Have we "voted ourselves tyranny"? It would seem so. The mere fact that this WH will not allow the UN to interview prisoners, says all we need to know. Why not give them the same access that was given to The Red Cross Committee? Personally, I question that so-called access. There are so many major fires burning, that it is difficult to concentrate on any one of them. I guess that is what the WH was counting on.
CNN 11/1/05
"Rumsfeld also defended the government's decision not to permit United Nations human rights investigators to meet with terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay. Three U.N. experts were given permission to visit the facilities in Cuba but said they won't go if they could not interview prisoners."
"Rumsfeld said it was not appropriate to give U.N. investigators the same extensive access that has been granted to officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross."
"There has to be a limit to how one does that," Rumsfeld said, adding that the government does not want to increase the number of organizations that have extensive access to the detainees. He said the decision not to provide full access to the U.N. officials was made not by the Pentagon but by the U.S. government."
--------------------------------------------------
From: Hullabaloo:
"It's the very foundation of our system of government and the single most important element of liberty. If the state can just declare someone an "unlawful combatant" and lock them up forever, we have voted ourselves into tyranny."
Historian Alan Bullock put it this way:
"Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the 'Old Gang' whom he had been attacking for months… Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue."
Posted by Judith at November 15, 2005 07:57 AMWe also know why those additional torture pictures were not released for public consumption. A picture is worth a thousand words, or a thousand words not written by our MSM.
Posted by Judith at November 15, 2005 08:11 AMMake sure you read the latest from Crossdresser Hitchens before you eat breakfast...... such a pathetic alcoholic simp!
Posted by Goyo at November 15, 2005 09:12 AMAmazing....the public is finally waking up to the fact that tax cuts aren't the answer to everything. Wow....an investment in infrastructure and responsive, reliable government services....how novel.
tax cuts not the be-all, end-all
Posted by ann at November 15, 2005 09:44 AMWow....an investment in infrastructure and responsive, reliable government services....how novel
In California, after Arnold lost all his attempts to reform state govt., he seems to have given up. Maybe responsible government is out the window. The public just isn't interested. We want lots of benefits, and to push the consequences down the road. And that's what we're going to get.
Arnold now wants a $50B bond to fund tons of public projects. "What I've said to my team is … give me the whole package: highways, freeways, bridges, ports, the levees — everything that has to do with infrastructure that will upgrade the state," Schwarzenegger said in a recent interview. (from sacbee.com).
Nobody cares about the structural deficit now. State revenues are up after 3 years of economic expansion. The rich are getting richer due to big gains in the stock market since 2002, and big appreciation in real estate.
Of course, should stocks fall and should real estate take a hit, the state's structural deficit will be wider than ever. You'd be able to drive more than Arnold's Hummer through it.
But, party time for now. Let 'er rip.
Posted by muckdog at November 15, 2005 10:14 AMJudith: great points, but with the ongoing Diebold outrage, I don't think we have actually voted ourselves anything recently. That onerous little task has been taken from our sagging shoulders by a totally benign and trustworthy Repug party.
Posted by tempus at November 15, 2005 10:15 AMMy husband and I were discussing the fact that, while Bush's poll numbers are in the gutter, the dem's poll numbers aren't rising. He said this is because the democrats have no leadership. The republicans are (usually) united, showing they have strong leadership. The democrats are fractured (we should withdraw troops, we shouldn't withdraw troops) showing lack of leadership.
I pointed out that the fact that republicans are vote in lock-step, even when they don't agree with something, shows that they blindly follow their leaders, just like many of them blindly follow the bible. The democrats, on the other hand, think for themselves.
So why can't we win? Why do we lose to a party where even John McCain kisses up to the religious right? Why can't people back a party even if every single person in that party doesn't agree? Why is it that when the far left is seen as something to stay far away from, but the far right is to be pandered to? Is the country just so conservative that the choice has to be between far right and just barely left of center? Why don't the moderates in congress on both sides of the aisle vote as a block? And finally, while I think 3rd party candidates for president are a lost cause, I'd like to see a substantial minority of congress be made up of 3rd parties. End of rant.
Posted by CG at November 15, 2005 10:35 AMThe republicans are (usually) united, showing they have strong leadership. The democrats are fractured (we should withdraw troops, we shouldn't withdraw troops) showing lack of leadership.
I'd say this is a relatively recent situation, and the united front from the Republicans is showing cracks in its veneer as well. Back a number of years ago, the Reps were failing because there were so many different factions of the Republican party. They agreed to disagree so that they could go in united, in lockstep, and win. Now, it's the Dems who are fractured into different interest groups. It'll come around again, it always does.
Posted by ann at November 15, 2005 11:35 AMWell it better happen soon! IF the democrats can win back congress, I wouldn't even mind a moderate, republican president--one who blows off the religious right.
Posted by CG at November 15, 2005 11:59 AM...--one who blows off the religious right.
Call Jessica Hahn.
Or ring up Jimmy Swaggart. He might have some references for you.
Posted by snark at November 15, 2005 12:16 PMCG,
A moderate cannot win the Republican nomination for president. Even if that hadn't been true before 2004, it is now. By registering all of those suburban fundies last year, Rove pushed the "center of gravity" in the GOP too far to the right for a moderate to win. If McCain couldn't pull it off in 2000, it certainly won't happen now.
"A moderate cannot win the Republican nomination for president."
Rip, is that really true? I don't want to believe that the GOP is more wacko right than moderate. If it is true, we really are at war with our fellow Countrymen.
Posted by Judith at November 15, 2005 03:13 PMJudith,
As I see it, both parties have a problem with likely nominees in 2008. The Democratic activists won't want Hillary, but the beltway crowd will try to force her upon us. It will be harsher than last year when the "Dean" phenomium grew and then lost steam in that even though the Dean supporters were disappointed, as a group they quickly helped the Kerry campaign more or less understanding that on a deeper level we were all on the same side. It's not likely to be that way with Hillary as most activists see her as part of the problem rather than the solution.
On the Republican side, does anyone really believe that Rudy or McCain will really win the primaries? Whatever is left of the Bushites in '08 will unify behind Jeb or whomever their preachers tell to vote for. Granted, that's a little bit of a characture, but not by much. Of course, with only the Bushites and very little else left in a rump party, the Republican nomination in '08 might not be worth having.
Hopefully, with things going as they are now, by 2008 Dem. activists can unity behind a true progressive and block Hillary. As for the GOP, we'll see, in these days I'd like nothing more than to be pleasently surprised by events. I have been.
Posted by rlp at November 15, 2005 03:56 PMThat last sentence should be "I have been surprised by very little lately, unfortunatly."
Posted by rlp at November 15, 2005 04:01 PMI think you're right rlp. It was kind of nauseating to see McCain campaign for Bush in 2004 after what Bush (Rove) did to him in SC in 2000, and while I've blocked from my memory, I do recall McCain kissing up to the Christian right some time recently.
As for the democratic nominee, the only thing that ever seems to work is a moderate from the south. Looks like Mark Warner of VA is gearing up to run. Only problem is that he raised taxes. He got Virginia out of a fiscal mess, but that doesn't matter in the age of sound bites.
Posted by CG at November 15, 2005 06:15 PMCG,
Good observation on the far right and McCain. They think that they're using each other. McCain isn't really one of them, they know it and when the primaries come around, I'll be very surprised if they don't dump him.
I'm a little miffed at Warner because he won't run against Allen for Va. senator next year. But, he has been a good governor and like Mike Easley in North Carolina he's gone against the tide of Bushism in the south sucessfully. If he were to take a stand in favor of single payer national healthcare, I think that he might be able to attract enough ofthe activist base to take on Hillary. She's going to get the beltway establishment, the real challenge is going to be to capture the netroot base and with it the heart and imagination of the party.
Posted by rlp at November 15, 2005 08:03 PMRip, thanks for your response. I know one thing for sure, if the Democrats wants to give the WH to the Republicans again in '08, just run Hillary. I'm surprised that some people don't see that.
Posted by Judith at November 16, 2005 03:38 AMJudith,
The beltway crowd, the big name so called journalists and the revolving door ex-congresscritter-lobbyist people are basically the same crowd. For a beltway Dem. life is good, all perks and no pressure, they get to go to all the "cool" parties and appear on the talk shows but being the minority, they're not really responsable for anything. A badly run Hillary campaign would elect Jebbie president, allow them to keep their current status without responsability and force our Asian creditors to foreclose. But hey, they'd work out nice cushy window dressing positions for themselves as the national fire sale liquidates America.
I'm just a little cycnical this morning from reading about Woodward et. al. in the upper threads.
Posted by rlp at November 16, 2005 05:44 AM