« I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | dickday's Blog | LET US ALL PRAY »
A PRESIDENT DRUNK WITH POWER
January 13, 2009
Craig Crawford-CQ:
What makes a lousy president? At least three factors were shared by some of our worst chief executives, according to the university study -- the paranoia of Richard Nixon, the poor ethics of Warren Harding and the faulty judgment of Herbert Hoover.
Bush combined all three. His administration was marked by a paranoid obsession with secrecy, a dismissive attitude toward ethics and a lack of competence highlighted by an ill-conceived invasion of Iraq that led to a miserably managed occupation.
In law school we spent a lot of time on hypothetical situations.
Assume a man has 10 martinis and gets into his car and attempts to drive home. His BAC is .24, three times the limit set by the Feds, and therefore all 50 states. On his way home, he proceeds through a stop sign, and hits a pedestrian with his car, killing the pedestrian. He is charged with vehicular manslaughter under a special statute dealing with drunk drivers and the resulting death of a fellow citizen.
His defense is as follows:
1. The pedestrian was wearing dark clothing and it was a moonless night.
2. The pedestrian was also drunk.
3. The stop sign was not properly installed and there should have been no stop sign at that particular corner pursuant to the municipality's own traffic regulations.
4. The defendant had been traveling at a 'safe' speed within the speed limit posted at the scene.
5. Another car had proceeded through the intersection without stopping just minutes before the accident.
6. Over thirty thousand other drivers had been cited for drunk driving with the state over the previous year.
7. The defendant is a model citizen, works fifty hours a week, has a clean criminal record, and regular contributes to local charities with money and by donating his time.
8. The defendant is a model parent of three children ages 5 to ten years and is an active leader in the local PTA.
9. The pedestrian was not only a drunk, but a worthless man on welfare and someone who had never contributed anything to society.
You can add other elements, points to this list. But bad things happen to good people and even worse things happen to people who drink ten martinis and attempt to drive home.
In the end, I conclude as follows:
THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN.
Now we all know the story of OJ and the fact that everyone is presumed innocent and blah, blah blah.
THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR.
Now, is it right to repeat the culpability line, over and over and over before a jury or the public in general through the media?
Assume you are constantly barraged with pleas from the defendant's family as a prosecutor, or the defendant's friends, or from the public in general. I would be prone to just keep saying:
THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR
Should a reporter or a pundit counter the reality of the situation by continually saying that the accusation is stale, that it is made too often, that it is not fair to ignore all the other variables involved in the accident?
I don't think so because THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR.
The outgoing president and his vice-president have made the following arguments with regard to the American invasion of Iraq;
1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Well they didn't but ALL the intelligence said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and ALL the other countries in the entire world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence operations in this country and in ALL the other countries in the entire world believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
2. Iraq had been developing a nuclear program in order to produce a nuclear bomb for years, and Iraq was on the precipice of being able to deliver a nuclear strike and Iraq had the ability to develop a missile delivery system for those nuclear bombs and even if Iraq had not developed a nuclear bomb and a missile delivery system for that bomb, Iraq had the capability of developing a nuclear bomb and a missile delivery system. And all the intelligence operations in every country in the world knew this and the intelligence was wrong except that it would have only been a few years and Iraq would have developed a nuclear bomb and a missile delivery system and therefore Iraq was a nuclear threat to the Middle East in general and to the United States of America.
3. Iraq had conspired with terrorist organizations in the past and had conspired with terrorist organizations at the time of the American Invasion and was a threat to the Middle East and the United State of America when America invaded Iraq.
4. Iraq had sent an emissary to Austria to meet with a representative of the organizations responsible for the 9/11/01 attack on the United States prior to that attack. There is no evidence of that, but there is no proof there never was such a meeting. And, anyway, there was intelligence indicating that meeting and anyway the intelligence was wrong and what is a mother to do?
There was a reporter who reported that w wished to invade Iraq in 1999 while he was still governor of Texas.
Rummy and Cheney were participants in a conservative think-tank advocating and planning an invasion of Iraq before 1999 and continuing.
Bill Clinton has reported that on the date of w's inauguration, w stated that one of his first acts as president was going to be to invade Iraq.
Paul O'Neill was a conservative Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush. He has testified on television and written in his best selling book (with Ron Suskind) that O'Neill was present at the first meeting of the National Security team in January of 2001 and the President of the United States said at that meeting:
WE ARE GOING INTO IRAQ, FIND A WAY.
As Rummy surveyed the mess at the Pentagon following the 9/11/01 attacks, he turned to an aide and said "Well I guess he found a way."
w has been called a good family man, a good citizen, a man of honor, a man with a good record as a businessman, a governor of Texas, a reader of a lot of books, a friendly and affable man, a good husband, and a lover of golf.
GEORGE W. BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE IN JANUARY OF 2001, DRUNK WITH POWER AND WITH ONE GOAL IN MIND, INVADE IRAQ.
GEORGE W. BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN HE MADE UP EXCUSES FOR INVADING IRAQ, WHEN HE WAS GOING TO INVADE IRAQ ANYWAY.
Everything, and I mean everything else about Iraq is irrelevant.
Craig Crawford-CQ:
What makes a lousy president? At least three factors were shared by some of our worst chief executives, according to the university study -- the paranoia of Richard Nixon, the poor ethics of Warren Harding and the faulty judgment of Herbert Hoover.
Bush combined all three. His administration was marked by a paranoid obsession with secrecy, a dismissive attitude toward ethics and a lack of competence highlighted by an ill-conceived invasion of Iraq that led to a miserably managed occupation.
In law school we spent a lot of time on hypothetical situations.
Assume a man has 10 martinis and gets into his car and attempts to drive home. His BAC is .24, three times the limit set by the Feds, and therefore all 50 states. On his way home, he proceeds through a stop sign, and hits a pedestrian with his car, killing the pedestrian. He is charged with vehicular manslaughter under a special statute dealing with drunk drivers and the resulting death of a fellow citizen.
His defense is as follows:
1. The pedestrian was wearing dark clothing and it was a moonless night.
2. The pedestrian was also drunk.
3. The stop sign was not properly installed and there should have been no stop sign at that particular corner pursuant to the municipality's own traffic regulations.
4. The defendant had been traveling at a 'safe' speed within the speed limit posted at the scene.
5. Another car had proceeded through the intersection without stopping just minutes before the accident.
6. Over thirty thousand other drivers had been cited for drunk driving with the state over the previous year.
7. The defendant is a model citizen, works fifty hours a week, has a clean criminal record, and regular contributes to local charities with money and by donating his time.
8. The defendant is a model parent of three children ages 5 to ten years and is an active leader in the local PTA.
9. The pedestrian was not only a drunk, but a worthless man on welfare and someone who had never contributed anything to society.
You can add other elements, points to this list. But bad things happen to good people and even worse things happen to people who drink ten martinis and attempt to drive home.
In the end, I conclude as follows:
THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN.
Now we all know the story of OJ and the fact that everyone is presumed innocent and blah, blah blah.
THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR.
Now, is it right to repeat the culpability line, over and over and over before a jury or the public in general through the media?
Assume you are constantly barraged with pleas from the defendant's family as a prosecutor, or the defendant's friends, or from the public in general. I would be prone to just keep saying:
THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR
Should a reporter or a pundit counter the reality of the situation by continually saying that the accusation is stale, that it is made too often, that it is not fair to ignore all the other variables involved in the accident?
I don't think so because THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR.
The outgoing president and his vice-president have made the following arguments with regard to the American invasion of Iraq;
1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Well they didn't but ALL the intelligence said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and ALL the other countries in the entire world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence operations in this country and in ALL the other countries in the entire world believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
2. Iraq had been developing a nuclear program in order to produce a nuclear bomb for years, and Iraq was on the precipice of being able to deliver a nuclear strike and Iraq had the ability to develop a missile delivery system for those nuclear bombs and even if Iraq had not developed a nuclear bomb and a missile delivery system for that bomb, Iraq had the capability of developing a nuclear bomb and a missile delivery system. And all the intelligence operations in every country in the world knew this and the intelligence was wrong except that it would have only been a few years and Iraq would have developed a nuclear bomb and a missile delivery system and therefore Iraq was a nuclear threat to the Middle East in general and to the United States of America.
3. Iraq had conspired with terrorist organizations in the past and had conspired with terrorist organizations at the time of the American Invasion and was a threat to the Middle East and the United State of America when America invaded Iraq.
4. Iraq had sent an emissary to Austria to meet with a representative of the organizations responsible for the 9/11/01 attack on the United States prior to that attack. There is no evidence of that, but there is no proof there never was such a meeting. And, anyway, there was intelligence indicating that meeting and anyway the intelligence was wrong and what is a mother to do?
There was a reporter who reported that w wished to invade Iraq in 1999 while he was still governor of Texas.
Rummy and Cheney were participants in a conservative think-tank advocating and planning an invasion of Iraq before 1999 and continuing.
Bill Clinton has reported that on the date of w's inauguration, w stated that one of his first acts as president was going to be to invade Iraq.
Paul O'Neill was a conservative Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush. He has testified on television and written in his best selling book (with Ron Suskind) that O'Neill was present at the first meeting of the National Security team in January of 2001 and the President of the United States said at that meeting:
WE ARE GOING INTO IRAQ, FIND A WAY.
As Rummy surveyed the mess at the Pentagon following the 9/11/01 attacks, he turned to an aide and said "Well I guess he found a way."
w has been called a good family man, a good citizen, a man of honor, a man with a good record as a businessman, a governor of Texas, a reader of a lot of books, a friendly and affable man, a good husband, and a lover of golf.
GEORGE W. BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE IN JANUARY OF 2001, DRUNK WITH POWER AND WITH ONE GOAL IN MIND, INVADE IRAQ.
GEORGE W. BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN HE MADE UP EXCUSES FOR INVADING IRAQ, WHEN HE WAS GOING TO INVADE IRAQ ANYWAY.
Everything, and I mean everything else about Iraq is irrelevant.
Advertisement
And if you listen to Bush speak (the excerpt I caught on NPR from his recent presser was a good example - I'm not going to have the patience, nor the desire, to sit through his Thursday evening "farewell address") it it apparent that he is also drunk on distilled spirits yet again. His speech pattern has changed drastically over time, and not for the better. He has "the slows" and seems to slur words more often.
Armchair diagnosis, I know. Is there a legal term for well-founded suspicion - over & above "well-founded suspicion"? (Just curious.)
Still, if you deliberately kill someone, you show that one person's life means nothing to you, and you are a murderer. You get locked up - unless you're OJ and can afford a good defense team.
If you kill 10 or 20 people, their lives meant nothing to you, and you're Charlie Manson (or someone like him), and you still get locked up, but you might get interviewed by Geraldo.
If you kill thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people, to show that no one's life means anything to you, you're likely a head of state, and accomplish it by ordering others to dirty their hands while you stand by at a safe distance.
January 13, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grouch I have noticed those same speech patterns.
His terrrrrrrists is harder for him to say as well as the comical nucular. We should be assured it is not his dentures(artificial dentures?).
He has always been a terrible speaker but the last couple of years, he has almost become a parody of himself. I grew up with drunks. I can see it.
But people could say I am just biased politically and with regard to drunkeness. (Don't get me wrong, I like a drink the beginning of every month. I am not a prude)
Well-founded to me is just probable cause.
As to your next point. You and I are too old not to already realize that life is not fair. It was fun watching OJ this time, though, wasn't it. In shackles the entire time, wasn't he?
I was watching Jughead on Mornin Joe today and it just seemed to me that everyone except Eugene Robinson was in this protective mood concerning w.
Whether it was the Deans (Howard and John), O'Neill, or a host of others over the last four years anyway, there was someone pointing out that felonies were being perpetrated, that lies were being disseminated, that the executive branch was over reaching.
This morning it just sounded like: oh poor george.
Boy it was touch on 9/11/01. Boy hind sight is 20-20. Boy we have not been attacked in seven years. blah blah blah.
I get so frustrated over this.
Oh, and thank you for your comments.
January 13, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Probable cause" - that's the term I was blanking on.
G. W. Bush is becoming synonymous with "probable cause", isn't he?
January 13, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, you forgot the now popular msm meme about w being so gracious to Obama. I don't effing think so! W wouldn't know gracious if it bit him!
January 13, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate his guts and have no respect for the scumbag but it could be medication of one sort or another as opposed to hitting the bottle again. What I would like to see is him in a terrible drunk driving accident where he is badly injured and loses a couple of limbs and gets seriously disfigured. Then he could find out what it's like to live like that since he's sentenced so many of our people, Iraqi's and Afghani's to similar lives. He should be made to suffer.
I try not to think that way about anyone but my hatred for that creep runs mighty deep. He is a common felon, a war criminal and a sociopath who has destroyed much of what I loved about my country. There is no punishment too painful for his crimes.
January 13, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are all brothers under the skin Oleeb. So I think someone needs to take w out of his skin so that we can confirm this.
ALIVE. I WANT HIS SKINNED ALIVE.
Outside of that, hows tricks Oleeb?
January 13, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the man looked and sounded drunk, literally. One of my favorite conspiracy theories is that Cheney et al. chose Bush as their puppet because they knew all they had to do was keep him supplied with booze and coke and they'd have free rein.
January 13, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that what the "war on drugs" was all about?
January 13, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've made a cogent argument counselor. Well done.
January 13, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Miguel. The 'media' seems to constantly ignore this fact. w's real intent and his lies.
Except for Keith O, which is why that guy is dear to my heart.
Is it just me? Is there some argument I am missing?
January 13, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not missing any argument.
The political punditry (with a few exceptions) will never acknowledge the substance of your argument. If they were, they'd also have to acknowledge their complicity in this Administration's actions.
And I doubt that will ever happen.
David Gregory congratulated the media on the job prior to the invasion of Iraq. And he's now host of Meet the Press (the most important political show ever on television...heck, in the history of television, if you believe the fluff...)
January 13, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right, CTV. I remember watching O'Neill almost five years ago (or is it longer)appearing on cable and late nite. I was thinking, well that settles that issue.
Gregory is a real disappointment. Only because I do not feel like swearing this afternoon.
Thank you by the way. Sometimes I thought over the years that I was the only one who saw this.
January 13, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
sometimes I thought....
I think many people were scratching their heads and metaphorically saying "WTF?" Or literally, for that matter. I think this is some of Jon Stewart's appeal. And why Stephen Colbert's tour-de-force at the WH Correspondents dinner resonated with so many people.
Someone, anyone, was standing up and saying no, the emperor really doesn't have any clothes, even though hours and hours have been devoted to telling us what a stylish dresser he is.
January 13, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it used to be the most important political show. Then they put Gregory in as host.
January 13, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not missing the argument but you are missing Rachel Maddow. She's all over Bush's ass as well as Cheney's.
January 13, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debbie you got that right. Keith O was THE only guy that would voice my concern for years. Rachel started showing up as a guest on so many MSNBC news shows. I liked her right away.
And I was thrilled to see her get her own show and I watch it faithfully. God, and she bets on things and comes out on top, usually. This Burris thing, she got him on and sure enough, he is the new senator.
TALK ME DOWN, she says.
Thank you chiming in and thank you for reminding me of may favorite news journalist.
WHY THE HELL DOES NOT SHE DO MEET THE PRESS/
January 13, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody could fill Russert's shoes, but she would be great. She's polite but determined to get answers from people she interviews. And so smart!
January 13, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fine debate and argument, DD. You are having a bad influence on me. Now I want to see Bush/Cheney in prison as much as you do. They can run, perhaps they can even hide for a while, but they must take responsibility eventually. We, the people, were treated like game pieces in their personal chess set and now their game is over. Time for a new game to start. This time, though, we are going by the rules of fair play.
January 13, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that Flower. I think we are all hungry for some fair play and some straight talk from our leaders.
See, even this sounds like cliches just lined up with no thought.
Sometimes the truth is a cliche, I guess.
January 13, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can no longer have my wish. It was bush and Saddam in the same cell!!!
I enjoyed your blog, dd. And I'm not sure I realized you were a lawyer. Because honestly I was about to write a comment something like:
The other thing is that I, sadly, know of a case similar to the drunk above... and the young man was promptly jailed (due to other circumstances, like previous DUIs). But if the young man had been w, his daddy would have fixed things up right away!
So... president drunk on power - due to never being made to learn to face consequences by his daddy, a previous president. (not that that changes the facts... except daddy hadn't gone all the way to Baghdad... and kid drunk on power wanted to show daddy up)
Last thought on this:
WHAT??????
This man would have preferred that the troops he sent in there faced WMD????
Give me a break!
January 13, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Therap we are supposed to look at issues from a variety of perspectives. I have been lost as far as the actions of this administration. A loss for words. A loss in the ability to understand the 'other side'.
I think we can argue trickle down economics. I know what is clear to me but it is a ten trillion dollar economy, after all. What do I know?
Law and order is an issue I can debate. etc. etc.
But Jesus, how can they defend the invasion of Iraq.
Oh well.
January 13, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no defense for an Iraq War. Remember, they couldn't even explain it at the time. Recall that kid who counted all their many explanations. The gang that couldn't even explain straight!
January 13, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a specal edition of Talk of the Nation on the night Bush launched "Shock & Awe," Bill Kristol stated that the justification for this preemptive war would be righteously declared bogus if in fact no WMD were to be found.
I filed the transcript but cannot locate it now. But I filed it because I was damned positive that there was in fact no WMD - that Cheney and Co. had cooked the intelligence to arrive at a justification for what they wanted to do in the first place - invade Iraq at any cost.
And Bill Kristol continues to make supporting statements for his many other crazy neocon ideas that he has no intention of ever acknowledging when they are ultimately shown to be founded in cynical gamesmanship rather than reality. He and Cheney studied at the same school of irresponsible rhetoric. And most incredibly, the NYT provides a forum for this intellectually dishonest lightweight to continue passing gas and declaring it an Oracle from the neocon vault.
January 13, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never believed they were there either. Hans Blick was investigating. They, of course, try to claim that the Iraqi's didn't cooperate. But they did! They even destroyed those old missiles. I was paying very close attention. But I never, ever, bought their story. And when Colin Powell changed his mind and went to the UN... I thought to myself... what do these guys have over him? I figured there was some deal or else some threat to Powell.
What liars, cheaters, thieves, torturers, murderers! There's no end to their crimes!
January 13, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that something? What the hell is Kristol doing at the NYT, anyway? I am sure you have picked up several articles at Salon and other sites complaining that k just phones in his columns without any thought or commitment. Good for us, if some idiot is out there spewing propaganda anyway, why not an incompetent?
January 13, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That thing in the quote box should have read that w was disappointed there were NO WMD in Iraq. Yeah... he wanted them to be there!
January 13, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I thought this was about Obama from the title.
Good post anyway.
January 13, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
El Presidente, thank you for your kind words.
Obama is not drunk. He is just happy and confident.
January 13, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about Obamba's admitted cocaine habit? Is it for sure he got off that stuff? I didn't hear any reports of him taking a UA. And statistically, his choice of cocaine form would be crack. Is that worse than the powdered stuff? Is his wife on it too? How will his drug habits affect his presidency?
January 13, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack never admitted to a "cocaine habit" or any other kind of habit with the exception of smoking and sports.
I don't have Dreams from my Father in front of me, but he was speaking of using marijuana, blow when he could get it, as a means of quieting the self doubt he was experiencing as a young man looking for an identity.
Use and abuse are two totally different things.
January 13, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Jason, I never know when to ignore and when to confront. Does Obama, Mr. Cool & Deliberate look like a crack addict to you.
And this 'statistically' its crack. What kind of racist crap is that.
Jason, you show up at the right moment--more than once.
January 13, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially since most crack and crank addicts are white. My pleasure to pop in when needed. I just happen to be reading Dreams from my Father right now, which is why I remembered that particular passage.
Good blog, by the way. I just hope that when the investigation is complete that Congress didn't pass a bunch of laws (Patriot Act, etc.) making most of what was done these last eight years "legal" in addition to being immoral.
At a certain point, we are going to need to address all the structural deficiencies in how we do business to ensure we start living up to our founding documents in a way that has never been and make it permanent.
January 13, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you very much.
January 13, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just check 'Sprics' comments in his blog, and I think you'll find he can safely be ignored without missing much.
January 13, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
More often than not the truth is, as you say, a cliche. There are only so many ways to express any truth, so expressions are said over and over again. Stick with what works to get the point you want to make across. Like THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR. That's not a cliche, but it serves, and your point comes across clearly.
January 13, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another great post...You are getting better and better, Arthur.
January 13, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Stilli. You do not know what that means to me. I hope things are going well for you and that your plane is set to take off when the skys are not too full.
January 13, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, DD! Gawd, how many times have I been left screaming common sense at the various talking heads who have constantly tried to find excuses for this criminal Bush Administration.
"Hey, jackass! The emperor has no clothes!"
January 13, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right Sleepin', and like I said before, if you put a mirror right in front of him, w would look at it and ask you if you liked his tie.
Thank you, as always for checkin in.
January 13, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD,
There's an old cliche that if a person takes more then 5 minutes to explain something, they do not know what they are talking about.
THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR.
Yes, as Dubya was whining yesterday it occured to me he may have been drunk. What is extremely disappointing is that no one can even admit that. It is as if to confirm Dubya is drunk is a crime, as if to be drunk while President is a crime, as if there will be some retribution if anyone admits it, as if he were anything but the lamest duck on record. Dubya is a very sick man, but it does not mitigate in any way the comparison,
THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR.
January 13, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Gregor. That does a lot for me.
On two other blogs today I wondered why no one screamed and yelled about Cheney getting tens of billions of dollars to his company. Do you know what they would do to a Dem for that kind of thing?
Oh well. I take a deep breath.
January 13, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a few.
January 13, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if you could convince a jury of 12 good men and true that there is a reasonable doubt that BAC caused the death, you wouldn't get convicted.
So maybe the factors matter. Maybe even the Bush Administration isn't black and white.
Anyway, I'm not ragging on Obama, he's just one of the more active "future" Presidents I've known.
January 13, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
El Presidente, my point is that the matter would be investigated and the man would be charged. Every time. But stuff happens in jury trials. And that is the last step in the process.
Oh, and you are correct. Obama, because of circumstances coupled with the speed of his appointments and, it appears the cooperation of w which astounds me, he certainly has been more active
than any 'future' president in history.
January 13, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing. I don't think Dubya can get out of there fast enough, but he keeps pulling on more rope and I am hpeful that, metaphorically, he will hang himself. For that very same reason, i wish Cheney would keep talking.
January 13, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hasn't he already started to metaphorically hang himself? With the admission on Fox News last weekend that he specifically asked which "techniques" were available for SMK? And that he authorized the use of said "techniques"?
(I'm not a lawyer, but it sounded like he just destroyed any shred of plausiable deniability...)
(And O/T: wonder what the ratings were like for the Bush and Bush team on Fox versus Obama on This Week?)
January 13, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohhhhh, I'll be so glad not to have to clench my jaw every time that idiot appears on TV, smirking pursing his lips! Ugh.....
January 13, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's public activity is necessary to begin the process of compensating for eight years of Presidential inactivity and Vice-Presidential covert activity.
January 13, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a lot more active than that last ex-president we had.
January 13, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd. DD, I think you wrote for "Law & Order" when before Jack McCoy became DA.
The ability to reduce a vat full of Texas bullshit down to its basic, most foul element is a sign of a good lawyer. You've done that quite convincingly here.
To be fair, I think most TPM'ers subscribed to the end of this story already. It always helps, though, to have the pixels arranged in front of your face in black and white, blaring the indisputable truth. The historical context is good, too.
January 13, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that Boyd. Thank you very much.
I always get a kick out of the Dole/Quayle sign.
And a lot of people here, including material from you, attempt to put some argument together and not just work backwards from a conclusion.
If you get a chance read Tester today. The one with just six letters. Conspiracy at OLC to subvert the law. Fascinating and extremely complicated stuff for my little mind.
January 13, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you, and most on this post.
First, though a bit irrelevant, I disagree that the guy was drunk, killed a pedestrian, therefore send him to jail. He had a lot of good defense. The question for the jury should be "would the accident have happened if the man would have been sober?" In other words, was the man's state of inebriation a direct cause of the accident? Would the accident have been averted if the drunk would have had better (sober) reflexes? What if he was driving drunk and a meteor hits the car killing his passenger? Do you still send him to jail? If I am on the jury, he goes free or it will be a hung jury unless the alcohol was a direct cause. Incidentally, I have not had a drink in 31 years, so there is no bias from here.
Second. George Bush has some pretty good excuses. And, most importantly, he did most of what he was doing under the eye of Congress. It is Congress' duty to stop him, if necessary. It did not, nor did it even try. It is not good for us to second guess our president. Incidentally, I have never voted for anyone by the name of Bush. And, I extremely disagree with about all he did. Still, the point is the same. He was president. Presidents are given a lot of power. The time to check that power was during the past 8 years, not now. I think Obama thinks along these lines, and I agree with him.
January 13, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do we just erase the past eight years and start another country? Forget the last eight years? That's ridiculous.
January 13, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, but historically we have not seen fit to prosecute outgoing presidents using the power of the new one.
If Congress legitimized the actions in question and precedent allows for a fairly loose reading of the Constitution (internment camps, slavery, manifest destiny, etc.) Obama is right to investigate quietly and prosecute if laws were broken, but not to go into the conversation with preconceived notions of right or wrong.
Have to agree with Faroff on this one.
January 14, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 13, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really enjoy the efforts being made by some to determine if someone has something liberal to offer then they are assigned all these other liberal attributes. Once "defined" as a liberal in this cartoonish manner, then the liberal is dismissed entirely. Do people really think this way? Do they expect others to take these gigantic leaps with them into a two-sided world of Right and not-right?
January 13, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No conspiracy. The lies were dished 24/7. And they weren't hypothetical lies -- they were real lies.
January 14, 2009 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good morning Seashell. Yeah, w never said, suppose Sadaam had WMDs, and further suppose that Sadaam had a nuclear bomb as part of those WMDs with a missile delivery system....
January 14, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Friends don't let friends drive drunk."
I've been saying this about Israel recently, but it could apply here too.
I think the point you're trying to make is that you see a lot of extraneous factors, and you want us to focus on a key element: Bush intended to take out Saddam militarily (rather than use effective diplomacy or covert ops), and he (and his cohorts) connived and lied to get us to go along with his dependency-based immoral conduct.
That's sorta the opposite of driving drunk. It's much closer to 1st degree murder than negligent homicide or mere manslaughter.
January 13, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
EDS, I COULD NOT HAVE SAID THAT ANY BETTER.
Thank you for your comment. Very, very, very good.
January 13, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone suffer through Bush's last (finally) press conference?
When asked about regrets he said he was sorry there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not that he was sorry that he diverted our military away from Tora Bora, where they had BinLadin trapped. Not that he sent thousands of our military towards a deadly wild goose-chase in Iraq. Not one whit of guilt or sleepless nights about references to "mushroom clouds" with the goal to scare our trusting citizens to support his wrong-headed war in Iraq.
Imagine that you killed someone that you thought was breaking into your house, and then you found out you were completely mistaken. Years later, when you still had not been held accountable for that murder YOU committed, and someone asked you about regrets and all you could come up with was that you were really sorry that the dead person was not really trying to break into your house!
That is the kind of pathetic and limited, and sociopathic thinking that this regime has used to ruin our country and its good name. The very thought of letting them skate is abhorrent to me.
January 13, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has never been anyone more ill-suited for high office by character, temperament or intellect than Bush. Deep, deep character pathology, and not implausible, when you consider his parents. Hard to believe that in a country so superficially preoccupied with telegenicity that such a manifestly loathsome family could have maintained such a presence in the public sphere. Utterly despicable man.
January 14, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
SOS, tell me what your really think!!!! I know, some old aide of Powell (as I am sure you are aware) compared w to Palin. Then he apologized to Palin.
January 14, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later Chief of Staff to Colin Powell.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/bush-oral-history200902
January 14, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know SOS, there are about three or four of you guys on this net that are so damn quick with cites and sites.
Good job. Yes, that is the guy. And the complaint if you recall was: where the hell was this guy four years ago?
January 14, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...and all you could come up with was that you were really sorry that the dead person was not really trying to break into your house!"
This is priceless. Because that is exactly what he was saying. TheraP somewhere said it sounded as if he wished there were WMDs so that more of our soldiers would have been killed.
w is not as clueless as I thought previously. He looks rattled to me. He has really aged over the last couple of years.
He sounds more ridiculous every time I see him.
CV, this really is a great summary. Thank you.
January 13, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was on a DUI jury here in California back in the '70s, when 0.1% was considered legally impaired. I'm sure the laws have only become tougher since then
We were instructed by the judge that ther were three tiers for establishing guilt: 0.03% or less was grounds for acquittal, regardless of testimony, .04% to .09%, was the gray area in which testimony and evidence had to be considered in making a determination of guilt, and .1% or more, where a guilty verdict was mandated, regardless of testimony.
Well the kid pled not guilty, claiming the cop had caused him to flunk the field tests (the cop had a reputation for that), but his BAC was .12%. We didn't have a choice of letting him off; we HAD to convict.
Don't know how other states work, but if you're in CA and are over .08%, don't bother going to trial--even if you're the mayor or police chief (both happened, BTW)--because your ass is headed for the Hotel Graybar.
FWIW . . .
January 13, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is now .08 %BAC all over the country. We were one of the last states to switch from .1%BAC. The feds passed a law sometime ago telling the states, fine, do what you wish. But if it aint .08% BAC, you aint getting highway funds.
A real change, like you indicate in Minnesota also.
In the '70s a cop may say to go home and do not do this again.
A couple of decades ago, that all changed. That is over. Judges, cops, mayors....does not matter anymore and that is egalitarianism at its best.
It is a fair system now.
Now if they find a joint in the ashtray, that is different.
Thank you for your comments here. I love to hear from past jurors.
You learned something from that experience I bet.
January 13, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone with half a brain and who is honest knows Bush and Cheney should be in jail. That they aren't shows us how completely corrupt our government and those in power have become. Can anyone really doubt that sooner or later there will be a reconciliation of all that is happening right now? Look at what is happening with our financial system and how it is being handled. Nothing is changing (except for the worse). Our government and our politicians have absolutely failed. Our constitution has become a worthless piece of paper. There will come a reckoning for all of this and it'll be messy.
January 14, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bugliosi, as I am sure you are aware, is so angry about criminals in the WH that he can hardly contain himself and he prosecuted Manson.
Thank you for signing in.
January 14, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awwww, dd, you left out my most favorite excuse for invading Iraq:
Clinton thought he had WMD, too!
Indeed.
THE GUY WAS DEAD DRUNK AND KILLED A PEDESTRIAN WITH HIS CAR
January 14, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
UNTIL, and only UNTIL, you prosecute at least ONE
of these bastards, they all will continue on their
merry way supported by latent psychopaths suffering from severe inferiority problems (i.e.,
Dick Cheney).
AND they will continue to pay the band for them to continue to publicly "piss in the public's face".
January 14, 2009 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
We cannot sit back and let this happen again.
Otherwise, when the people are up in arms and angry about what the executive has been doing, principals like Cheney will simply say, "Sooooooo?"
Thank you for chiming in.
January 14, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Story down here in GA is that that perfect damn fool, Zell Miller is going to be GWB main
appologist in the future.
WHERE IS ZELL?
WHY NO MORE ADDRESSES TO LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE?
IS HE CONSIDERED TO BE TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DANGEROUS TO ALL GROUPS ON ANY SUBJECT.
January 14, 2009 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Buck, Zell was the parody of the Republican message in 2004. If anyone is dumb enough to hire him as their spokesperson, they deserve the response they get.
Thanks for your comment.
January 14, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
DD, wonderful post and equally wonderful comments thread that I just read, all the way through.
Here's my take on sobriety or no? Whether GWB has stopped drinking or not, or whether he has relapsed, he has not achieved any level of sobriety by 12 Step standards. Stopping drinking without going through one's own "stuff" in the cold light of day makes a "dry drunk." Anyone who starts to drink as an adolescent to mask the "stuff," and does not get sober, stays at that adolescent level of development. Stuck, immature, irresponsible, irrational, blaming and making excuses. . . a dry drunk. Drinking or dry many of the same behaviors come out.
The key is, the guy was driving drunk and somebody, many somebodies, died. And it was America's first really recognizable war of aggression with no justification.
If I ever need an attorney, Ill hire you, DD.
January 14, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a friend of the other Bill, I'd have to agree there. If you sober up a drunk horse thief you get a horse thief. w is an idiot drunk or not.
January 14, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
CarolG, nobody should hire me. I do not practice any longer. Lost that ability a long time ago. I always appreciate your posts and your comments.
AA says you have to make a list of all your 'sins',not in so many words, and relate those mistakes to one other person.
You are also supposed to make amends where ever possible.
w will never admit anything. He is oblivious. Or pretends to be anyway. I perceive that 'it' is catching up to him. As I stated many times, he is aging fast and looks disheveled and unhappy. He knows he did some things, he just is not sure what they were.
He has never been able to own up to his mistakes in his entire life.
January 14, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm slow on the uptake with this one. But... killer post!
Cheers.
January 14, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Loki. Very kind words.
January 14, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
George Bush was just another tool for the warrior class to keep control over the rest of us. They look for useful tools and George fit the bill beyond their wildest dreams. Cunning, deceitful and with no sign of empathy. He is a cold child. He is "The Bad Seed". But the people around him are worse from Dick Cheney to Colin Powell. They epitomize "the banality of evil". Bureaucrats who have no problem with economic genocide or wholesale slaughter by bombs. "Whatever"....that's they're motto.
January 14, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feral, I think General Powell though he could change things from the 'inside' for the better and then found out he couldn't.
Cheney thought he could direct things from the inside and found out he could.
Good take!!!!!
January 14, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink