How Hitler and the American Republican Party Seized Their Power

An article in the Los Angeles Times made me think of the old days. Because nothing is new, and Bush ripped his moves from the playbook of the Nazi Party, I could not help thinking of Hitler when I read of how Congress' attempt to enforce the law against White House malfeasance is being scuttled by a Justice Department that puts the president above the Law.

The essential brilliance in Hitler's political skill is the same as our current president's. With a nation fearful of terrorism, co-opt the legal apparatus first, and all other power will follow. As is painfully clear, our elected legislators matter not a wot, if the Department of Justice ignores them.

The scandal that began with the sacking of attorneys at the DoJ is about the White House attempt to secure lasting power to the Republican Party despite the outcomes of future elections. What we who oppose this coming fascism need to fear, as (some) Democrats do their best to slow the process, is an event to parallel the 1933 arson attack on the Reichstag. The leaders of both, the Nazi party, and the Project for the New American Century knew that a national emergency will allow citizens to give up their civil liberties.

Two weeks after the fire, Hitler obtained the 2/3 majority from the German Congress that made him the dictator and above all constitutional constraints.

Gonzales Has Earned Medal of Freedom

I remember well the distinct feeling of being punched in the gut, though it wasn't the first time and wouldn't be the last.

The date was December 14, 2004, and President Bush had just awarded the Medal of Freedom to George Tenet, Tommy Franks, and Jerry Bremer. In the President's words,

These three men symbolize the nobility of public service, the good character of our country, and the good influence of America on the world.

The BBC must have skipped out on the ceremonies because the next day they were busy frothing over this quote about Abu Ghraib:

This kind of widespread abuse could not have taken place without a leadership failure of the highest order," said Anthony D Romero, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups given access to the documents.

The skirmish which followed Tenet's recent book tour, with demands that he return his medal parried deftly by a "Royal We" backhand, represent a missed opportunity to better understand the new world that is represented by the transmutation of this medal.

In a kind of reverse alchemy, George Bush has turned gold into lead, debasing one of the nation's highest honors in a bid to politically cheer on his failed and stupid war. So let's rename this award the Medal of "New" Freedom.

"New" Freedom is the freedom of the government to spy on its citizens without search warrants, to interminably detain prisoners without charges, and to rationalize torture with grade school word-play. It's a familiar list and too long enumerate faithfully.

Longtime hanger-on Attorney General Al Gonzales would be the next logical recipient of this honor.

I'm recommending that the Medal of "New" Freedom be crafted in a much smaller size than its old counterpart, and that it be minted from purest polonium-210. Hanging over the mantelpiece, it would pose no great hazard, but I guarantee- it will surely be a bitter pill to swallow.

Cheaters Win

When we heard about massive systematized cheating at Duke University's business school, many lamented the state of today's youth. How is it they think they can get away with such breaches of integrity, we asked with indignant rhetoric.

But our entire culture is now a perversion of right and wrong.

These are not young people cheating at Duke, but rather students whose average age is 29 years, and they are completely normal. A study from Rutgers University found that about half of all graduate students admit to cheating, while the number of undergraduates confessing to cheating is about 75%.

This is the generation which has long been of the mind that music, movies, and software are things that should be downloadable for free.

It's difficult to make a case for succeeding without cheating when so much of our culture proves otherwise. Is not the point of our most watched TV show, American Idol, that talent is not a requirement of fame?

Since 2000, one message has been very clear: Integrity is for losers. You can win elections without a majority of votes. You can make a case for going to war by lying about the evidence. Being qualified for a job is not a requirement of getting that job. When questioned under oath by prosecutors or congress, it's OK to lie. Torture is justified if your army is bigger. The purpose of holding public office is to enrich yourself.

So, of course we are a nation of cheaters. What is the incentive to do otherwise? Where are the plaudits for the upright and moral?

Rethinking No-Bid Contracts

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'd like to divulge the fact that, until recently, I owned Halliburton stock. I dumped it when the misunderstanding which developed surrounding certain unintended KBR billing overages made me nervous. It's one thing to add extra sand to the concrete, after all Iraq has plenty of sand, but please, no-bid contractors, don't mess with my boys' MREs.

War profiteering has a long noble history in this country, and over the years it has created a lot of millionaires, so when the US marched on Baghdad to get those WMDs, I fought the feeling of being powerless over my own government the only way I knew how: I bought stock in corporations that manufacture weapons or otherwise supply our military.

I reasoned that, since my tax dollars were pouring into these companies I had every right to tap some back out. It's like springtime, when the sap begins to rise in the great sugar maples of North America. That is the time to pound your little metal tube into the xylem. Where is the ethical dilemma in that?

But now it's starting to look like a few bad apples are trying to ruin this war for the rest of us. Critical infrastructure projects built in Iraq by US contractors are "crumbling" even before the "Made in the USA" labels peel off. Could some of our corporate citizens have behaved in an unscrupulous manner? I thought Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to fix all of that. Perhaps now we can rid ourselves of the onerous accounting burden of this typically liberal-knows-best legislation. It's a pity that Ken Lay isn't alive to see it.

 As for me, I'm about to reinvest the money I made off of Armor Holdings, the little company that cornered the market on up-armoring Humvees,  and I'm starting an export company. [FYI- Humvees are produced by a privately-held company and I couldn't figure out how to buy  their stock.] I'm calling the new venture "Blackbush Trading Company." In 4Q '07 Phase One of the business plan commences, when we lobby Prince Bandar for the exclusive rights to sell Just For Men Gel to the House of Saud. We'll be doing our patriotic best to level out the trade imbalance in viscous black liquids.

Walmart Spy

The notion that government can be run like a corporation has been so successful, as evidenced by FEMA's work in New Orleans and Haliburton's work in Iraq, that it follows that companies start to assume the powers of governments.

So why shouldn't Walmart have it's own intelligence service? This idea is completely consistent with the fact that Walmart's revenues exceed the GDP of several nations and its market power has profound influence on global trade policy.

If this trend continues (and there's no reason to think it won't) we'll likely see the merging of corporate interests and resources. The US government uses private phone companies to spy on Americans, what would prevent Walmart from striking similar deals with communications companies? This is already widely practiced in the fields of banking, finance, and marketing.

One step beyond might be the synergy offered by tapping the increasing power of private security companies such as Blackwater, whose conservative Christian founder boasts of having 20,000 men at his beck and call.

Local zoning boards and consumer groups have a difficult time stopping Walmart now. Just imagine what it would be like if big box stores exercised their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The notion of the customer always being right would become as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

Early Encouraging Signs the Surge is Working

 

Having ushered in the post-spin era, talking points are the refreshing new way to package cynicism and callousness.

When the president's "complete confidence" in the AG is exclaimed from all corners, people everywhere know it's the same complete confidence that Rummy enjoyed until Election Day.

The tactic copied from Madison Avenue is obvious: repeat something enough times and people will start to believe it's true. If they have intellectual pretensions they may say they don't believe it, but somewhere, deep in their hearts, there will be a nagging doubt brought on by having heard the same message over and over. Remember how you felt about WMD during the ramp-up to the war? Don't feel bad. It's child's play, really, like making rats push levers for food pellets.

When crafting the actual sentences involved, it is not necessary for a message to be overt. All that is required is for the message to be unavoidably embedded somewhere in its syntactical  embodiment, like a gemstone waiting to be chiseled out. The White House press corps will diligently parse every syllable, unearthing a diamond from apparent rubble.

The only problem is, this time it isn't working. It's obvious to anyone that, by expressing complete confidence in the AG after such horrendous incompetence and dissembling testimony, the President is either disingenuous or a fool, or most likely, both.

As the chaos and carnage in Baghdad obscure the "early encouraging signs the surge is working," with suicide bombers daily killing scores of innocents, the US is subjected to its own peculiarly homegrown version of mass-murder.

Statistically speaking, we are a nation that believes in God, yet we are reluctant so far to speak of our fallen soldiers as martyrs, preferring to label them "heroes" or "patriots." When our patriots make the ultimate sacrifice, they have done so in the fight for our freedom, which, by the way (in case you haven't heard) is not free. So goes the logic. It's a logic of principle, if not exactly one of reality.

 

In keeping with this line of reasoning, it might be suitable also to speak of the 32 victims of the Virginia Tech massacre as patriots, for they gave their lives for your right to bear arms. Leave it to the deranged killer to claim the title of martyr, which of course he did.

 The Bill of Rights comes with collateral damage. People are killed every day as a result of one amendment or another. It's just a fact of life, one that affirms the beautiful balance inherit in our Constitution. This is precisely why we take the fight to the terrorists, and fight them over there, so we don't have to face them here, on our soil.  Our soil is reserved for school and workplace shootings.

Stay the Course, Alberto

It's pretty inevitable that Alberto Gonzales will leave his job, but I want him to stay. Everyday that he's a part of this administration is a day this president looks like a swindling incompetent ass.

The White House attempts to minimize scandal (withholding documents, changing explanations, claiming to accidentally delete emails) just prove to the American people that they are hiding some wicked high crimes. Crimes so high that Bush and his war cabinet are willing to openly obstruct justice to avoid having them come to light.

Karl Rove is another liar I'd rather see keep his job. When these fascists resign from the White House, it will plant the notion that the problem is solved, the bad apple was chucked. The whole issue becomes old news more quickly.

Besides, if Karl Rove resigned, he wouldn't have any trouble finding work. His policy ideas and dirty campaign tactics would still be corrupting our democracy. If he stays at the White House, at least we can keep a better eye on him.

The longer this evil stays in our news bubble, the more damage they do to their own right-wing power-grabbers, the Unitary Executors. The law never fully caught up to Richard Nixon, but he went down in history as an acknowledged crook. George W. Bush may avoid prosecution, as well, but he'll always be known as the least competent president, and probably the scummiest sleazebag in American history.

ps - Keep on keepin' on, buddy - "Gonzales Insists He Did Nothing Wrong"

Our Secret Police

Although it's been known for a long time, The New York Times reported again (thank you Jim Dwyer) that the NY Police Dept. engaged in domestic and international spying. If this surprises you, you're probably one of the many Americans who are unconcerned, trusting the authorities to recognize that you never do anything illegal, and so have no reason to be concerned.

But maybe you don't realize that protesting the Republican Party is illegal. At least, that's what the NYPD thought during the 2004 Republican convention. After illegally spying on protest groups, they arrested people before their demonstrations took place. Therefore, protesters' only crime was their intention to demonstrate, to voice their ideological beliefs, to utilize their freedom of speech.

The scary part of this is the timing. This local abuse of power has a backdrop of massive disregard for the law at the federal level. Looked at systemically, it's clear that law and justice in America are nothing more than political weapons.

To legally spy on US citizens, cops need "probable cause" to believe criminal activity is occurring. Otherwise they violate the Constitution (search and seizure).

But just as the White House uses the Department of Justice and the FBI to harass enemies of the Republican Party, the NYPD harassed groups doing legal protest.

Also similar to the White House disdain for the truth, the NYPD argued successfully to a judge that police files should remain secret, even after leaked documents proved that the NYPD violated the law by spying on groups that were not suspected of anything illegal.

The point is this: These people cannot be trusted. Laws do not restrain them. They enforce the laws, and they wish to do so selectively, as a secret police apparatus of the ruling executive.

Fascism on the March

Can we all start getting alarmed now? Cut the delusion. Stop dismissing conspiracy theories. Nothing is theoretical about it. It is happening, and it has been happening for years.

Just consider the simple question of who is watching the watchers, and who polices the police. What happens when the top officer of the law disavows, contorts, and abuses the law?

The Justice Department retaliated against its own attorneys who's work ran contrary to the political aims of the Republican Party. In other words, Alberto Gonzales uses the DoJ to persecute the president's political enemies. Then of course, he lies about it.

Today, it's revealed that the DoJ and the FBI are abusing "national security letters." These are the letters it sends when asking for personal records of US citizens without a warrant.

While the Inspector General who reported the DoJ's violations says they were not deliberate, what was deliberate was the mechanism that removed the checks and balances designed to prevent such abuse of power: The Patriot Act.

ps - How about them secret trials, eh?

pps - Fascism? Here? Check out Joe Conason's It Can Happen Here.

Bush's New Plan for the Past

The President speaks to a time long passed.
From his speech of January 10, 2007:
"... The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits."
[Already happened.]

"They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions."
[Already are.]

"Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons."
[Already been doing that.]

"Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people."
[We now have enemies everywhere.]

"On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities."
[Still trying to connect Iraq with 9/11.]

"For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq."
[Iraq is already lost.]

Superpower Failure

2007 will be the year America comes to terms with the fact that we have squandered our super powers. May the phrase "world's only superpower" find its way to the bin of failed hegemony.

Military might has always been a definer of superpower status, and the current debacle in Iraq pulls the curtain down on that particular show. As we debate numbers of humans to deploy, the very capability of our armed forces comes into doubt. Significant portions of the Americans in Iraq are private not military, and the bulk of our treasure is spent on the private companies. Yes, our military might is not owned, but leased.

If having an incapable pentagon is bothersome to war hawks, they should be especially troubled now, since the attack on Iraq was partly intended to make up for smaller but significant embarrassments like the USS Cole, Somalia, Lebanon, and of course, 9/11.

Far from making America great, the war has given us over 3000 dead, and scores more permanently damaged and now dependent on the government. Shamefully ironic, they are dependent on programs for which Republicans have systematically reduced funding. And who knows if Democrats will be able to do much better since the war has also propelled our National Debt to an all time high.

Because of our massive debt, the US Dollar is in the tank. So much so that oil producing countries are making a slow but definite shift away from the dollar as their standard currency for trade. This money we use is losing its value. And so who actually finances our global folly? Foreign nations, like China.

Maybe it's not important who owns our debt, or that London will overtake New York as the financial capital of the world, but when you put it all together, along with the largest ever trade deficit with China, record breaking energy prices, and rising domestic poverty rates, you don't see an America ascending, but rather a nation in steep decline.

The people of the world recognize our slip. They saw New Orleans drown on live TV. They see us weakened by foreign policy ineptitude while Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and China have all strengthened their global positions, and done so without bloodshed.

Where our slip is most significant are the places we've abandoned, or shirked responsibility to uphold moral principle. Remember George W. Bush's initial offer of $15 million as relief for the 2004 Tsunami? (After other world leaders embarrassed us that went to $350 million.) America also embarrassed itself by fighting tooth and nail to deny global climate change, and then sending a bully to the UN as our version of 'diplomat'.

Now, when we speak of human rights to other nations of the world, we are worthy only of mockery. I'm not just referring the torture and detention of innocent people, but also about local cops falsifying evidence to harass protesters and the killing of unarmed African-Americans.

I suppose some will accuse me of blaming or hating America (which is a rhetorical technique intended to shift attention away from my critique and onto my patriotism). I do blame America, however, and I do so because it is America and our policies that continue to bring so much woe to the world. Being a superpower carries many responsibilities, and frankly, we blew it.

Speak No Ill of the Dead (except Saddam)

I know we all want to feel good about Gerald Ford, especially now that he has died. And why not? He was a war hero, a reliable legislator, an athlete, an Ivy Leaguer, a steadying influence for a nervous and unsettled nation, a loyal and devoted husband, and by all accounts a really nice guy.

Let's go ahead and feel good about him.

But why does this preclude, seemingly, any widespread questioning of his decision to pardon Richard Nixon? Especially in light of the fact that the imperial administration of George W. Bush has been presiding over an unprecedented usurpation of power for the executive branch, championed in large part by none other than Dick Cheney, Ford's Chief of Staff at the time.

So far, the prevailing winds blowing in from the punditry sound like mere variations on the theme of Ford's own view that the pardon meant, simply, that "our long national nightmare is over."

But really, couldn't it be that the nightmare was just beginning?

If there is a major current of opinion in the popular press that has mounted an argument against the pardon, I have missed it. Jake Tapper said something in his blog, "Political Punch", on ABCnews.com, but where is the widespread analysis that might serve to better elucidate the national sentiment regarding the limits of Presidential power, at a time when this issue is of historically consequential relevance?

As Vladimir Nabokov said, "at every moment there is a thus and otherwise." No one really knows where "otherwise" leads. It might have turned out that a trial and perhaps eventual imprisonment of Richard Nixon would have made the nation not weaker, but stronger, both by meting out justice, and thereby lending some credence to the maxim that "in America, no one is above the law," and also by firming-up some of the mushier questions regarding our Constitutional separation of powers. The question can't be answered definitively, but why isn't it being asked?

So I Lied?

"What's the big deal?
There was a campaign going on."

That's how I read the president's testy answer during questioning at his post-election press conference. When asked "why did you tell us just last week that Rumsfeld would stay on?," his rambling reply included this: "the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer."

The subtext, and in large part, the theme of the press conference, was basically "hey, everyone knows that campaign messages are a pack of lies, but now the campaign is finished, so just get over it."

This is not new, of course. Aside from the practice of doing one thing and calling it another, which has been a hallmark of the Bush administration, there is also a marked tendency to lie outright, even when the lie will surely be discovered.

Twice the President has slipped surreptitiously out of the country for visits to Iraq. The second, his secret departure to meet with Prime Minister al-Maliki came complete with a false press release. As quoted in the Washington Post, White House communications director Nicolle Wallace said: "Nothing was done with the goal of duping anyone. The purpose of the secrecy was security." Plausible, but still, we were duped.

Lies by omission are one thing, and certainly there are circumstances that may require the president not to 'show all of his cards,' but to issue a statement that is exactly the opposite of the true situation seems a notch or two worse to me. As a matter of fact, I am greatly understating my abhorrence, so as not to undermine my credibity by seeming to be radically liberal. At any rate, you get the drift.

So is this the pragmatism required of realpolitik, or is it rather a pathological reliance on the lie as but one more tool in the political toolkit, fully equal to the practice of telling the truth?

The Few, The Proud… Homeless and Handicapped

Maybe it's not so new, but if the US didn't invade Iraq, a new category of American would not be appearing on our streets. Vets of the Iraq war are more wounded than ever due to the advanced state of weapons (RPG's, IED's, etc.) and business-as-usual DoD. In a previous conflict, like Vietnam, Central America, or Somalia, there might have been some shrapnel in a leg, but in this war, that leg is blown clear off. Less obvious are the brain injuries.

While the brain is still a part of the body, soldiers with mental and emotional damage are also returning to a home incapable of dealing with them.

It is our inability to deal with these messed up heroes that will put many of them on the street. And the free market is stepping in to capitalize on America's bravest.

How does the White House support the troops? By cutting $910 million from the Veterans Administration budget.

ps - Speaking of the VA, that's an organization that works well, and proves single-payer healthcare can work in America.

Impossible to Believe?!!

The US army continues to amaze. But amazement comes from having our expectations of an honorable military repeatedly dashed to bits. The latest is an order for soldiers to "kill all military-age males".

Such an order, we are told by a military expert for the New York Times is "clearly unlawful."

But what is truly remarkable, and very telling about our culture of obeisance is that despite the fact that commanders "acknowledged that they gave that order," this same expert says he finds it "impossible to believe such an order was given."

Why is it so difficult to believe, after all we've come to know of this military, this war, this Bush administration, that theirs is a moral vacuum.

No longer is there reason for any benefit of doubt. It's safe now to assume that they are always lying, always covering up, always breaking the law, completely barbaric, and without regard for common decency. No evidence exists to counter this assertion.

PS - If you didn't hear about the order to 'kill all military-age men', perhaps it was because the major papers, if they carried the story at all, buried it deep inside.