A Case Study in Eating Your Own
One thing about driving is that it's a good time to think and I have to say that we are seeing a monumental battle being readied on the national political front.
In my other journal on my post about drumming up support for HR 636, livejournal user Thormonger (a righteous and upstanding dude with the courage of his convictions that I totally respect) tweaked me good-naturedly that even if Bush and Cheney got drummed out, all it would mean is another Republican in the White House. I'm going to guess he meant be elected in 2008 as opposed to being appointed to replace B/C....
Wait, you haven't heard of HR 636? Get thee to Google, and while you're there, check out HR 637 as well. Or is it 635? In any case, at least with 636 it is a resolution to censure El Presidente for being a naughty naughty man.
In any case, I'm not sure I agree with Thormonger for a number of reasons.
First, although most of the noise admittedly is coming from the Left on this, Bush has also lost a lot of support from the Right as well. The hard Right is unhappy about his stance on immigration and immigration reform and less than thrilled about his appointees to the Supreme Court. The Right has been waiting and biding their time since Reagan to get a majority on the High Court to enact their agenda and to say they are disappointed would be an understatement.
There's no need to rehash why the Left is unhappy.
But the big news is the battle for the Center, the hearts and minds of Middle America, and the impending constitutional showdown that is brewing.
Polls have shown that the public is very disenchanted with the war in Iraq. Mission was not accomplished 3 years ago and at least twice a week there's another report of more US soldiers dying and people are asking "what are they dying for?"
This is the same question that arose in the 60s and 70s during Vietnam. At first it was asked by a bunch of pinko commie fag stinking fucking hippies, but then started filtering into the mainstream. That Bush et al cannot see this.... it's not surprising. They are incredibly myopic when it comes to issues that directly strike them and their tried-and-true tactics of attacking those who attack them isn't going to work this time. It's not just so-called "whack jobs" like Cindy Sheehan openly questioning them. There is a slow awakening to the fact that every step of the way, the Administration has either lied or fudged the facts to justify the war in Iraq. There were no WMDs or bioweapons or chemical weapons. There was no great smoking gun showing Al Qaeda setting up shop in pre-war Iraq, and there is nothing tying Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
Instead there is this civil war that has torn Iraq apart. Retired generals are openly calling out Rumsfeld and the Administration for "rosying the scenario" and going into Iraq with too few troops.
Ladies and gentlemen, I refer you again back to Vietnam. In the aftermath of the US's pullout, we had generals offering up the same critique- that the loss in Vietnam was because the US didn't send in enough troops. There is debate as to whether more troops would have made a difference in Vietnam- most say no, that we had already bombed them back to the Stone Age, inflicted chemical warfare upon them (Agent Orange), but like the Black Knight in "The Holy Grail", those plucky little bastards still fought.
What we are seeing in Iraq is something similar. The battle fought by the insurgents is low-tech, only this time with IEDs and car bombs. Like with the Viet Cong, they are exacting a heavy price upon those consorting with the infidel invaders, kidnapping, torturing, and killing the lackey running dogs.
I mean, how many times can I beat a dead fucking horse- what we are seeing now is a replay of Nixon and Vietnam and Watergate and those in the belly of the beast, as it were, cannot see this.
And where Nixon had Watergate, Bush has the Plame affair. Initially seen as only a minor footnote, what will matter so much isn't the actual crime but the ensuing cover-up.
Like Nixon, Bush has made a lot of enemies, and like Nixon, he is an arrogant ass believing that the righteousness of the cause- stopping the march of Communism in SE Asia/stopping the march of Islamic extremism in the Middle East- places them above the law.
We have seen Bush in the past year say that he did not have to adhere to the due process of law in this war on terror. (and for an excellent summation of this I refer you to this journal , with mad props to Livejournal's Kwalton for that. We have seen him attach notes to legislation he signs, indicating that he was not bound to follow it. We have seen him seek to expand the power of the Executive Branch with what can only be describe as an Extra Crispy intepretation (as opposed to Originalist) of the Constitution.
(and BTW, I claim copywrite to "Extra Crispy" as the term for describing those with an interpretive view of the Constitution, as opposed to what the Far Right deems "Originalist". I've been using "extra crispy" now for over a year.)
Now this is where Bush has made a serious error. The man has a majority in both the House and Senate. All he had to do was play nicely and ask for the rubber stamp and they would have given it to him. But like Nixon, Bush is deeply distrustful, seeing enemies even among friends. Hell, do you really think Arlen Specter would be turning upon Bush with such a vengeance if old Dubya just went along with the game? I doubt it.
Bush has shit all over Specter and many of those in his own party who run Congress. He's trampled upon their turf and a number of them have had enough and they are now gearing up to protect what they see as their prerogative and their zone of influence. Mr Bush has not been a very friendly neighbor and has really mucked up the works to the point where many of his former allies in the party are in serious danger of not being reelected.
This is part of the danger of playing the Us/Them game without any sort of middle ground, and it's the game we have seen since day 1 with Bush/Cheney/Rove. If you're not 100% for them, you're against them and they will attack you with every means at their disposal to humiliate and discredit you. (See also: Richard C Clarke).
And this is also the danger with being the majority in power. How many times did we hear Bush et al blame Clinton for things? Well, Clinton's been out of power for 6 years now and dammit, there needs to be someone to blame and it's certainly not the person in the mirror. But once you eat "the enemy", you have to start eating your own.
And this is when it turns ugly, and folks, if you think it's ugly now, just hang out because you ain't seen nothing yet.
Tags: Bush Cheney H.R. 636 H.R. 636 censure impeach Iraq Plame Specter Nixon Vietnam Watergate separation of powers Extra Crispy Originalist
In my other journal on my post about drumming up support for HR 636, livejournal user Thormonger (a righteous and upstanding dude with the courage of his convictions that I totally respect) tweaked me good-naturedly that even if Bush and Cheney got drummed out, all it would mean is another Republican in the White House. I'm going to guess he meant be elected in 2008 as opposed to being appointed to replace B/C....
Wait, you haven't heard of HR 636? Get thee to Google, and while you're there, check out HR 637 as well. Or is it 635? In any case, at least with 636 it is a resolution to censure El Presidente for being a naughty naughty man.
In any case, I'm not sure I agree with Thormonger for a number of reasons.
First, although most of the noise admittedly is coming from the Left on this, Bush has also lost a lot of support from the Right as well. The hard Right is unhappy about his stance on immigration and immigration reform and less than thrilled about his appointees to the Supreme Court. The Right has been waiting and biding their time since Reagan to get a majority on the High Court to enact their agenda and to say they are disappointed would be an understatement.
There's no need to rehash why the Left is unhappy.
But the big news is the battle for the Center, the hearts and minds of Middle America, and the impending constitutional showdown that is brewing.
Polls have shown that the public is very disenchanted with the war in Iraq. Mission was not accomplished 3 years ago and at least twice a week there's another report of more US soldiers dying and people are asking "what are they dying for?"
This is the same question that arose in the 60s and 70s during Vietnam. At first it was asked by a bunch of pinko commie fag stinking fucking hippies, but then started filtering into the mainstream. That Bush et al cannot see this.... it's not surprising. They are incredibly myopic when it comes to issues that directly strike them and their tried-and-true tactics of attacking those who attack them isn't going to work this time. It's not just so-called "whack jobs" like Cindy Sheehan openly questioning them. There is a slow awakening to the fact that every step of the way, the Administration has either lied or fudged the facts to justify the war in Iraq. There were no WMDs or bioweapons or chemical weapons. There was no great smoking gun showing Al Qaeda setting up shop in pre-war Iraq, and there is nothing tying Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
Instead there is this civil war that has torn Iraq apart. Retired generals are openly calling out Rumsfeld and the Administration for "rosying the scenario" and going into Iraq with too few troops.
Ladies and gentlemen, I refer you again back to Vietnam. In the aftermath of the US's pullout, we had generals offering up the same critique- that the loss in Vietnam was because the US didn't send in enough troops. There is debate as to whether more troops would have made a difference in Vietnam- most say no, that we had already bombed them back to the Stone Age, inflicted chemical warfare upon them (Agent Orange), but like the Black Knight in "The Holy Grail", those plucky little bastards still fought.
What we are seeing in Iraq is something similar. The battle fought by the insurgents is low-tech, only this time with IEDs and car bombs. Like with the Viet Cong, they are exacting a heavy price upon those consorting with the infidel invaders, kidnapping, torturing, and killing the lackey running dogs.
I mean, how many times can I beat a dead fucking horse- what we are seeing now is a replay of Nixon and Vietnam and Watergate and those in the belly of the beast, as it were, cannot see this.
And where Nixon had Watergate, Bush has the Plame affair. Initially seen as only a minor footnote, what will matter so much isn't the actual crime but the ensuing cover-up.
Like Nixon, Bush has made a lot of enemies, and like Nixon, he is an arrogant ass believing that the righteousness of the cause- stopping the march of Communism in SE Asia/stopping the march of Islamic extremism in the Middle East- places them above the law.
We have seen Bush in the past year say that he did not have to adhere to the due process of law in this war on terror. (and for an excellent summation of this I refer you to this journal , with mad props to Livejournal's Kwalton for that. We have seen him attach notes to legislation he signs, indicating that he was not bound to follow it. We have seen him seek to expand the power of the Executive Branch with what can only be describe as an Extra Crispy intepretation (as opposed to Originalist) of the Constitution.
(and BTW, I claim copywrite to "Extra Crispy" as the term for describing those with an interpretive view of the Constitution, as opposed to what the Far Right deems "Originalist". I've been using "extra crispy" now for over a year.)
Now this is where Bush has made a serious error. The man has a majority in both the House and Senate. All he had to do was play nicely and ask for the rubber stamp and they would have given it to him. But like Nixon, Bush is deeply distrustful, seeing enemies even among friends. Hell, do you really think Arlen Specter would be turning upon Bush with such a vengeance if old Dubya just went along with the game? I doubt it.
Bush has shit all over Specter and many of those in his own party who run Congress. He's trampled upon their turf and a number of them have had enough and they are now gearing up to protect what they see as their prerogative and their zone of influence. Mr Bush has not been a very friendly neighbor and has really mucked up the works to the point where many of his former allies in the party are in serious danger of not being reelected.
This is part of the danger of playing the Us/Them game without any sort of middle ground, and it's the game we have seen since day 1 with Bush/Cheney/Rove. If you're not 100% for them, you're against them and they will attack you with every means at their disposal to humiliate and discredit you. (See also: Richard C Clarke).
And this is also the danger with being the majority in power. How many times did we hear Bush et al blame Clinton for things? Well, Clinton's been out of power for 6 years now and dammit, there needs to be someone to blame and it's certainly not the person in the mirror. But once you eat "the enemy", you have to start eating your own.
And this is when it turns ugly, and folks, if you think it's ugly now, just hang out because you ain't seen nothing yet.
Tags: Bush Cheney H.R. 636 H.R. 636 censure impeach Iraq Plame Specter Nixon Vietnam Watergate separation of powers Extra Crispy Originalist
posted by Stevie Z at 3:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home