Sunday Roundup
This week, the dueling parties fell into odious and all-too-familiar patterns. As expected, the GOP, unable to run on its disastrous record, played the fear card. Leaping on Obama's defense of the rule of law (dear god, not that!), the Republicans pulled out their 2004 playbook and opened it to "Scare Tactics." Newt Gingrich said supporting habeas corpus could lead to the obliteration of a U.S. city. Rudy Giuliani (surprise) evoked 9/11 a bunch of times. John Bolton predicted an Obama presidency would lead to more terrorist attacks. And John McCain lapped it up. Buying into the 2004 mindset, House Democrats promptly removed their gonads and capitulated on telecom immunity and Iraq war funding. That, more than the fear-mongering of the right, is what sent a shiver down my spine.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"...the Republicans pulled out their 2004 playbook and opened it to "Scare Tactics." It's a page out of the mob playbook that's as old as the hills. Scare people into believing they're in danger and they'll give up their freedoms and pay you to protect them. Seems like the neocons are just a different version of the same lust for power and money.
Arianna:
I do not believe that there is anything duelling anything out there. Real values have to emerge.
Nancy Pelosi has the reins in her hands..........george bush, from a different horse pulls the strings that makes Nancy Pelosi talk........Nancy's family is mixed in this blood for money. How can a family like that live with themselves...when they condem so many to their deaths just so they rake in millions Please, MS Pelosi.....explaine to the public exactly what your role is? What is the role of your husband and you? What have been the exorbitant profits to you, because of this war [illegal occupation]
Please Nancy....if you don't want to explaine what this war brings you and your husband....please explaine to the public why you are against public wishes.......why the turn around once you are in power........did you even look at Dennnis Kusiniche's articles of impeachment against bush or the o
ne against Cheney????? The people are starting to starve......help us.......don't steal from us.Nancy Pelosi.......Seems that Two inputs are going together... No. I have no more to say here
Is it worrying about or do I seem to be too party inclined?......but both parties need to be told that they work against the will of the people.
People need to ask.....MS Pelosi.....Why do you keep funding the war upto the penny Bush asks for and more?
Adrianna i agree with you on the fear tactic but they are also running out all the wedge issue to boot the one that get me is the right to choose which I personal don't believe in abortion but that does not make me want or give me the right to judge or pass a law saying that a woman should not have that right if she so chooses and I understand that most women are saying that sound just like a man and I agree it not as hard being righteous when its not your body involved. I believe we can not legislate morality that is a personal thing that if a few Republican would just listen to their own BS they might wake up to the facts.
The gay right thing, I am not gay but I think it is not a choose buy possible a gene are something of that nature and its is possible a sin in Gods eyes but no great than over eating or drinking or any other sin which our good Republican brethren accepts They are not asking to be married in the church only in civil ceremony.
Arianna,
I have worked hard for Sen. Obama and believe his TRUST ME SLOGAN !!
THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY DESERVES WHAT HE PROMISED !!
I WILL FILIBUSTER THE TELECOM IMMUNE BILL !!
SEN. OBAMA SHOW AMERICA WE CAN TRUST YOU SIR !!!!
Thank goodness Arianna brought this up! I am an Obama supporter, and am so very disappointed that he voted for the continuation of the removal of our rights! It goes against all he has said. I feel betrayed, and I'm worried about "more of the same" phenom now with him.
If I'm not mistaken, obama hasn't voted yet. I too will be very disappointed if he does not defend the constitution. I believe obama made a statement that he would correct any unconstitutional changes that bush made in his first 100 days if he is elected. Would be very courageous to start now, and show us he really means it.
He has come out in favor. I am sick over it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/obama-backs-bill-giving-i_n_108370.html
Regarding Obama's statement about overturning unconstitutional Bush policies, he said he would examine every _executive order_ that Bush made. A President can change executive orders at will, but cannot overturn legislation that has already been signed into law.
On Meet the Press this morning Joe Beiden and the head of the Republican campaign (a senator, whose name escapes me) fought it out over Obama's change of heart regarding campaign financing. Each said the same thing several times over -- Beiden that Obama technically did not go back on his pledge to use public financing because, in effect, his large number of small donors means he is not beholden to large special interests (although in a later segment of the program Andrea Mitchell pointed out that he has, in fact, raised about 55% of his money from large donors). The Republican senator countered repeatedly (with a smirk) that (paraphrased) "See, Obama is breaking his written promise". I had trouble watching all of this.
As a later guest on the program pointed out, this move counters assertions that he is too callow and inexperienced. I expect the Obama campaign made this decision because of the much larger amount of money that apparently will flow from all of us -- yet I am not finding it easy to rationalize away my feeling uncomfortable about it.
How d'yall think this will play with the electorate?
Personally IMHO the general electorate is too busy watching American Idol and The Bachelor to give a rats arse about this decision. The only ones who really care about this issue are die hard politico's like us who read about all of the latest digs and dirt. I mean who needs reality TV when you have an election going on...that is the best reality TV there is if you ask me. I could care less that he decided to forgo public financing, the rethugs would have done the exact same thing if they thought that McOldwhiteguy could easily raise 85 million on his own. Obama as we well know will raise much more than this by November.
I think the republican electorate wishes they had a candidate that people wanted to donate massive amounts of money to.
Let's not fool ourselves here, despite Obama's inspiring rhetoric, inane ability to inspire people with his words, and his message of change, at the end of the day he is a politician. Those of us who support Obama would expect him to play smart politics and exploit advantages. Strategically, what would you say if Obama turned his back on a fundraising model that could pull in $300-$400 Million, as obscene as that sounds? John McCain and the GOP will try to spin this molehill issue into a "trust" question with Obama, while ignoring Johnny's numerous flip flops. We get it, politicians adjust and change positions all the time as the political climate changes as well. It's choosing the lesser evil, as we're forced to do with a two party system of political dominance. I want this country to be free of GOP bureacracy, and insider dominance, as such I will continue to support Senator Obama, even while he reveals his political stripes as the general election gets closer.
Unfortunately, now that the primaries are over and the real race begins, we shall see the language of the campaigning tilting ever more to the right as the as the GOP seeks to dictate the terms of the debate through their beloved and ever compliant main stream media.
The current administration is morally corrupt and has financially corrupted the country. This should represent a perfect storm for the GOP and Obama, Pelosi and co should realise this.
Impeachment (if not prosecution) should not only be on the table..... It should be starter, main course, and dessert. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should be sent off to the Hague. Telecoms companies should whistle for their immunity. The clear message should be. "Hey, we were swept along on the post 9/11 propoganda and we green lit a lot of stuff we are not proud of.....We made a mistake and by hell we won't let it happen again!"
If the Democratic party allows itself to be bullied into not taking action on the administrations blatant criminality then they have succumbed to fear of what is a much weakened playground bully.
Grab this moment....Be strong. As FDR said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
I love the media, no matter the cost they do not change.
The storyline today was 'reps change their minds, dems flip flop'. Ridiculous.
Warrantless wiretapping has been the norm in this country since J. Edgar Hoover. The issue is that it would take a government agent less than an hour to get a warrant upon application to a federal judge of probable cause. The problem with this legislation is that probably cause is no longer needed....so the law enforcement entities have no judicial oversight, just as Bush refuses to comply with oversight by the Supreme Court or Congress. And a warrant can allow the listener to follow an electronic trail if a crime is being plotted, or he thinks one is.
This legislation is simply a de facto revocation of the Forth Amendment. After that, they will go back to trvoking the Second Amendment. After that, they will decide that if a pharmacist refuses to provide a female with a prescribed contraceptive, females probably don't need to vote, either.
This clock is running backwards. We need to pull the plug on it.
tc399, they are re-newing fisa which gives oversight to the government. They have had the ability to wiretap but have to go to the fisa court within 72 hours to make it legit and they almost always grant people the premission. The Bush ADM. wanted more power and less governmental oversight. The issue with this new bill up for a vote in the Senate and already passed in the House is it gives immunity to the telecom companies!
bush gets more power too. Read some of the other sites like actblue.org.
The kicker is the dems gave more than he asked for. Willingly and without being asked.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT:
When America was attacked by terrorists, wasn't there a REPUBLICAN president in the white house?
Hmmm, how interesting...
OBAMA '08
You are correct. And it wasn't just this misbegotten louse of a rep president... previous louse rep presidents were attacked as well-with no real response.
That the public buys the 'reps kep you safe' nonsense is a treatment to the power of the brainwashing media.
Yes:
- it was Bush, (a Repub) President in the White House during 9/11 (who spent the majority of his first 9 months on vacation)
- it was Giuliani, (a Repub) Mayor of New York City during 9/11 (who still had NY Emergency Services ill prepared since the 1993 attack)
- it was Condi, (a Repub) National Security Advisor during 9/11 (who ignored PDBs, as early as August, about possible attacks)
- it was Cheney, (a Repub) VP in the White House during 9/11 (who oversaw various military exercises before/during 9/11)
...but if you listen to the Repubs tell their version of history:
"...it was all Clinton's fault", "...it was all the Democrats' fault". "...it was all the media's fault".
Poor Bushie was just an innocent victim of circumstance...! (LOL)
Every time someone blames Clinton for 9/11, they're really admiting that Bush is incapable of defending America under his watch.
It is proven that torture damages the mind and leaves a broken personality behind.
yes, and that's the torturer, not just the victim: as horrible as it is to the victim, the torturer suffers psychological/moral damage as well. It's one of the MANY reasons why torture is so wrong, and a society that condones torture has chosen a disastrous path.
All that George W. Bush & Co. have done is broadened Anti-American sentiment around the world. Have you seen him being "greeted", oh, correction, NOT GREETED overseas. He has become known as the war-monger in-cheif. McBush is right behind him. America would not be in it's current state had Bush brought the troops home after Saddam was dead; that is a fact. He remained there for control of oil and oil alone. When you have had 8 years to deal with the country as a whole, and now, as a lme duck want to "fix" everything, that message is quite clear. SPIN, SPIN, SPIN. Bush lied, they died, period.
"House Democrats promptly removed their gonads and capitulated on telecom immunity and Iraq war funding."
Succumbing to fear mongering. Stockholm syndrome anyone?
No, not Stockholm syndrome. The War Party spans both major parties. Many of those who decry Dumbya's Twin Debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan cheered Clinton's Kosovo campaign. Expect more of the same from President Obama - many of you will be cheerleading when he launches a "good" war.
amen so few understand your words
You're probably right. Before the war there was no great outcry form the public. Now it seems everyone was "always against the war."
Partisan tools are partisan tool, no matter the party. A truly bi-partisan person is one who is non-partisan.
Frankly, I think both major parties are corrupt.
Again some have short memories. It was under Clinton that intelligence reforms to allow intel to be shared by CIA, NSA, FBI and other security groups. He vetoed the legislation. As a result, important intel was not shared about 9/11. They knew an attack was possible, but the terrorists surprised everyone with using airliners instead of cars loaded with explosives. No one knew that ahead of time.
Bush organized Homeland Security and congress approved intel sharing among those security organizations and better access rules. We have much better security measures now than ever before. Proof? We haven't had any attacks since 9/11, almost 7 years ago. How many did we have under Clinton? Let's see, World Trade Center in 1993, in 1995, Oklahoma City and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, two embassy attacks in Africa and in 2000, the USS Cole.
The lack of good intel affected Clinton, too. Bush and the congress has greatly improved security. Give it up guys, Bush has done some good. You can even sip your lattes in safety.
Your ignoring the facts that the bush administration did know the attacks were being planned, and that airliners were the weapon of choice.
I don't drink latte, thanks, but it looks like you've been sipping Cheney's special Kool-Aid*. Before you blame a lack of proper intelligence, trying reading one paper from the archives in Bill Kristol's New American Century website. The paper title is "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ~ it pretty much outlines everything this administration has done since taking the White House. You'll recognize many things that have come to pass since 9/11/2001.
All of the people involved with this published paper, who very publicly lobbied *Clinton* to attack Iraq asap, became integral to this administration. When you get to the part where they note that all of their wonderful military 'transformation" plans will take ages to sell to the American people "unless there is a new Pearl Harbor", try not to choke on that Kook-Aid.
Safety first! :-)
Note To Congress: can we get those war crimes trials started, please?
Kook-Aid
LOL I love it!
Have you read Richard Clarke's book: "Against All Enemies"? Bush has botched counter-terrorism in this country since the first day of his presidency. The only thing he has done is create a situation and location in Iraq where they can attack Americans without having to travel 6000+ miles.
That there have not been any attacks in the United States does not mean that there have not been any attacks. Ask the families of the 4000+ dead and 29,000+ wounded U.S. soldiers if they think there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11.
We haven't had any attacks since the PAA expired in February either What's your point?
You make it sound like before bush there were attacks every day.
I suspect the lack of another attack is more fortuitous circumstances than efficient surveillance.
After all, hasn't the Administration trumpeted loudly cases against military personal at Fort Dix, an attack on the Sears Tower in Chicago, etc. only to have the case fall apart in court and an examination of the evidence indicate that they had apprehended bumbling amateurs who made Timothy Nichols and Terry Nichols seem like James Bond in comparison. In fact, we keep forgetting that one of the worst episodes of domestic terrorism was purpetrated by a white, American, protestant, war veteran.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
