Bush, the straw man King. He can knock the shit out of any ridiculous words that he sticks into the mouths of the nebulous "others", whoever they may be. Why is it that a child with a high school education could see through his BS, yet the majority of Americans can't or won't, especially the media that licks his balls on a daily basis?
Posted by oppressmenot at March 22, 2006 06:20 AMAnd by the way, where the hell are the spineless Democrats? They can call him on his logical falacies as well as we can. If we don't get some new parties, new faces, automatic run-off elections, and verifiable voting processes in place, we don't have a government. The Green Party is good place to start. I pretty much think the Democratic party, esp. the DLC, is worthless. If they see their support dramatically waning, (I never give any money anymore to the Democratic Party, I give to specific candidates ONLY), maybe, probably not, but just MAYBE they'll wake the f up! However, even IF they do, I still think the Greens represent the core values of the left far more accurately.
Posted by oppressmenot at March 22, 2006 06:33 AMWhen I heard Bush issue that challenge to the Dems yesterday, I called Harry Reid's office and demanded that he call a press conference on the steps of Congress with every Democrat in Washington standing behind him. How long will our spineless party allow Bush to taunt them?
Posted by Susan S at March 22, 2006 06:41 AMwe know it's a lie. But where are the Dems refuting it? One senator can't do it, we need all of them.
Instead, they are all failing.
Posted by Zappatero at March 22, 2006 06:52 AMDemocrats should be attacking this, yes. But the point is that journalism, as a profession, has at its core principle delivering and defending the Truth.
That is not the core prinicple of a politician, obviously.
We've lost this country because we cannot revere and demnad the Truth. The fucking editors of that paper, whom I usually like and respect, are simply oblivious.
God damn failures in their core principle. I wouldn't care, you know, but they take down the country with them. The grossly obtuse dweebs are oblivious to that too.
Posted by paradox at March 22, 2006 07:03 AMso what do you suggest P? Letters to the editor? Phone calls? Cancelling subscriptions? Emails? All of the above. Because you're right, the only voice powerful enough to restore this Republic is the MSM. So, where do we go from here? The media is now consolidated and corporate owned, and the politicians have their hands down the corporations' pants. So, unless there is BIG TIME campaign reform, and other, non-corporate backed voices are allowed to be heard across the airwaves, we will continue to get more of the same. I think we need to start with getting non-corporate candidates in power, which is why I suggested supporting the Greens. The poiticians are the ones who appointed people like M. Powell to head the FCC, and who cleared the way for media consolidation in the first place. We need a new breed of leaders altogether, but, at the same time, I know there is much more that can be done while we are working on that. What do you suggest?
Posted by oppressmenot at March 22, 2006 07:20 AMThe simplest response to the nonsense is something that most reporters don't seem to be able to grasp. It is the same issue with GITMO, but it is also the same issue with Tom Delay, Conrad Burns, Bob Ney and the rest of the thieves still sitting in Congress. I am going to make an extended argument to make it so simple that even reporters should be able to understand it.
One US standard for criminal prosecution is that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. This is the simple principle that allows Delay, Burns, Ney, Doolittle and the rest of the corrupt bunch to claim innocence and get away with it until they land their butts in jail.
All of these thieves (I can still call them thieves, as long as I don't call them "felons") demand to be treated as innocent victims. There is little doubt as to their guilt, but our perception of their guilt has nothing to do with their legal guilt. So they are not just allowed to walk free (with some restrictions, I suppose) but also to continue to misrepresent their constituents. And we can scream and demand their resignation, but they are not obligated to honor such demands.
We do treat different crimes differently. We put some suspects in jail until it is determined that they are not legally guilty. The people who get to determine the distinctions between the cases, such as one suspect rots in jail until trial and another gets to continue his thieving ways, are judges. We placed the responsibility on judges to determine who is a public risk and to what extent (hence varying bail amounts). Judges are also the ones who decide which methods of search for truth in each case are reasonable and acceptable and which are not. That means that judges get to order searches or remove the results of unlawful searches from consideration--that's the responsibility we've put on judges and this is the way the US system of justice operates.
Now, in GITMO we have many suspects who have not been subjected to any such supervision. The Repubes claim that they are terrorists. The reality is that they are suspected terrorists. In some cases, this suspicion is reasonable. In other cases, it is not. This problem is identical to the one that lead to purges in the Soviet Union, China and other "socialist" countries--denunciation was held to be sufficient to identify someone as a legitimate "suspect". It is simply un-American to accept such treatment--not only is it strictly prohibited by the US Constitution as applied to American citizens and others on US soil, but it is inimicable to the long-standing American ideals of democracy and liberty (or, as conservatives prefer to refer to it, "freedom").
There is no overseeing authority that can determine a standard for separating legitimate suspects from innocent victims of foul play. We don't mean to imply that foreign suspected terrorists should have the same rights as Delay, Burns, Ney and Doolittle, but the necessity for some form of judicial oversight is absolute. And Congress is removing it--the Repubes are stripping US courts of GITMO jurisdiction (perhaps they would prefer Cuban jurisdiction).
However, whatever argument can be made in favor of distinguishing treatment of GITMO detainees from other suspected criminals on US soil necessarily must rest on the fact that they are not US citizens and they were removed to US territory from other parts of the world. This distinction fails to apply to US-based suspects, particularly to US citizens. And this is the problem with the warrantless NSA surveilance. In Al Gore's words, "There is no controlling legal authority!"
The reason we have judges oversee searches and other discovery tools is because we trust them to make the legal determination (or to make it subject to legal oversight of other judges), but we don't trust, as a society, others to make the same determination because we don't recognize the purity of their motives and legality of their methods.
The reason for this is quite simple--no judicial oversight means, via slippery slope or directly, that we have a totalitarian society. If some group--even the Executive Branch--is allowed to circumvent judicial oversight, no one but that group can make the determination whether the circumvention is legitimate or not. If there is no oversight, there is no distinction between spying on Mehmet Abdul Rafa or Akhbar Chandri and spying on Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton.
In simplest terms, if the Executive Branch is allowed the surveilance privilege against anyone, none of us are safe from secret prosecution (or persecution). We don't have a Soviet Federation of Red States, but the United States of America. Just two words of advice to skeptics--remember Nixon!
Posted by buck at March 22, 2006 07:39 AMRereading my argument, I realized that the stress on the point was lost in the explanation. The main point is that we don't have a "terrorist surveillance program", but a "suspected terrorist surveillance program". That's the part that's missing from the press accounts. The rest of my main post was simply an explanation of why it matters.
Posted by buck at March 22, 2006 07:43 AMI suggets that we try with anything we can think of.
It is extremely doubtful that any of it will have an effect, I'm afraid. It certainly has not so far. It's very, very unusual for Little People to have any influence over entrenched instutional structures like the traditional media.
I still insist on trying. The alternative is to look back over a life and realize I did nothing as total chumps were allowed to destroy the greatest country the world has ever seen.
I can't live with that. So in any puny way I can, I try. It's been said I have writing talent, so perhaps this is the most effective way I have. Please do whatever the world puts in front of you this day that can make a difference. Just for the prinicple of it. That's all I can tell you.
As for this particular instance, for whatever reason I thought of the Chronicle editors this morning as I saw that lie just left there. Have you ever met experienced professional journalist editors?
I have, my family's full of 'em on my mother's side, they also introduced me to many more. Extremely well educated, suave, funny, blindingly bright, accomplished, possessing incredible stores of knowledge from being exposed to it their entire professional lives. Amazing, vibrant, enviable humans, in other words.
Yet with all that they leave stinking horrible turds of lies right there in their precious space. Millions have died to protect that space. But they just sit there and let it happen.
What...the...fuck? How can dazzling humans like that allow this to happen? I really want to know. I do. Aside from the awful hurt and searing betrayal to truth and county, I want to know how they allow all that they have been and stand for just fail right in fron of them.
It's so easy to stop doing it, too. Just stop doing it and defend the Truth.
Posted by paradox at March 22, 2006 07:45 AMShit like this is why my only agenda is the TRUTH.
The TRUTH is all that matters. Fuck ideology. Fuck worldview. Fuck "belief systems."
Give me the truth, or fuck off and die.
Posted by God Of War at March 22, 2006 08:29 AMSent along to Lochhead.
Posted by ken melvin at March 22, 2006 08:46 AMI'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight-short sighted- narrow minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth, just give me some truth
I've had enough of reading things by nuerotic-pyschotic- pig headed politicians
All I want is the truth just give me some truth
No short haired-yellow bellied son of Tricky Dicky is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me with just a pocketful of hope....
(John Lennon, 1972.)
Posted by tempus at March 22, 2006 08:51 AMI just sent Lochhead the following letter:
I was very disappointed in your article on March 22, 2006, "Bush Says Presidency Could Outlast His Presidency." In your coverage of the President's press conference, you repeated Bush's words with little analysis or commentary. In particular, the following paragraph:
"I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program," Bush said. "You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program."
Bush does not have a "terrorist surveillance program," he has an illegal wiretapping program that monitors suspected terrorists and others. The Democratic Party has never come out against monitoring suspected terrorists, they have however come out against the President authorizing spying with going through the FISA courts as required by law.
As long as the press continues to repeat the President's words without analysis, they are interpreted as correct and accurate. In reality, what President Bush said in his press conference was an outright lie. Senator Russ Feingold has called for censure, not impeachment, in response to the President willfully breaking the law.
What should be reported is the truth, not simply what the President said. If the President says something that is not truthful, the press should report on that, not his lie.
Response from Lochhead:
Thanks for writing.
I think I'll send it as a LTE now.
Posted by ann at March 22, 2006 10:01 AM"so what do you suggest P? Letters to the editor? Phone calls? Cancelling subscriptions? Emails? All of the above."
Oppressmenot, all that has been and continues to be done. Obviously, it makes no difference.
Has the thought ever occurred to anyone that the Democrats don't want to win, that they are part of the problem, that they agree with the GOP on many issues, because I can't come up with a better reason for their silence. Everytime they do not stand up as the opposition Party, two things occur. One, they look weak, or two, by not opposing they look like they agree with the GOP. By-the-way, is Dean still alive?
Posted by Judith at March 22, 2006 11:59 AMThe San Francisco Chronicle is a fascist rag that has been happily supporting the illegitimate, election-stealing, lying, torturing, war-mongering Bush gang for the last six years. For example, last Sunday's issue (3 19 06), the day after massive anti-war protests in San Francisco and across the world, what is the lead story in the Chron? A little story on wine tasting rooms in Napa County... The story on the anti-war protests was on page A14 or so.
Even the slothful Contra Costa Times, which regularly buries front page news deep in its first section, bothered to print a front page story about the big anti-war protest in Walnut Creek, CA.
The corporate fascist media, like the inside-the-beltway U. S. Congress, will be the last to admit that all is not well with the incompentent criminal Bush regime.
Cheers,
James
Lochhead is really a Hearst Hack. Another is Ed Epstein. Locally, the Chron has it's pair of in house hacks, Deb. Saunders and Carla Marinucci.
Posted by ken melvin at March 22, 2006 03:01 PMSaddam Had WMD: The Missing Dots
For in the 12 hours of tapes revealed so far is documentation that Saddam had active WMD programs and conspired to deceive weapons inspectors, hiding them and then spiriting them out of the country with Russian help.
In short, they are a damning indictment of the "Bush lied" crowd and a total justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
On another of the tapes, one of Saddam's top aides asks rhetorically, "Where was the nuclear material transported to?" Answering his own question, he then says, "A number of them were transported out of Iraq."
From what we know so far, the postwar intelligence in this material may prove the prewar intelligence to be on the money.
Saddam had WMD. Now we know who was telling the truth.