing ignorant invective which is lapped up by Pavlovic right-wingers.



I noticed you didn’t address Cheney’s comments that the US military wouldn’t face much resistance and be welcome to Iraq as liberators. Nor have you explained how the invasion has made the world as a whole and the US particular safer.



All I’ve seen you capable of doing here is toss out insults, how ironic that you speak sarcastically about the quality of someone else's civil discourse. I suggest you take a look at the posts of Tim Gratz, he is one of your ideological brethren but was far more civil and is obviously far more intelligent than you.



Len







Unfortunately not, not only does his clique command almost complete political control of the US but he has a loyal lap dog across the pond at 10 Downing St.

Lenny, you took eight days to reply to a post I left on July 18th. You think I'm under any obligation to answer you at all, esp in a timely manner? Get real. You also ducked a thread where I asked you to name the wars you served in that you supported. So there you sit in Brazil, all safe and sound, taking potshots at US foreign policy. What a hero.