Give Me Liberty...

Limbaugh: Murtha "just the useful idiot of the moment"

On the November 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh asserted that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) -- who on November 17 called for the immediate redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq -- is "just the useful idiot of the moment."

Limbaugh added that people "portray [Murtha] as a former hawk," and asked: "What kind of serious hawk calls for withdrawals like this?" Limbaugh then added: "I don't think he ever has been a hawk ... in his career ... as a congressman."

Limbaugh further asserted that Murtha is "just getting his 15 minutes of fame like [anti-war protester] Cindy Sheehan got," and characterized Murtha as "just the latest member of the endless parade of personalities around whom the Democrats can circle and support."

From the November 21 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Not really that interested in Murtha, ladies and gentlemen, to tell you the truth. I know he got everybody's dander up all last week, but I think he's just the useful idiot of the moment. He's just -- I mean I'm not taking away from his service in Vietnam. Uh, it's -- it's not his service that we are questioning. We're questioning his judgment here.

What kind of serious hawk calls for withdrawals like this? He talks about -- they portray this guy as a former hawk -- I don't think he ever has been a hawk in the -- in his career as a congress -- as a congressman. He advocated pulling out of Somalia, as I say.

But it isn't about Murtha. Murtha's irrelevant in all this. This is about our troops and our national security. Murtha's just getting his 15 minutes of fame like Cindy Sheehan got, and like [former Texas Air National Guard Lt. Col.] Bill Burkett got. Bill Burkett got almost a year. The Jersey Girls, [former National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator] Richard Clarke, [former U.S. ambassador] Joseph Wilson, you name it -- just the latest member of the endless parade of personalities around whom the Democrats can circle and support.

And how many days did you serve in uniform, Mr. Limbaugh?

Listening to Steve Earle, "Christmas in Washington"...

Thinking of Ann Wright and DeeDee Miller and Dan Ellsberg--hoping that that we can all get rid of the foxes in the henhouse soon...

Wait, Mr. Limbaugh...

WHO spit on the Vietnam soldiers?

Hmmm...seems like it wasn't the pro-peace supporters by themselves in the 70's.

Shame on you Limbaugh!!!

Limbaugh's comments are illustrative of the Bushco Propaganda machine modus operandi. Smear a critic, back off and say it didn't mean it (and that they actually respect the person). Meanwhile the message has gotten to the blowhards who know what to do next-defame, libel and slander until all that is left is blood on the floor.

We can thank his mistress at CNN if Limbaugh is ever accused of having an original thought.

For my part, I refuse to recognize anything he says as having any merit for commentary beyond the one I am posting now.

As regards to the thread head:

My hat is off to Ann Wright.

http://www.swingthevote.us/wright.html

Information regarding Ann Wright.

Limbaugh's comments are illustrative of the a very smart person. Murtha was voted down so significantly that it shows that he is far out of the main stream. The secular humanists lost this one. The radical Muslims would have loved it if we cut and ran when the war is going better than any war ever in our history in terms of what was accomplished and least civilian and soldier deaths and least infrastructure damage. Check out the stats of our other wars.

You secular humanists will eventually find you are wrong.

AMTRAK BOARD FILLED WITH BUSH CRONIES FIRES AMTRAK PRESIDENT GUNN;

The Chairman of the Amtrak board, David Laney is yet another lawyer who raised money for the Bush campaign:

David Laney
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

David Laney, born January 19, 1949, in Dallas, Texas, is the Amtrak board chairman since July 2003. A graduate of St. Mark's School of Texas, Laney attended Stanford University and Southern Methodist University. A member of the Amtrak board since April 2002, Laney was previously a partner at Jackson Walker LLP and became a campaign "Pioneer" for George W. Bush by raising over $100,000 for his 2000 presidential campaign.
This business-related biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it

This House committee requested to hear from members of the Amtrak boards - two of the members of the Amtrak didn't bother to show to testify before the committee. Transportation Sec. Norm Mineta refused to show as well, I believe. Democrats and several Republicans were so angry at the snubbing by the Amtrak Board (which is now filled with Bush cronies) that they considering issuing legally enforced subpoenas to the Board members that did not show. The committee hearing occurred on 11/15/2005 and is archived at C-Span.org.

ralpheh,

This angers me once again--Amtrak is the best option we have for travel in the northeast. Gunn was on NPR earlier today and he was just blasting these guys. Nothing we don't already know--they are self-interested profiteers who care nothing for the rest of humanity.

Hope they choke as they stuff themselves with the produce of the workers...

oncall- huh?
Sarcasm doesn't translate well to the written word, and that's what I assume.........
Oh well. I've sat down here, obviously come in in the middle of a conversation, and it's the worst thing that's happened since I suddenly realized tonight that if you do not cook the dressing inside the turkey, it might taste as good, but it doesn't grow and expand with the juices. You have exactly the amount of dressing you put in the pot, and that's just no good.
I think, by the way, that Clinton's air war in the Balkans probably produced much less collateral damage than Iraq has.
So, you've got to be kidding.

Monkey

If you want to see how Limbaugh got his deferment, I think it's in this video:

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/chickenhawks.htm

Karen

Joan Baez also does "Christmas in Washington" - I find either version overwhelmingly touching

Obviously somebody with the brain of a troll has decided to use my handle as they don't even have the creativity (just like their hero Rush) to make up one of their own.

"Secular humanists" is a coward's way of saying independent thinking person concerned for their fellow being-something that chicken hawks are completely incapable of.

Attraction of a troll is a sign of success.
The administration is in shambles & the whole world is watching.

Rush Limbaugh is an oxyconton-snorting draft dodger.

Anne Coulter is an unattractive drag queen.

So there.

Fake Oncall

Bring it on, loser

My post above is not in reference to the 11:15 post. I am referring to the ridiculous comment posted at 8:58 P.M.

Topeka Mayor Now America's Top-Ranking Unindicted Official

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42825 WELL AT LEAST THEY FOUND ONE!

Real Oncall

I am aware of that - I am a genuine authentic Secular Humanist. If trolls want to come here and study me, fine.

I am drinking Beaujolais Nouveau and eating 85% dark chocolate while reading banned books.

The Undermining of Congressional Oversight RoI H. Res. 505 & 2 'No Show' Democrats Help

This morning in DC, the oversight legislation, H. Res. 505, a Resolution of Inquiry into the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was stonewalled in committee, losing 23 to 25. This bill, introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and vigorously supported by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) who sits on the reviewing House International Relations Committee, was defeated by two votes. The Republicans members of the committee were obviously very aware that the stakes were high.   It is reported the Republican Chair Henry Hyde was personally calling members to make sure they showed. 

In addition to the Democratic support, Jim Leach (R-IA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) supported the resolution as well.  Rep. Paul actually correctly pointed out both that Democrats should have been standing up for such measures two years ago, and that the sponsor, Dennis Kucinich is one of the few that did.  Two Democrats did not show up & I hope they get indigestion.

Texas anti-war protesters still determined

ASSOCIATED PRESS

CRAWFORD, Texas -- War protesters say they are determined to demonstrate outside President Bush's ranch during the Thanksgiving holiday despite the arrests of a dozen people on Wednesday.

Earlier this week, three demonstrators filed a federal lawsuit against McLennan County over the two local bans.

Trolls....how quaint. Makes me yearn for those good ole days from the Kerry blog.

BTW even though it was only on a jury, JK seemed to be a big hit with his fellow jurors. Too bad he couldn't meet people one on one. I think that more people would have wanted to have a beer with him rather than that snot nose GW once they got to know him.

Posted by: Backbone at November 23, 2005 11:40 PM

I can't stand it. Henry Hyde represents my Congressional distirct. Makes me want to puke when I read that.

As regards to Hyde, he is not running for re-election in 06. The Republican candidate is a Tom DeLay hand picked ultra winger with a huge war chest. The Dems are determined to make this a real contest. The election here will eventually get national attention. The two Democrats are both very interesting candidates. The problem here is that the county election commission (Republican) is forging straight ahead with non-verifiable voting machinery.

I clipped this from the book forum and thought others might think it was interesting, It was posted May 25,2005.

Except maybe it is happening already. Pew Research came out with some poll numbers the other day that auger towards a swelling of anger and discontent across the country. According to Pew, Bush has an anemic approval rating of 43 percent. Approval for his handling of the economy stands at 35 percent. Only 37 percent of those polled think the Iraq war was a good idea. His numbers, in short, are in freefall; in many categories, his approval ratings have dropped more than 10 points since the snow melted in New England. . . .

William Rivers Pitt is the senior editor and lead writer for truthout. He is a New York Times and international bestselling author of two books - War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition is Silence.

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=658&st=0&p=3748&#entry3748

This comes from a list for DJs - those interested in media freedom may be concerned - any lawyers concerned with media suppression please look over

This treaty would restrict the use of any audio/video material that is broadcast or webcast, even if the material itself is in the public domain. You can read more background information about the treaty at
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html.

This is so incredibly beautiful, so sad it didn't come to be, but also so wonderful to live through this conjunction of human beings:

http://www.steviewonder.org.uk/wonder_Kerry.htm

I believe they stole our election, not once but twice - every day I'm glad to be alive but pinching myself in denial about his:

http://web.syr.edu/~ccdabkow/detroit.htm

Yes I am still bitter as hell & if I were 20 years younger you can bet I'd be firing off resumes to Canada or looking for a sponsor or spouse to emigrate out of this place. I am just now finally starting to lose the 12 pounds of weight I put on out of depression after the 2004 election. I can never again get so invested in an election.

Sample Google Search:
561,000 for bush stole the election twice. (0.15 seconds) 

... "How the GOP Stole America’s 2004 Election & is Rigging 2008." ..
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1518232/posts

Yes, Virginia Bush stole 2004 election
In Monroe County, “after the 3 percent hand count had twice failed to match the machine count www.sunmt.org/stolen.html - 12k - Cached -

Bush stole the 2004 election, presidential, senate and house by using crooked voting... mindprod.com/politics/election.html

How Jeb Bush Stole the 2000 Election for His Brother
www.diggers.org/freecitynews/_disc1/0000001e.htm

Rich Lowry on Ohio & Recount & Election 2004 on National Review
www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200411300832.asp

Bush stole the 2004 election - Ohio
people who vote twice could be charged with election fraud, ...
www.art-science.com/Bush/b3.html - 67k - Cached - Similar pages

American Prospect Online - ViewWeb
... Fool Me Twice We can't challenge the fraud in the 2004 election -
www.prospect.org/web/view-web.ww?id=10627

CNN.com - Bill Press: More evidence Bush stole the election forget a
europe.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/billpress.column/ - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

Harpers investigation: How Bush stole the 2004 election! ... In Monroe County, after the 3 percent hand count had twice failed to match the machine count, ...
www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/94657.php

When I am not unconscious I am always a little depressed .. I am basically mentally sound & a very hard worker & good citizen ..

We are all in this together .. wake up America

This is from Doris, 70+, from Oregon & friends with Molly Ivins

This is what should be done
by one who is skilled in goodness
And who knows the path of peace.
Let them be able and upright
Straightforward and gentle in speech.
Humble and not conceited
Contented and easily satisfied
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways
Peacful and calm, and wise and skillful
Not proud and demanding in nature
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove
Wishing: In gladness and in safety
May all beings be at ease
Whatever living beings there may be
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small
The seen and the unseen
Those living near and far away
Those born and to-be-born
May all beings be at ease
Let none decieve another
or despise any being in any state
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings
Radiating kindness over the entire world
Spreading upwards to the skies
And downwards to the depths
Outwards and unbounded
Freed from hatred and ill-will
Whether standing or walking weated or lying down
Free from drowsiness
One should sustain this recollection
This is said to be the sublime abiding
By not holding to fixed views
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision
Being freed from all sense-desires
Is not born again into this world

(THE BUDDHA'S WORDS ON LOVING KINDNESS)

I will be praying this for five days.
Happy Thanksgiving.

Posted by: oncall at November 23, 2005 11:56 PM

Welcome back Oncall. Did I say that before? If not, take my word for it, I'm very happy to see you back here again.

Ok..Regarding your post about the local republicans going to unverified voting. Might I suggest setting up a parallell election? If you want to know the details on how to set this up, then let me know.

BUT I can tell you that in the Hackett v Schmidt race, the ONE location that they were spontaneously running the p-election had the GREATEST number of official votes for Hackett. Is this a coincidence or more a reaction to the better accountability? They did not pick out a highly democratic area either...it was in a solidly RED area.

And in our area they are talking about getting Diebolds too. Suggestions have been made about doing some civil disobediance to get this out of the area.

So, maybe that is another suggestion to use as well.

Despite the video coverage of Schmidt's attack and verbal abuse of a 30 year Marine, Schmidt blames...you guessed it..THE MEDIA!!!

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5130

That's the modern neoCONS m.o. NEVER ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS AND NEVER HOLD ANY OTHER NEOCON RESPONSIBLE EITHER!!!!!

Hmmmm...add some more people to the list of "We've been double-crossed..."

http://tinyurl.com/dqffx

White House 'double-crossed' Blair, says Plame husband
(Filed: 24/11/2005)

Tony Blair was "doubled crossed" by US President George W Bush's aides in the run-up to the Iraq war, according to the former diplomat at the centre of a political crisis engulfing the White House.

Iraqi detainees tell of torture
By Caroline Hawley
BBC News, Baghdad

Detainees told of beatings and being given electric shocks
Prisoners at an Iraqi detention centre opened up to journalists have told the BBC of widespread abuse.

One man said he had been whipped with a cable and then had salt rubbed in the wound, while another said his captors had tried to pull out his toenails.

The BBC was also shown inside a Baghdad bunker at the centre of a scandal over detainee abuse by Iraqi forces.

More than 170 prisoners were found there last week, showing signs of malnourishment and torture.

A government-ordered inquiry is under way and Interior Minister Bayan Jabr has said torture will not be tolerated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4465194.stm

Posted by: Backbone at November 23, 2005 11:40 PM

I can't stand it. Henry Hyde represents my Congressional distirct. Makes me want to puke when I read that.

As regards to Hyde, he is not running for re-election in 06. The Republican candidate is a Tom DeLay hand picked ultra winger with a huge war chest. The Dems are determined to make this a real contest. The election here will eventually get national attention. The two Democrats are both very interesting candidates. The problem here is that the county election commission (Republican) is forging straight ahead with non-verifiable voting machinery.

Posted by: oncall at November 23, 2005 11:56 PM

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Is this in Ohio?? Or Illinois - I forget where Hyde is from...

BTW - I hope all of Ohio Diebold voting machines are done away with. In Michigan, most of us vote directly onto a paper ballot which can be read by machine or hand counted. This system seems simple and inexpensive and transparent. It does not require fancy expensive voting machines at every precinct or computer programmers to reprogram every machine for every election. All it requires is a felt tip pen, the printed ballots and a locked ballot box.

A good project for the DCP and other groups interested in verified voting would be to clean up the Ohio (and Florida) voting systems.

In addition to the Democratic support, Jim Leach (R-IA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) supported the resolution as well. Rep. Paul actually correctly pointed out both that Democrats should have been standing up for such measures two years ago, and that the sponsor, Dennis Kucinich is one of the few that did. Two Democrats did not show up & I hope they get indigestion.

Posted by: Backbone at November 23, 2005 11:40 PM

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The Democrats on the committee were united--at least those who bothered to show up. Every single Republican showed, with 25 of them determined to continue their whitewash for the White House. But for some strange reason, 2 Democrats on the committee--Rep. Faleomavaega and Rep. Berman--were too burdened with other pressing concerns to bother showing up to vote.

Rep. Faleomavaega is from American Samoa, and this is the second close ROI vote in recent weeks that he has skipped. If these committee votes are too troublesome for him, perhaps he should give up that slot?

Rep. Berman is, frankly, pressing his luck. As angry as grassroots Democrats are about this war, especially in California, he should be going out of his way to atone for his original vote in support of the war. Instead he pulls stunts like this, skipping out on a close vote aimed at forcing the White House to come clean about their lies. It’s almost like he’s begging for a primary opponent....

Democrat Berman of California didn't show for the vote; neither did Rep. Faleomavaega Dem of American Samoa

The long march of Dick Cheney

For his entire career, he sought untrammeled power. The Bush presidency and 9/11 finally gave it to him -- and he's not about to give it up.
By Sidney Blumenthal

Nov. 24, 2005 | The hallmark of the Dick Cheney administration is its illegitimacy. Its essential method is bypassing established lines of authority; its goal is the concentration of unaccountable presidential power. When it matters, the regular operations of the CIA, Defense Department and State Department have been sidelined.

Richard Nixon is the model, but with modifications. In the Nixon administration, the president was the prime mover, present at the creation of his own options, attentive to detail, and conscious of their consequences. In the Cheney administration, the president is volatile but passive, firm but malleable, presiding but absent. Once his complicity has been arranged, a closely held "cabal" -- as Lawrence Wilkerson, once chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, calls it -- wields control.

Within the White House, the office of the vice president is the strategic center. The National Security Council has been demoted to enabler and implementer. Systems of off-line operations have been laid to evade professional analysis and a responsible chain of command. Those who attempt to fulfill their duties in the old ways have been humiliated when necessary, fired, retired early or shunted aside. In their place, acolytes and careerists indistinguishable from true believers in their eagerness have been elevated.

The collapse of sections of the façade shielding Cheney from public view has not inhibited him. His former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, indicted on five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, appears to be withholding information about the vice president's actions in the Plame affair from the special prosecutor. While Bush has declaimed, "We do not torture," Cheney lobbied the Senate to stop it from prohibiting torture.

At the same time, Cheney has taken the lead in defending the administration from charges that it twisted intelligence to justify the Iraq war and misled the Congress even as new stories underscore the legitimacy of the charges.

Former Sen. Bob Graham has revealed, in a Nov. 20 article in the Washington Post, that the condensed version of the National Intelligence Estimate titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs" that was submitted to the Senate days before it voted on the Iraq war resolution "represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed [WMD], avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version." The condensed version also contained the falsehood that Saddam Hussein was seeking "weapons-grade fissile material from abroad."

The administration relied for key information in the NIE on an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball. According to a Nov. 20 report in the Los Angeles Times, it had learned from German intelligence beforehand that Curveball was completely untrustworthy and his claims fabricated. Yet Bush, Cheney and, most notably, Powell in his prewar performance before the United Nations, which he now calls the biggest "blot" on his record and about which he insists he was "deceived," touted Curveball's disinformation.

In two speeches over the past week Cheney has called congressional critics "dishonest," "shameless" and "reprehensible." He ridiculed their claim that they did not have the same intelligence as the administration. "These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their own analytical capabilities." Lambasting them for historical "revisionism," he repeatedly invoked Sept. 11. "We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001 -- and the terrorists hit us anyway," he said.

The day after Cheney's most recent speech, the National Journal reported that the president's daily briefing prepared by the CIA 10 days after Sept. 11, 2001, indicated that there was no connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks. Of course, the 9/11 Commission had made the same point in its report.

Even though experts and pundits contradict his talking points, Cheney presents them with characteristic assurance. His rhetoric is like a paving truck that will flatten obstacles. Cheney remains undeterred; he has no recourse. He will not run for president in 2008. He is defending more than the Bush record; he is defending the culmination of his career. Cheney's alliances, ideas, antagonisms and tactics have accumulated for decades.

Cheney is a master bureaucrat, proficient in the White House, the agencies and departments, and Congress. The many offices Cheney has held add up to an extraordinary résumé. His competence and measured manner are often mistaken for moderation. Among those who have misjudged Cheney are military men -- Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft and Wilkerson, who lacked a sense of him as a political man in full. As a result, they expressed surprise at their discovery of the ideological hard man. Scowcroft told the New Yorker recently that Cheney was not the Cheney he once knew. But Scowcroft and the other military men rose by working through regular channels; they were trained to respect established authority. They are at a disadvantage in internal political battles with those operating by different rules of warfare. Their realism does not account for radicalism within the U.S. government.

Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixon's counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his former deputy, Cheney.

From Nixon, they learned the application of ruthlessness and the harsh lesson of failure. Under Ford, Rumsfeld designated Cheney as his surrogate on intelligence matters. During the immediate aftermath of Watergate, Congress investigated past CIA abuses, and the press was filled with revelations. In May 1975, Seymour Hersh reported in the New York Times on how the CIA had sought to recover a sunken Soviet submarine with a deep-sea mining vessel called the Glomar Explorer, built by Howard Hughes. When Hersh's article appeared, Cheney wrote memos laying out options ranging from indicting Hersh or getting a search warrant for Hersh's apartment to suing the Times and pressuring its owners "to discourage the NYT and other publications from similar action." "In the end," writes James Mann, in his indispensable book, "Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet," "Cheney and the White House decided to back off after the intelligence community decided its work had not been significantly damaged."

Rumsfeld and Cheney quickly gained control of the White House staff, edging out Ford's old aides. From this base, they waged bureaucratic war on Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, a colossus of foreign policy, who occupied the posts of both secretary of state and national security advisor. Rumsfeld and Cheney were the right wing of the Ford administration, opposed to the policy of détente with the Soviet Union, and they operated by stealthy internal maneuver. The Secret Service gave Cheney the code name "Backseat."

In 1975, Rumsfeld and Cheney stage-managed a Cabinet purge called the "Halloween massacre" that made Rumsfeld secretary of defense and Cheney White House chief of staff. Kissinger, forced to surrender control of the National Security Council, angrily drafted a letter of resignation (which he never submitted). Rumsfeld and Cheney helped convince Ford, who faced a challenge for the Republican nomination from Ronald Reagan, that he needed to shore up his support on the right and that Rockefeller was a political liability. Rockefeller felt compelled to announce he would not be Ford's running mate. Upset at the end of his ambition, Rockefeller charged that Rumsfeld intended to become vice president himself. In fact, Rumsfeld had contemplated running for president in the future and undoubtedly would have accepted a vice presidential nod.

In the meantime, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld undermined the negotiations for a new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty being conducted by Kissinger. Fighting off Reagan's attacks during the Republican primaries, Ford was pressured by Cheney to adopt his foreign policy views, which amounted to a self-repudiation. At the Republican Party Convention, acting as Ford's representative, Cheney engineered the adoption of Reagan's foreign policy plank in the platform. By doing so he preempted an open debate and split. Privately, Ford, Kissinger and Rockefeller were infuriated.

As part of the Halloween massacre Rumsfeld and Cheney pushed out CIA director William Colby and replaced him with George H.W. Bush, then the U.S. plenipotentiary to China. The CIA had been uncooperative with the Rumsfeld/Cheney anti-détente campaign. Instead of producing intelligence reports simply showing an urgent Soviet military buildup, the CIA issued complex analyses that were filled with qualifications. Its National Intelligence Estimate on the Soviet threat contained numerous caveats, dissents and contradictory opinions. From the conservative point of view, the CIA was guilty of groupthink, unwilling to challenge its own premises and hostile to conservative ideas.

The new CIA director was prompted to authorize an alternative unit outside the CIA to challenge the agency's intelligence on Soviet intentions. Bush was more compliant in the political winds than his predecessor. Consisting of a host of conservatives, the unit was called Team B. A young aide from the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Paul Wolfowitz, was selected to represent Rumsfeld's interest and served as coauthor of Team B's report. The report was single-minded in its conclusion about the Soviet buildup and cleansed of contrary intelligence. It was fundamentally a political tool in the struggle for control of the Republican Party, intended to destroy détente and aimed particularly at Kissinger. Both Ford and Kissinger took pains to dismiss Team B and its effort. (Later, Team B's report was revealed to be wildly off the mark about the scope and capability of the Soviet military.)

With Ford's defeat, Team B became the kernel of the Committee on the Present Danger, a conservative group that attacked President Carter for weakness on the Soviet threat. The growing strength of the right thwarted ratification of SALT II, setting the stage for Reagan's nomination and election.

Elected to the House of Representatives in 1978, Cheney became the Republican leader on the House Intelligence Committee, where he consistently fought congressional oversight and limits on presidential authority. When Congress investigated the Iran-Contra scandal (the creation of an illegal, privately funded, offshore U.S. foreign policy initiative), Cheney was the crucial administration defender. At every turn, he blocked the Democrats and prevented them from questioning Vice President Bush. Under his leadership, not a single House Republican signed the special investigating committee's final report charging "secrecy, deception and disdain for law." Instead, the Republicans issued their own report claiming there had been no major wrongdoing.

The origin of Cheney's alliance with the neoconservatives goes back to his instrumental support for Team B. Upon being appointed secretary of defense by the elder Bush, he kept on Wolfowitz as undersecretary. And Wolfowitz kept on his deputy, his former student at the University of Chicago, Scooter Libby. Earlier, Wolfowitz and Libby had written a document expressing suspicion of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's liberalizing perestroika and warning against making deals with him, a document that President Reagan ignored as he made an arms control agreement and proclaimed that the Cold War was ending.

During the Gulf War, Secretary of Defense Cheney clashed with Gen. Colin Powell. At one point, he admonished Powell, who had been Reagan's national security advisor, "Colin, you're chairman of the Joint Chiefs ... so stick to military matters." During the run-up to the war, Cheney set up a secret unit in the Pentagon to develop an alternative war plan, his own version of Team B. "Set up a team, and don't tell Powell or anybody else," Cheney ordered Wolfowitz. The plan was called Operation Scorpion. "While Powell was out of town, visiting Saudi Arabia, Cheney -- again, without telling Powell -- took the civilian-drafted plan, Operation Scorpion, to the White House and presented it to the president and the national security adviser," writes Mann in his book. Bush, however, rejected it as too risky. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf was enraged at Cheney's presumption. "Put a civilian in charge of professional military men and before long he's no longer satisfied with setting policy but wants to outgeneral the generals," he wrote in his memoir. After Operation Scorpion was rejected, Cheney urged Bush to go to war without congressional approval, a notion the elder Bush dismissed.

After the Gulf War victory, in 1992, Cheney approved a new "Defense Planning Guidance" advocating U.S. unilateralism in the post-Cold War, a document whose final draft was written by Libby. Cheney assumed Republican rule for the indefinite future.

One week after Bill Clinton's inauguration, on Jan. 27, 1993, Cheney appeared on "Larry King Live," where he declared his interest in running for the presidency. "Obviously," he said, "it's something I'll take a look at ... Obviously, I've worked for three presidents and watched two others up close, and so it is an idea that has occurred to me." For two years, he quietly campaigned in Republican circles, but discovered little enthusiasm. He was less well known than he imagined and less magnetic in person than his former titles suggested. On Aug. 10, 1995, he held a news conference at the headquarters of the Halliburton Co. in Dallas, announcing he would become its chief executive officer. "When I made the decision earlier this year not to run for president, not to seek the White House, that really was a decision to wrap up my political career and move on to other things," he said.

But in 2000, Cheney surfaced in the role of party elder, above the fray, willing to serve as the man who would help Gov. George W. Bush determine who should be his running mate. Prospective candidates turned over to him all sensitive material about themselves, financial, political and personal. Once he had collected it, he decided that he should be the vice presidential candidate himself. Bush said he had previously thought of the idea and happily accepted. Asked who vetted Cheney's records, Bush's then aide Karen Hughes explained, "Just as with other candidates, Secretary Cheney is the one who handled that."

Most observers assumed that Cheney would provide balancing experience and maturity, serving in his way as a surrogate father and elder statesman. Few grasped his deeply held view on presidential power. With Rumsfeld returned as secretary of defense, the position he had held during the Ford administration, the old team was back in place. Rivals from the past had departed and the field was clear. The methods used before were implemented again. To get around the CIA, the Office of Special Plans was created within the Pentagon, yet another version of Team B. Senior military dissenters were removed. Powell was manipulated and outmaneuvered.

The making of the Iraq war, torture policy and an industry-friendly energy plan has required secrecy, deception and subordination of government as it previously existed. But these, too, are means to an end. Even projecting a "war on terror" as total war, trying to envelop the whole American society within its fog, is a device to invest absolute power in the executive.

Dick Cheney sees in George W. Bush his last chance. Nixon self-destructed, Ford was fatally compromised by his moderation, Reagan was not what was hoped for, the elder Bush ended up a disappointment. In every case, the Republican presidents had been checked or gone soft. Finally, President Bush provided the instrument, Sept. 11 the opportunity. This time the failures of the past provided the guideposts for getting it right. The administration's heedlessness was simply the wisdom of Cheney's experience.

-- By Sidney Blumenthal

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/11/24/cheney/

Absolutely CHILLING.

I agree!! The puppetmaster ..

That is an absolutely fascinating article. It deserves to be widely distributed. Not only does it confirm many people's impressions of Cheney as the "man behind the curtain", but also gives a succinct history to his megalomania.

It is awareness of what Cheney has accomplished that convinced my life-long Republican uncle to question his life-long party affiliation.

Don't have time to post these days, but the above Salon article about Cheney is too compelling to skim and move on....

Thank goodness there are people starting to put all the pieces together. We need those secret energy meeting documents....

Deserving of further research.

C-Span has been broadcasting a speech Michael Moore gave about a week or so ago to, I believe, a Democratic groups in Flint, Michigan. The room was quite full (if is was a fund raiser they probably did pretty good). Moore - unusual for him - was not wearing his trademark baseball cap on or his jeans but was dressed in a less than stunning suit and tie.

But it was a very good speech. He was basically urging the DEMOCRATS AND THEIR CANDIDATES IN 2006, TO DO THE "RIGHT" THING AND COME OUT AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR. None of this BIDEN JUNK about sending in yet MORE troops to try to quell the raging insurgency. None of this TOUGH SOUNDING BUT VAGUE D.L.C. JUNK about defending the U.S.'s global interests.

The war wrong from beginning. No reason for it - Saddam was not a threat; the no-fly zones were working; Saddam had not re-armed etc....

WHY CAN'T THE LEADING DEMOCRATS - OTHER THAN EDWARDS AND KERRY - SAY THIS?!?!??!?

These would be

Biden
Clinton
Lieberman
Schumer

Ralpheh

Iraq A Tricky Issue for Democrats

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5438138,00.html

They are mostly do the politically expedient thing -

Ralpheh

Iraq A Tricky Issue for Democrats

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5438138,00.html

They are mostly do the politically expedient thing -

Posted by: DiAnne

This is not a tricky issue at all, in terms of what is the right and reasonable thing to do. IT IS A NO BRAINER. Are the Dems really that afraid of Dumbya Bush??? (We have a party of cowards and accomodaters if this is case....) Moore asked this same question in speech - What are the Dems afraid of??

Here is what they do: Democrats say to the American people - many of whom ARE ALREADY THINKING THIS WAY - that the troops have completed their mission and should come home (and this what Murtha pointed out):

1) THERE ARE NO WMD IN IRAQ - mission accomplished

2) SADDAM IS GONE - mission accomplished

3) DEMOCRACY AND THE FATE OF IRAQ IS UP TO THE IRAQIS

The war will be the main issue in the 2006 election and probably in 2008 election.

If the Dems do not come out against the war, they will lose the 30% or 40% of the voters who strongly oppose the war. And if they don't come out against the war - and all its aspects - ???!!! are they going to support Bush on the war????? (this seems incredibly stupid and immoral)

What is their target group of supporters?? Democrats and independents who support Bush's war but disagree with Bush elsewhere?? This group has to be a tiny fraction of the voters.

Ralpheh
I agree, but I also think alot of those voters are fickle - they initially supported the war when they should have known better (like many of the Democrats), they put pressure on the Democrats (being their constituents) and according to an article I read today, many Americans believe the earth is only 5000 years old. To tell you the truth, I don't trust hardly any of them - the politicians or the people. It's a sad state of affairs.

I think the moderate Democrats are supporting moderate constituents and Independents - the tide needs to turn against the war even more, I suppose. I think the media is a big problem. I was just reading a two-months-old People magazine at the gym & I was curious about their coverage of Cindy Sheehan. They made her look like an unstable fool & emphasized problems she had with her family. Right wing all the way - our media.

More sophisticated polls need to be done to determine the depth and breadth of peoples' feelings against the war. Do people really care about the Iraqi election? Do they mind being lied to and repeatedly? Is it oil prices that bother them? Is it returning coffins or having them hidden? What the hell are people thinking? I think the politicians are kind of measure of the public mentality but what are the politicians really thinking? Who is lobbying them? What are they afraid of, like you ask. I am not sticking up for them - just trying to figure out how in the hell the dynamics of this work!

Ralpheh
I agree, but I also think alot of those voters are fickle - they initially supported the war when they should have known better (like many of the Democrats), they put pressure on the Democrats (being their constituents) and according to an article I read today, many Americans believe the earth is only 5000 years old. To tell you the truth, I don't trust hardly any of them - the politicians or the people. It's a sad state of affairs.

I think the moderate Democrats are supporting moderate constituents and Independents - the tide needs to turn against the war even more, I suppose. I think the media is a big problem. I was just reading a two-months-old People magazine at the gym & I was curious about their coverage of Cindy Sheehan. They made her look like an unstable fool & emphasized problems she had with her family. Right wing all the way - our media.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I am frankly quite tired of trying to read the mind of the typical "voter". The Democrats should be trying to set the agenda - i.e. that we were misled into the war, the war was unnecessary and the war has been mishandled from the beginning. Can anyone, hypothetically, build a stronger case against a war than pointing out the above???

And let the voters decide if they want 5 more years of bloodshed and occupation in Iraq; 100's more dead and severely wounded soldiers etc... billions of dollars exported out of the federal treasury down the sink hole in Iraq.

I will repeat it again here - if Biden and Clinton are willing to sell out to get elected, I want no part of it. And then the cynics will be right - the Dems are merely Republican lite. And when people ask me, what is the big difference between the Dems and Reps? I'll have to say, "Gee I don't know anymore".