Article Three, Section Three, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has, by the overt act of perjury, intentionally derailed an investigation into a serious breach of national security during a time of war. This over act served to prevent investigators, acting in the role of the United States, from identifying and stopping domestic enemies of the state from leaking secrets during sed war.

:: ::

According the White House and (most of) Congress, we are engaged in a war. The Executive Branch insists that this is a war to bring Democracy and Freedom to Iraq, to fight Al Quaeda "over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" and to quell an "insurgency" fueled by renegade nations.

Selling or revealing national secrets during a time of war inhibits the ability of the United States to wage war effectively; it undermines our safety, our security and our intelligence networks. While it does not directly, necessarily constitute "waging war" against the United States, it does can be reasoned that it gives aid and comfort to our enemies. Regardless of that, however, it is a breach of trust and a threat to the nation.

Intentionally impeding an investigation into a serious breach of national security in order to protect the guilty -- who would arguably be Enemies of the State engaged in intelligence warfare against the nation -- equates to "Aiding and Abetting" in the commission of a crime, and it most certainly gives "aid and comfort" to the (domestic) Enemies of the State.

Ergo, "Scooter" Libby is guilty of treason; he intentionally lied, misdirected and perjured himself during the investigation of the Plame outing by Congress and the FBI in order to protect those who were responsible. Congress and the FBI are, in effect, acting in the interest of the United States. Regardless of who the culprits were, they were obvously acting against the interests of the United States.

"Scooter" may be demonstrating extreme loyalty to friends or "superiors" in the Chain of Command, but it's a sorely misplaced loyalty when it puts the entire nation at risk and destroys or disrupts our intelligence-gathering assets, particularly during a time of war.

For those who are calling for a pardon, or who are calling for the sentence to be commuted because "Scooter is a great guy," there is no excuse. Regardless of how nice he is, he engaged in treasonous activity that prevented the United States (as represented by Congress and the FBI) from stopping a major security leak that threatened critical intelligence networks and assets during a time of war. There is no excuse for "Scooter's" actions, and to attempt to free him via pardon or through commutation of the sentence serves only to show that the supplicants and supports are themselves guilty of adhering to Enemies of the State -- they are, in effect, attempting to thwart effective punishment and protection of our nation.

Everyone who calls for a pardon and everyone who calls for the President to commute "Scooter's" sentence betrays our troops, our intelligence community and the people of the nation.

As for the President, there is only one option: explicitly direct Mr. Libby to answer the questions of the Special Prosecutor fully, truthfully and without delay, or face charges of Treason by Congress and an appropriate punishment in accordance with the law.

Failure of the President to so direct Mr. Libby, and indeed any action taken to pardon or commute the just (if light) sentence and conviction of same, would clearly undermine the duty of the Executive -- the Commander-in-Chief, the Decider Guy -- to safeguard the nation.

Congress, it is time to draw up charges of Treason against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and set an immediate timetable for the trial to begin. Even Benedict Arnold had his bright spots and moments at the start of the American Revolution, but look how that turned out...and time has passed. The White House and the GOP like to reiterate that 9-11 changed everything -- they've justified torture, illegal surveillance, rendition programs and the suspension / removal / chincy-assed prevaricative faux compromise of Habeas Corpus under that mantra. Both the White House and the GOP have implied that questioning or challenging the actions of the WH, the Pentagon or their minions during a time of war could be taken as "treasonous" and they used the language of "treason" as defined in the Constitution to drive that point home.

What, then, would be the actual revelation of and destruction of Intelligence Assets, or the act of deliberately protecting those who destroyed those assets? ...why, treason of course, by the very nature of the thing. It's far more overt and entirely measurable -- far more so than the intangible ramblings of a media outlet.

Place Libby in the spotlight. Demand that the President direct him to answer the questions of Congress and the Special Prosecutor or face a trial for treason against the United States. Get to the bottom of the leak, the lies and the coverup.

And do it now.

The prosecution claims that she accepted $10,000 for the work. The exact charge was that she acted as an unregistered agent of Iraq, something akin to an unregistered lobbyist. Although news headlines frequently refer to her as "accused spy", more precise journalists note that the actual charges carefully avoid accusing Lindauer of espionage.

On Friday, 8 September 2006, "Symbol Susan" was released from prison after a federal judge ruled that she could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication in an effort to make her competent to stand trial.  She is free on bail.  

And now it gets interesting.

According to the article in the NY Times, she's incompetent to stand trial.  Prosecutors wanted to have her forcibly medicated with antipsychotic drugs to enable her to stand trial.  Was there any question as to her competance in absence of the drugs?  No.

At least a half dozen doctors for both the defense and the prosecution have found that Ms. Lindauer suffers from delusions of grandeur and paranoia, which makes her incompetent to stand trial, the judge said.

Judge Michael Mukasey of Federal District Court in Manhattan not only doubted that the medication would have enough of an effect to enable her to stand trial, but also expressed his opinion that the government's case did not merit the standard of proof necessary to warrant forcible administration of medication.

Aside from the fact that the judge noted that even lay people could recognize that Lindauer was disturbed, he also expressed humanitarian concerns about forcing Ms. Lindauer to take medication, which, he said, "necessarily involves physically restraining defendant so that she can be injected with mind-altering drugs."

I think he had a good point there.

She was initially branded as a reputed traitor and alleged spy for Saddam Hussein, then her name appeared to vanish from the main headlines.  But, was she a spy, or merely misunderstood?

Or -- perhaps even worse -- a scapegoat?

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". -      -- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II

According to the Seattle Weekly [From 'Spy' to Psychotic: The latest on the very strange story of former Seattle journalist Susan Lindauer, By Rick Anderson (February 15, 2006)], Lindauer has not been specifically charged with spying or espionage.  Lindauer herself insists that her efforts to act as a back-channel diplomat and get sanctions against Iraq lifted were simply misunderstood.

The Justice Department claims that "Symbol Susan" was unsuccessfully attempting to influence United States policy.  Lindauer had sent at least two letters to her second cousin as part of her efforts to ease sanctions and get weapons inspectors back in.  The second one is being used to prosecute her. (Side note: isn't "attempting to influence United States policy" exactly what we're doing, too, when we blog and write letters to our Congressfolk?)

Oh -- perhaps I should let you in on a little family secret of hers: her second cousin is  White House chief of Staff Andrew Card.

In a letter written to her second cousin, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, two months after Sept. 11, 2001, Lindauer made no secret about her activism or her emotional mission to aid Iraqi citizens. The letter, a copy of which she gave to basement tenant Fields, is apparently one of at least two she sent or gave to Card in 2001 and 2003. The undisclosed second letter, mentioned in the indictment, is being used to prosecute her. In the first letter, written Dec. 2, 2001, Lindauer indicates she was working back channels of government and meeting with officials at the Iraqi embassy, which prosecutors say she in fact did.

Andy wouldn't say whether or not he'd turned over any letters to the FBI, but -- seeing as this was yet another potential contact point from Iraq that could have paved the way toward avoiding such a nice successful war -- who could blame him if he did decide to rat out his own family?  After all, she was only a second cousin -- and she was apparently a bit nuts, too.

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't."

     -- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, Scene II

Ah, yes -- a method to the madness.  A famous quote, and like a two-edged sword, it can cut both ways.  The successful execution of the "War on Terror" depends on keeping the boogie men alive and under the bed while creating a perception of progress.  (We've nailed how many number-two Al Quaeda operatives now?)  The successful conviction of anyone tied to the Axis of Evil would be a feather in the collective caps of those who are so successfully prosecuting this war.  

It's a study in madness all by itself.  But what of poor Susan?  What is the nature of the madness that has taken her, and how does it figure in here?

The bigger question, however, was always her sanity. She had a history of mood swings and paranoid fears. People were watching her, she often said, although, as it turned out, federal agents indeed had set up surveillance and tapped her phone. Still, if she betrayed her country, did she do so knowingly?

Aye, there's the rub -- if she's so nutty, then how crazy is she if she's told she's paranoid for claiming that she was being watched and that her place was bugged -- regardless of the fact that she was under FBI surveillance and they had tapped her phone?

Nutty as a fruitcake, apparently.  From the same Seattle Weekly article:

"I got a call from her Feb. 4," says renter Fields. "They are talking about forcibly medicating her. She sees women around her, in Carswell, who can't hold their own silverware to eat because of medications, and she doesn't see how such treatments make anyone more fit for trial. Seems a lot like the way the Soviets used to treat dissidents." Lindauer told another friend she was being guarded like a terrorist at Carswell, and a relative of Lindauer who recently attempted to visit her was turned away, Fields says. He supports Lindauer but isn't convinced of either her guilt or innocence. "I wonder what she really did--what evidence there might be that I don't know about. But I sure would like to see due process observed."

Now, Susan did have an apparent history of people thinking she was just a tad "touched" -- to the point where she'd apparently also claimed to be an angel.  So, with half a dozen doctors saying that she's not competent to stand trial, it's understandable that the prosecution would want to try and find a way to put the capper on all their hard work.  Forcibly medicating her seemed just a bit of reach, and was rejected.

But, why was she such a prize to the DOJ, that she could be considered so important as to suggest such a method even in light of slim ground for such action?  Perhaps she just ticked them off when she suggested that Iraq might be willing to "play ball" in order to avoid catastrophic conflict with the US:

In contrast, the December 2001 letter from Lindauer to Card, a copy of which Fields has now posted on his personal Web site (jayspolitics.blogspot.com), seems rational. She said Iraqi leaders hoped to demonstrate their good faith to create a climate for talks with the U.S. and were willing to allow resumption of weapons inspections. They'd also cease firing on U.S. aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone and would cooperate "on terrorism issues per specific requests made by President Bush." The situation offered a potential foreign-policy victory for Bush, she wrote, noting "his praises would be sung wildly in the Arab Street." Iraq, she concluded, "has to accept its responsibilities, and I'm trying very hard to help achieve that goal, with the greatest hope that the regional insecurities and instabilities of the Middle East will become more diminished if my efforts succeed." Fields says, "It must have crushed her when Bush went to war" 15 months later.

[Emphasis mine.]

Yeah -- diminish the insecurity and instabilities of the Middle East.  That's crazy-talk.  No wonder the DOJ was concerned about her running around loose, with direct access to the Administration.  Fortunately, as her "spycraft" evolved, her sense of discretion apparently did not.

Within 10 years, by 2004, she had allegedly become something of a spy, or, as the government nebulously defines it, worked in concert with others to "act" as one. If so, it was unconventional spycraft. She had disclosed her Iraqi connections directly to the White House through the letters to Card, she openly discussed some of her intentions with friends, and met in New York with Iraqi agents, presumably some of the more intensely surveilled operatives on U.S. soil.

So, she's a little unstable, and indiscreet.  And dangerous enough to suggest drugging for trial.  (How's that hunt for Osama coming along there, George?...just thought I'd ask.)

"When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions"

     -- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act IV, Scene V

Let's review the NYT piece again.  

Although he was reluctant to analyze the government's case before trial, the judge said, "There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have." The indictment, he said, describes an attempt to influence an unnamed government official as unsuccessful.

Presumably, that unnamed official is Card.  Her efforts could be described as either "misplaced" or "patriotic" -- I'm not so sure that they qualify as "spying."  Apparently, the judge wasn't convinced either.  But there is something important to keep in mind here -- back-channel diplomacy can have serious repurcussions when sensitive matters are being discussed.  An article posted on 22 March 2004 for the National Review (Armchair Diplomat, Back-Channel Baathist: Duped by the enemy, by Clinton W. Taylor) cites some specific examples of how former "back-channel" efforts by "armchair diplomats" have had significant impact in our history.

Go read the whole article -- you may find the specific examples enlightening.  For our purposes, I'll simply quote Taylor:

The sad but true history of back-channel diplomacy is a similar tale -- one of enemy intelligence agencies showing gullible American presidents only what they want them to see.

Sort of sounds like "cherry-picking" to me. [Or perhaps "stovepiping."]

Taylor's article makes a case for why back-channel diplomacy is inherently untrustworthy (...did I hear someone say "Chalabai"...???).  He does go on to attempt to paint the White House as actually having an idea, a grasp of why such diplomatic efforts are risky, and crediting the White House with making the choice to avoid such potential "pipelines of disinformation" -- essentially, convicting Symbol Susan in his article before all the facts of the case were known, the most important of which dealt with her psyche.

Given today's Administration, the history of failed initiatives and a growing quagmire in both Afghanistan and Iraq as the great "Global War On Terror" spirals to earth in flames, I wonder if the near desperation of the prosecution to get Susan to trial isn't a rather indicative symbol of the overall sickness that has permeated our nation.  A sickness of paranoia, perpectual fear and warmongering that can't be fixed through forced medication, but through democracy instead.  

Remember to get out and vote in November.  Speak out against doublespeak and propaganda.  Let your voices be heard, and do not under any circumstances go quietly into the night.

Thank you.

Crossposted on ePluribus Media, Booman Tribune and StreetProphets.

She loved it. It was, for her, the ultimate game.

After she died, her absence was tangible. It felt almost like an empty echo chamber, until her ashes were returned to us and set up on a small sanctuary that my wife had prepared in her honor. Although the ashes were small consolation for the loss of her great fuzzy hearted presence, we nonetheless found comfort in the modified presence to which she'd been restored to our lives. We reminisced about her humor, her games, her attitude and her appetite. We didn't, therefore, think it was amusing when the bag containing her ashes vanished from the box which held them.

It was Thursday morning when I noticed that something had changed. I came downstairs to the kitchen to get the morning routine started, and thought it odd that I didn't "feel" Missy's presence as I passed by her little sanctuary. I figured that I was just tired, and put it out of my mind.

Then, at around two-thirty yesterday (Friday) afternoon, I noticed my mother-in-law over by the sanctuary, rummaging through a few things I'd collected for research. As I looked over to moniter her activity (she has mid-stage Alzheimer's Disease, and we care for her at home), I froze. The death certificate (which was enclosed with a copy of the "Rainbow Bridge") was missing from atop the little cedar box that held Missy's ashes.

I flew into a flurry of desperate searching, trying to see where Mumsie might have moved the small envelope and card to. Then I noticed the box. It wasn't fully shut and latched anymore.

The card was inside, along with the treat we'd placed there and a tuft of Missy's fur. But the ashes were gone.

New flurry of activity, along with a sweeping dread and an anger that sprang from several sources: anger that I'd not been able to keep my dog safe, something that should not have been a challenge as she was dead and therefore very low maintenance; anger at not having noticed that the ashes had been disturbed before that point; anger at not catching Mumsie in the act of removing or transporting the ashes; anger at my wife for not catching Mumsie if this had all happened on "her watch"...and anger directed not at Mumsie, but at the disease that was slowly claiming her memories, her motor skills, her cognitive ability and her life.

Mumsie was upset when she realized that she had likely been the one who'd moved the ashes. And she was more upset because she knows, deep inside, that these type of things have been happening but she can't remember why, nor can she slow them down or stop them.

I had to stop my steady yet frantic searching; Mumsie was my current responsibility, and I'd upset her. I work out of the house, so I've been her primary caretaker while Wifey worked about 20 minutes away. I called Wifey, told her what had happened, and verified that she would be back on time so that we could search and take turns keeping Mumsie from further upset.

When Wifey got home, the first place she went to check was Mumsie's room. My mother-in-law had shared a special bond with Missy. They both had hip problems, and would lurch and wobble like synchronized dancers whenever we'd go for a walk. Missy knew that Mumsie was her human counterpart -- the eldest matriarch of the house, and fragile. She took care of her as best she could, watching out for her and letting my wife and I know if anything was amiss. Mumsie knew this, and it touched her heart as much as it did ours.

Not long after Wifey began her search, she found Missy's ashes, wrapped up still safe and sound, hidden in a laundry basket of clothes tucked under a spare bed in Mumsie's room. Our "Stealth Woo" had apparently been spirited away by Mumsie, only to be carefully ensconced in Mumsie's room so they could be together once more.

::

You may wonder what makes this a compelling story to relate on a political blog, when it is perhaps more suitable to a "slice of life" e-zine. Frankly, it's the "slice of life" that makes it particularly suitable. As the saying goes, "and now for the rest of the story":

Mumsie is an 83 year old Greek American, widowed early in life. My wife is her only child; her husband died over thirty years ago.

He was a veteran.

The Veteran's Administration has an array of benefits for soldiers and their families that help to compensate them for the dedication and service they perform for the country. Ranging from education to healthcare to monetary remuneration and retirement pay, the combined benefits can be compelling for young families to enlist and remain in the service of their nation. It is, IMO, one of the factors that has played heavily in the success of our all-volunteer forces, and it also serves to help make some type of amends for those who forced into service through a draft.

Lately, vet benefits have been suffering under the Bush Regime, and a heavy-handed Republican majority in Congress.

For all their bluster and clamoring about patriotism and the importance of supporting the troops, cutting veteran's benefits (either directly or by reducing the capacity of eligible recipients to claim them) is an ultimate betrayal.

My wife and I -- and Mumsie, in particular -- have been fortunate. The benefits she qualifies for have not been cut or reduced. She meets the necessary criteria for additional benefits that my wife is applying for on her behalf, which enables us to maintain a high level of quality care.

I've had experience with dementia patients before, having helped with several studies on new therapies as well as having performed voluntary patient transportation services. The nature of my work as a consultant and a writer permits me a tremendous flexibility; much of what I do can be done remotely over the internet or via a VPN connection. Up until late last year, I was able to help Mumsie coordinate her daily outfits to match my casual business wear, and I would bring her with me when I had to go to clients or other meetings, or when I had to go do research or interviews. I can still occassionally do that, but I'm just now beginning to take back on more work. I had to cut back to only three days per month, when I knew Wifey could coordinate her work schedule to help her manage Mumsie in my absence, after Mumsie began to enter a phase of her dementia that required constant monitoring.

Fortunately, the state has benefits that Mumsie qualified for. We were able to enroll her recently in an adult day-care program that frees up my time for six hours per day, four days per week. The Veteran benefits we've just learned about, and that Mumsie qualifies for, will add a fifth day, plus help ensure that Mumsie's costly medications are more affordable and that some of the homecare functions I'm currently responsible can be performed by an outside agency; essentially, I've been able to partially outsource myself.

I still manage Mumsie in the early mornings, in the mid-afternoons and evenings, as well as weekends whenever Wifey doesn't have a day off. The state and Vet programs don't cover everything, 24/7, unless we put her in an assisted living facility. She's not at the point where we feel that's justified. It's not easy -- but we're managing.

We still have the occassional "slice of life" vignettes occurring, where Mumsie will move (like a "Stealth Woo") and rummage through critical items while we're in the bathroom, shower or bringing up laundry. We don't leave her alone, but we don't tie her down to chairs, either. Generally, as a parent can somewhat keep track of their children in a house, we can be in the next room and have an idea of whether Mumsie is "up to" anything. We don't let her "do stairs" unattended. Sometimes, she doesn't recognize that she's in her home of 35+ years, and she'll try to let herself out to go "walk home" -- try jumping into the shower, hearing the door open downstairs, and having to dress while running to intercept a stubborn 83 year old before she turns the corner and starts hoofing it for the children's school bus stop. It's not fun, tho it is quite the adventure at times. (This morning, when I let our little dog in to go wake her up, and then followed through the door of her room, she jumped out from behind the door and yelled "BOO!" with a big smile on her face.)

For my wife and I, it is important that we are able to care for her mom at home as long as possible. We are unique, and extremely fortunate, that we can do this at this time, and have been able to manage this way for a little over three years now. Mumsie comes out with at night if we have special places to go (she met Markos and Jerome in Boston when they came through the other week), and we don't keep her out long. It is the benefits of the social care programs, coupled with the veteran's benefits, that make this possible and help hold down the direct costs. We still pay pretty high indirect costs -- through accidental damages and loss (sometimes Mumsie finds old photos, or new bills, or special certificates that she can't identify, and she shreds them as "skata" (sh!t); we don't always realize it because she hides the evidence just in case she was wrong to do it). We also pay a price in the loss of my paid work, and some of my creative writing; the slice of life that opened this piece is just one example of the type of insanity that can permeate the house. It makes it difficult to find time to concentrate on complex pieces like the Danse Macabre series I've been working on. I've got nearly the entire series complete in my head, but every time I've sat to compose, the flow from mind to finger to keyboard is interrupted by a crash, tear, "uh-oh", opening door or a series of repeated questions. Those are costly losses of concentration; we've been working on ways to help restructure my writing times so that I can have that necessary "quiet time". Those are challenges we face that we can overcome. And they serve to strengthen our commitment to taking care of Mumsie as long as it's benefitting her, as long as we can manage.

But that's all tenuously tied to the programs that exist in our national and state infrastructure. The programs that the Republican majority, and the Bush Administration's neoconservative minions in particular, seek to destroy.

Not long before our nation took the first steps toward liberty and independence, the freedoms we hold dear were diminishing at an alarming rate. The DailyKos diary Founding Father Franklin Schools Us On Leaking by mrcoder elaborates a little bit on that, with some great historical references. On October 28, 1886, France gave the United States the Statue of Liberty (the "non-national monument"); the sonnet "The New Colossus" was composed by Emma Lazarus in 1883, but it wasn't until the early 1900's that a bronze plaque bearing the sonnet was affixed to the inner walls of the statue's pedastal. The sonnet and the plaque has come to symbolize the statue's universal message of hope and freedom for immigrants coming to America and people seeking freedom around the world.

Just as my beautiful departed Missy has managed to vanish one more time, so too have our liberties been diminished yet again by a tyrannical George.

Just as my mother-in-laws Veteran benefits are intact, but not necessarily so for so many other veterans, so too are the freedoms and liberties of many Americans, as the NSA wiretapping and warrantless siezures have continued.

Let us not fail to recall our lessons of history, as mrcoder reminded us with the Franklin diary, and let us not fall into the complacency where we permit those who have served with honor and distinction to be compromised now that most of those who remember their service have passed on, or forgotten.

We must maintain our right to our rights and freedoms, our rights to the founding principles and tenets of our nation's Constitution, and we must insist on our leadership recalling -- not ignoring -- the history of this nation, lest the symbols of our freedom disappear one by one, until finally the great Lady Liberty vanishes, and with her, our pursuit of happiness.

There is a phrase that I'm sure we've all heard in one form or another which is peculiarly significant at this point for the citizens of the United States. It is simply this:

"History repeats itself because nobody listens the first time."

For those of you who may be a little rusty with regard to your US history, let's review the "Intolerable Acts":

from "The Intolerable Acts of 1774: Road to Independence by Elizabeth J."

King George III was determined to control the colonies by imposing a new tea tax. In 1775, he demanded that three shiploads of surplus tea be unloaded in Boston. The Bostonians did not want the tea and decided not to pay a tax that their Assembly did not vote on. They dumped the tea in Boston Harbor, believing England would then leave them alone. King George III was furious! He, and many in Parliament, believed the colonies should be punished for insulting Parliament and interfering with trade. To punish them, Parliament passed the Coercive Acts, called by the colonists, Intolerable Acts.

These acts overturned the principles on which the Massachusetts colony was founded in the charter of 1691. Without consultation and without legal proceedings, the charter was changed. The colonists were outraged!

The Boston Port Bill was intended to close down completely the Port of Boston until the East India Company was paid for their tea and Parliament was paid the tax due on the tea.

The Massachusetts Government Act declared that members of the Massachusetts Council would be appointed by the Governor, not elected by the Assembly. Also, town meetings could take place only with the Governor's permission. This act gave the governor full power to appoint local officials and the judiciary, and decreed that in the future, juries would be appointed by the sheriffs, not elected.

The Administration of Justice Act provided that any British official serving in the colonies, who was accused of a capital offense could be removed from the colony and sent to another colony or to England for a fair trial.Through a new Quartering Act for the British Army, colonial citizens would be required to house and feed, in their private homes, British officers and troops.

Finally, the Quebec Act was tacked on to the Intolerable Acts. It gave Canada's Catholics civil equality and guaranteed religious tolerance. It also gave the French vast territories west of the Appalachians. The colonists saw this as an attempt to renew their battles with both the French and the Indians.

The United States Constitution was created to lay the operational foundation for this new nation. Critical to the acceptance of this pivotal document was the requirement by several of the newly-formed states that a "Bill of Rights" be immediately adopted to ensure that certain rights and freedoms be explicitly defined. Several of the first key Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights were direct responses to the violations incurred by the Intolerable Acts – particularly the third and fourth amendments:

Amendment III: Quartering of soldiers

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV: Search and arrest

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX: Rights retained by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Often overlooked and played down as insignificant, it is perhaps our most powerful claim to the rights that we have to realize may be violated through the machinations of a leadership run amuck. The tenth amendment is similar, and in theory protects us from the powers of a unitary runaway Executive Branch:

Amendment X: States' rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Time passed.

As with all nations along the course laid through history, new laws were codified, reviewed, passed and sometimes repealed. Our heritage as a nation of, by and for the people became rich and rife with struggles as we expanded and defined our definitions of rights, of people and of freedom.

King George III was the first "King" that our nascent colonial founders had looked to. The king and his supporters had imposed intolerable requirements upon the colonies, and were cast off. The new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, was born.

Now we are at a crucial point in our history, where we have another "George" lording it over our nation. Not crowned a king, yet acting very much like one in claims of "Executive Privilege", our second "King George" has echoed the events of the past. Over the last few years, the Bush Administration and their Republican supporters have passed not one but several Intolerable Acts of their own. They have undermined the safety, security and Constitutionally founded tenets of our nation, squandered the treasury and ignored – and openly violated – their oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

We have come full circle. The events of the past that marked a cornerstone in our history have cycled back to us, entreating us to recall our history and the blood, sweat and tears of those who have fought and died to preserve the promises forged by our founding fathers.

Whether one believes in Fate, Destiny, a higher power or guiding light, or simply in the capacity of the human spirit to strive and overcome challenges, the time has come for all good people to come to the aid of their country. We are now in the midst of a Constitutional crisis. We must not fail in our resolve to set right our path, or the chaos and bloodshed that has stained our nation through the efforts of the Bush Administration and the Republican majority will forever mark the efforts of all those who have come before as doomed to failure.

We dare not rest in our efforts to recall to mind in our brothers and sisters the principles upon which this nation was founded.

But what of the other recurrent cycle, now surfacing in our midst? What could that be, and what need we learn from history in order to circumvent the ultimate threat to our nation and the security of it and the world?

In complete violation of the attempts to negate the association, I cannot help to call out the similarity in the rise of fascism in Hitler's Germany to the rise of similar nationalistic pride, narcissistic arrogance and draconian restrictions upon our people. Combined with the near-perfect repetition of the dictatorship of King George, this trend toward the violation of our national principles, fostered through a climate of fear, can destroy our nation. Let it not be so.

The current Administration is bent on a course of destruction, and maneuvering to limit our capacity as a nation to halt their efforts. They are allied with multinational corporate interests that seek not the preservation of our nation, nor the protection of the inalienable rights and freedoms that our citizens hold, but to the narrowing of the benefits of wealth and power to the hands of their "elite" brethren.

If we don't act now to force Congress to rein the Administration in, they will precipitate and initiate another war of aggression. They are already spying upon us, not to protect us from terrorists but to protect themselves from us.

"History repeats itself because nobody listens the first time."

Can you hear me now...?

Now that I've got your attention, bear with me. This is a plea to TPTB as well as a rant, and I invite you to lend your voice to the choir...

The course a nation takes over troubled waters may involve many turns, often forcing the ship of state to navigate the storms and swells of the open sea of international politics or steer clear of shoals and reefs along coasts and inland seas of domestic issues that only fools mistake as portents of safe passage.

Our current course, charted by no "Captains Courageous", is foundering adrift amid a sea of storms, drifting ever closer to the shoals. We have to do something about it, else the spark of mutiny may spring to life and bloom into a raging inferno fanned by the winds of change and the collective air of discontent. In many ways, our online participation is a very effective start in the efforts to adjust our course.

The "ship of state" metaphor is apparently a popular one. Lately, it appears (IMO) to be growing in popularity. It is an apt metaphor for a nation, and the interactions between people foreign as well as domestic. The use of old and new methods of protest, mixing electronic protests with physical marches, have had an impact in a manner never before envisioned. The rise of the netroots was unexpected, potent and powerful. It continues to grow. It is frustrating at times yet reassuring. Along the way, we've all seen a rise in the pitch and timbre of the voices. Folks from all walks of life are participating, lending their voices to the public discourse.

We have encountered biting humor and satire -- long known throughout history as an effective weapon in political battle -- and we've had intellectual brain-food in several forms, from literary to historical and all the ground in between. We've seen the the 101st Fighting Keyboardists on the march, rank and file of the reichwing political pundits, and we've met them in battle.

Where they seek to stifle individual thought and expression, we've revelled in it. Where they've sought to limit educational standards, social welfare and accountability, we've fought against it. Wherever they've sought to sew the seeds of fear and loathing we've met them with words of truth to power. Our metaphors, analogies and meta-Jesuses are based in truth. Our kung-fu (definition #5) is more powerful, particularly when we are focused upon a goal.

While researching some quotes for the next installments of the Danse Macabre series, I came across a poem that conjured up an apt image for our current ship of state. I thought it would be good to share, but I hesitated because of the author.

Longfellow. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

My last attempt to quote -- or even mention -- Longfellow in a dKos diary was insanely unpopular. It dropped like a rock shot out of a cannon. I'm not even sure that the Kossack who'd inspired it, a certain Street Prophet named "teacherken" that you may be familiar with, ever saw it. My diary about how to nail Jell-O to a tree was far better received. But, armed with suggestions from both SusanG and Quaoar and a touch of Tanqueray (w/tonic and lime), I've decided to try again.

Longfellow's poem "The Wreck of the Hesperus" jumped into focus as I clicked through various tabs during my frenzy of research. The poem, about a skipper who'd taken his daughter to sea on his schooner, which was later destroyed in a hurricane in freezing waters, evoked an image our ship of state. The main players that crystalized instantly upon my reading stood readily as metaphors for the comparison. The foolhardy captain would be our own President, played today by the befuddled and misdirected King George George Bush. The daughter portrays our youthful Lady Liberty, in the budding bloom of youth for a nation so young.

It was the schooner Hesperus,

That sailed the wintry sea;

And the skipper had taken his little daughtèr,

To bear him company.

In the poem, as with our more stark reality, one of the crew stood up to warn of troubles ahead.

Then up and spake an old Sailòr,

Had sailed to the Spanish Main,

"I pray thee, put into yonder port,

For I fear a hurricane.

"Come hither! come hither! my little daughtèr,

And do not tremble so;

For I can weather the roughest gale

That ever wind did blow."

He wrapped her warm in his seaman's coat

Against the stinging blast;

He cut a rope from a broken spar,

And bound her to the mast.

Lashed to the helm, all stiff and stark,

With his face turned to the skies,

The lantern gleamed through the gleaming snow

On his fixed and glassy eyes.

At daybreak, on the bleak sea-beach,

A fisherman stood aghast,

To see the form of a maiden fair,

Lashed close to a drifting mast.

Such was the wreck of the Hesperus,

In the midnight and the snow!

Christ save us all from a death like this,

On the reef of Norman's Woe!

There are warning signs on the horizon, and the bells announce the coming of a storm. As they strike out their sonorous tones, I leave you with one more poem. One that many of you understand, and IMO we as the netroots embody:

For whom the bell tolls
a poem (No man is an island) by John Donne.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself.

Each is a piece of the continent,

A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,

Europe is the less.

As well as if a promontory were.

As well as if a manner of thine own

Or of thine friend's were.

Each man's death diminishes me,

For I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee.

"The measure of a man is the way he bears up under misfortune." -- Plutarch

What we behold isn't pretty.

The future looks even less promising.

In the Dickens novel "A Tale of Two Cities", the story takes place amidst a period of political corruption and social discontent that is evident in both the London and Paris of the times. The title of this article draws a rough analogy to that, but with one important distinction: instead of a story involving redemption against such a backdrop, this article cites two cities destroyed by the political and moral corruption of these times and illustrating the social discontent that results.

Ideally, it doesn't miss the target.

In the first two years of George Bush's second term as "President", the nation and the world witnessed events involving Fallujah and New Orleans that have since become standard marks in a growing litany of incidents depicting the dangerous arrogance and incompetence of the Bush Administration. The first - actually consisting of three assaults on the city of Fallujah, occurred in 2004.

Basic Background: As the Iraq debacle expanded into an ever-deepening quagmire, US forces were hard pressed to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraq population. Violence broke out everywhere as "insurgents" resisted the US occupying forces.

In one particularly terrifying uprising, four Blackwater contractors were killed in Fallujah, their bodies dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge in effigy.

The once-quiet city quickly became a hotbed of "insurgent" activity. US Forces responded with three major assaults against the city, nearly destroying it in order to "save" it. The last major wave of military activity began around November. Reports of the use of a napalm-like substance called "White Phosphorous", and the explicit use of it in "Shake and Bake" strikes directly against insurgents - in violation of UN treaties explicitly banning the use of it in that manner - began to surface. Included in these reports were horrific stories of civilian casualties. Women and children were allegedly killed or maimed through the use of "WP"; pictures of corpses with their skin melted off and caramelized circulated the internet. Only after bloggers broke the initial story regarding the use of White Phosphorus did the true horror of the carnage begin to emerge. The US government had been lying about the usage of "WP" as a direct assault weapon until confronted with irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

The nation was outraged.

The world was outraged.

The explicit, duplicitous statements of the government regarding the assaults on Fallujah reflected the still-emerging evidence of how intelligence was manipulated to justify the incursion into Iraq in the first place under false pretenses. The credibility of the US Government, and the Bush Administration in particular, took a major hit.

An Aside: Our military consists of men and women from all walks of life.  They have sworn to risk life and limb in pursuit of the ideals laid down in our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and supported by a long line of those who have fought and died for our freedoms. They swear oaths to uphold the Constitution and obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief - something that should be straightforward in thought, if not always execution. Changes have been going on within the Pentagon, spurred by the Secretary of Defense and in conjunction with the White House, that have come closer than ever before to putting those orders in conflict with the first part of that oath. Our soldiers are being put into situations where they are not free to disregard or disobey orders just as their leadership up the chain of command are likewise unable to speak out, and are often compelled by circumstance to act. More and more often, they are likely to find themselves in a Catch-22 where they are damned if they do, or damned if they don't. This Administration is the reason. Ultimately, what transpired at Fallujah rests within the confines of the White House and the Pentagon, at the desks of the President and Secretary of Defense, respectively.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:  During this same year, a portent of things to come began to emerge with regard to New Orleans and the preparation - or lack thereof - for a major category hurricane.

Excerpt from Iconoclast's blog, as reported on ePluribus Media

July 23, 2004 -- FEMA releases the results of "Hurricane Pam," a hurricane simulation based on a direct landfall of a storm in New Orleans. The simulation stated that a hurricane in New Orleans would result in:

• 30 million cubic yards of debris and 237,000 cubic yards of household hazardous waste
• the need for about 1,000 shelters to be kept open 100 days
• the likely breach of the existing levee system

FEMA and DHS are supposed to come up with a "master plan" for New Orleans based on this study but money ran out and the plan was never produced.

September 14, 2004 -- The WashingtonPost reports that Walter Maestri, an emergency manager, has 10,000 body bags ready in case a major hurricane ever hits New Orleans. The article says, "If a strong Category 4 storm such as Ivan made a direct hit, he warned, 50,000 people could drown, and this city of Mardi Gras and jazz could cease to exist." The article also talks about the budget cuts that George Bush foisted on the state of Louisiana for provention measures.

September 15, 2004 -- Sen. Landrieu again addresses the Senate, this time talking about the predictions of what a hurricane could do to New Orleans. "We are talking about severe devastation when a category 3 or category 4 or category 5 hurricane pushes that water out of the gulf, out of Lake Ponchartrain into the tremendously populated areas around the gulf coast."

Senator Landrieu concludes by saying, "I hate to say maybe it is going to take the loss thousands of lives on the gulf coast to make this country wake up and realize in what we are under-investing. "

January 26, 2005 -- Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) addresses the House of Representatives and urges Congress to pay attention to New Orleans. "The experience of Southeast Asia should convince us all of the urgent need for congressional action to prevent wide-scale loss of life and economic destruction at home and abroad. Prevention and planning will pay off," he says.

They weren't.

One of the best timelines assembled on what did, and did not, happen in the hours before, during, and after Katrina struck is a timeline from Iconoclasts's blog. The extended length of time that Bush, Cheney and Condoleeza Rice remained on vacation, out of sight or staging photo ops is ridiculous. The failures of FEMA and out-of-touch surrealism with which federal authorities managed to repeatedly mismanage the crisis are staggering.  Here are just a few key excerpts:

Excerpt from Iconoclast's blog, as reported on ePluribus Media

Monday, August 29, 2005 -- Hurricane Katrina comes ashore just east of Grand Isle, Louisiana, at 6:30 a.m. ET. New Orleans is 80% evacuated, meaning that there are approximately 96,000 people left in the city of 480,000. Bush received a briefing from FEMA director Michael Brown, and left Crawford to fly to Arizona for a speech on Medicare. Considerations began about releasing oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve -- no decision was reached.

Levees are breeched in New Orleans, causing the Lake Pontchartrain to begin pouring into the city. The Times-Picayune reports that Red Cross mobilisation has begun.

FEMA goes into disaster mode to begin preparing to deal with Katrina's aftermath. "I want the folks there on our Gulf Coast to know that the federal government is prepared to help you when the storm passes," the President says.

FEMA director Brown maintains that FEMA has "planned for this kind of disaster for many years because we've always known about New Orleans' situation."

[...] ~snip~

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 -- Flooding becomes severe in New Orleans, submerging 80% of the city in water deeper than 20ft in some places. Power and sewer are non-functional.

[...] ~snip~

Bush visits Coronado, California to give a speech against the backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan. His handlers, knowing that the ship was the venue where Mr. Bush gave his ill-fated "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003 make sure that the ship stays off-camera. Bush's speech is about Iraq and the need for troops to secure Iraq's oilfields. Meanwhile, the US proves unable to secure its own oilfields in Louisiana. He is presented with a guitar afterword by country singer Mark Willis.

Bush decides finally to return to Washington, D.C.

Also on this day, Bush joins Senator John McCain in a small celebration of McCain's 69th birthday. They have cake.

Cable news shows pictures of the USS Bataan steaming through the gulf to provide aid. The ship would not be allowed to do anything in New Orleans for days, however, despite having plans in place because the President didn't give any orders for them. The BBC would learn this on September 4th (see that day for details).

[...] ~snip~

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 -- Bush flies back to D.C. and holds a press conference. He claims to have been updated by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff.

[...] ~snip~

The Times-Picayune reports that the few Guardsmen in New Orleans were quickly overwhelmed by evacuees. From the article: "Such a breakdown did not bode well for other evacuees. As the afternoon wore on, hope faded, replaced by anger."

Thursday, September 1, 2005 -- Rather than direct the U.S. military to immediately assist the thousands of people without food or water in the city center, Bush assured the nation that expected gasoline shortages would be temporary and that his father and former President Clinton were ready to pass the tin can to ensure private-sector support for rebuilding New Orleans.

On "Good Morning, America," Bush says that there is no difference between people taking foot and water and people looting non-essential merchandise. He says there should be "zero tolerance" for both types. He also states, "There is a lot of help coming."

[...] ~snip~

Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State is seen in New York buying a pair of $7,000 dollar shoes. She is booed at a showing of Monty Python's "Spam-a-lot" and accosted by a New Yorker who reportedly says, "How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless!"

Dick Cheney remains on vacation in Wyoming.

[...] ~snip~

Friday, September 2, 2005 -- National Guardsmen finally start arriving in New Orleans in increased numbers, though chaos still rules most of the city.

Bush visits the Gulf for a photo-opportunity and tells people that things will be made right -- especially for Trent Lott. Bush says, in a tone-deaf attempt to brighten the mood, that "Out of the rubble of [Sen.] Trent Lott's house--he's lost his entire house--there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." Insert your own mint julep joke here.

[...] ~snip~

Saturday, September 3, 2005 -- Evacuations finally reach a steady state.

FEMA refuses to let the Red Cross deliver food. "The Homeland Security Department has requested and continues to request that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans," says Renita Hosler, spokeswoman for the Red Cross, and continues, "Right now access is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities. We have been at the table every single day [asking for access]. We cannot get into New Orleans against their orders." Southern Baptist elements inside the Red Cross try to spin the situation to FEMA's advantage, instead keeping to the GOP party line: "the task is too big, the people should have left, the local officials are clueless." This will be repeated over and over by the feds in coming days.

[...] ~snip~

On his weekly radio address, Bush says, "we will not allow bureaucracy to get in the way of saving lives." Many would argue that he already had.

[...] ~snip~

Sen. Landrieu criticizes FEMA, saying, "I understand that the U.S. Forest Service had water-tanker aircraft available to help douse the fires raging on our riverfront, but FEMA has yet to accept the aid. When Amtrak offered trains to evacuate significant numbers of victims - far more efficiently than buses - FEMA again dragged its feet. Offers of medicine, communications equipment and other desperately needed items continue to flow in, only to be ignored by the agency."

Landrieu goes on to tell about apparent faked levee reconstruction efforts at a Bush photo-op: "Touring this critical site yesterday with the President, I saw what I believed to be a real and significant effort to get a handle on a major cause of this catastrophe. Flying over this critical spot again this morning, less than 24 hours later, it became apparent that yesterday we witnessed a hastily prepared stage set for a presidential photo opportunity; and the desperately needed resources we saw were this morning reduced to a single, lonely piece of equipment. The good and decent people of southeast Louisiana and the Gulf Coast - black and white, rich and poor, young and old - deserve far better from their national government,"

In two years, two cities nearly half a world apart were almost completely destroyed relating to the deliberate actions and policies of the Bush Administration in one case and the utterly indifferent inaction of it in another. Aided by the Republican-controlled Congress, this Administration lied to the nation and the world about their responsibility for two of the most heinous disasters our nation has ever had the misfortune to experience.

What is the measure of a man, a political party, an ideology or an Administration? Perhaps the words of Abigail Van Buren (of "Dear Abby" fame) can shed some wisdom on that question:

"The best index to a person's character is (a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can't fight back."

If we use this as a guide in our assessment of the men and women of this Administration, taken individually as well as collectively, we are likely to all arrive at the same conclusion: there's not much of worth and substance once the hot air is let out.

In the meantime, we're left blowin' in the wind.

By any measure that I've found, the Presidency of George W. Bush is now, and has always been, toxic to our nation.  The same tired cycles of endless finger-pointing, lying, subterfuge and aggression underscore all actions, all policies and all propaganda. The events surrounding the assaults on Fallujah and the flooding of New Orleans tell the same tale - the cost of allowing this Administration and the Republican majority in Congress to continue is too high. We cannot afford it.

The world cannot afford it.

While I have entitled this series "Danse Macabre" - the "Dance of Death" - I have refrained from showing any selections so far of the unfortunately abundant (and rapidly growing) array of photographs related to the carnage left in the wake of our rampaging ship of state. It is my hope that this series garners readers based on the words alone - mine, or those of others who have been quoted within - instead of relying on the power of a picture to speak a thousand words. My intention, however, is still true: we must rein in this out-of-control Executive Branch, and scour the walls and halls of our leadership to eliminate any last vestiges of their contamination, before we find ourselves bereft of the ability to do so.

Even now, the mounting evidence of Presidential over-reach is beginning to be reported.  We cannot allow the carnage to continue unopposed.  Congress must be taken to task, and the Republican leadership should now understand that continued support of this President and Administration constitutes nothing less than the aiding and abetting of a criminal, treasonous enterprise.

I'll close here, with a final quote to reflect upon -- this time not with how it relates to the Bush Administration and the corrupt Republican majority in Congress, but in terms of our own individual selves:

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
      -- Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963

Now is our time of challenge of controversy. Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country...

]]> tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2006:/talk/blogs//19.229668 2006-04-21T09:14:27Z 2008-10-13T01:03:00Z

You cannot escape it by wealth or war.

No fort will keep it out, no ships outrun it.

  - SophoclesNote: This is just speculation.  But the nature of the speculation may just be worth dreaming of.

An abundance of diaries have come and gone that touched upon George Bush's use of the word "decider" in a recent appearance.  Of the ones I caught, none appeared to realize the potential repurcussions of the entire sentence that he spoke.  He was put on the spot by a question regarding Rumsfield, and had responded off-the-cuff with "I'm the decider"...

Was I the only one who felt that a gong went off in the background as he spoke the fateful words "I'm the decider" -- like those words were taken down and marked as an important part of history in the making?  It could be that my mind was suitably preoccupied with other concerns, but that phrase is important.

It's an acknowledgement of responsibility for the decisions that come out of the Bush White House.

Regardless of whether Karl, Dick or Connie (or Moe, Larry and Curly) are making the actual tactical and strategic plans behind the disaster that our Executive Branch has become, by speaking those three words George W. Bush has just given all the other players a partial pass for the crimes committed, and those yet to be executed.

By saying "I'm the decider" he has done the unintended equivalent of saying "The Buck Stops Here" -- remember that famous line?

But for George, this also sticks him as unable to now claim he was acting under the influence of others -- he's the decider.  The others are lackeys.  They give him the information and options, and he decides.  His decision.

This is bad for George, should he find himself in a trial anytime soon and having to defend his record and decisions.

This could be worse for Iran, if you think there are coordinated business and political interests in the shadows behind these lunatics are acting for personal gain and at cross-purposes to the national welfare.  After all, if we nuke Iran, then while the folks in charge on the field and all the way up to George are able to try the "I was under orders / being blackmailed / didn't have an alternative" defense, George doesn't have that luxury.  The folks who want him to mess up Iran -- who may not be looking at the potential consequences -- will breath a sigh of relief.  They're safely outside the danger zone now, unless they left really incriminating information in George's hands. ("Baaaad monkey! Baaaad!")

If George hadn't spoken those words, he'd still have a little wiggle-room.  Very little, but it would exist.  Now, with video evidence at hand, his statement can be extrapolated.  He's the decider.  The buck -- and the investigation -- will stop with him.  I don't think he realizes this yet.  I doubt he thinks that an investigation will get that far.

One thing is for sure, IMO: he's the decider.  The decisions rest with him.  The special interests that fuel him are now largely off the hook.  They can let him hang, and serve as the deadman's switch to any investigation -- who needs to go beyond the President and his Administration, when you have the man on tape saying that he was the one who called the shots?

Keep a copy of his remarks (available here at Crooks and Liars) for when the tribunal begins.  And save it for your kids' or grandkids' future history project.  You'll be able to say "I was there" and play the video.

George W. Bush has, I believe, just sealed his fate while protecting whatever the true impetus to his drive toward Iran is.  And with it, he may just have sealed the fate of Iran as well.

"We make our own fortunes and we call them fate"
  - Benjamin Disraeli

We are living in perilous times.  The dogs of war have been unleashed, their masters beckoning them to sweep onward toward their next target even as their current objectives fall into chaos and disorder.  Without an easily identified target upon which to strike, targets are selected based upon a political preference that is only later packaged in the wrappings and trappings of faux justification in order to properly bait the quarry.

The past six years have revealed a growing darkness at the heart of the United States' Executive Branch, wrapped in a cloak of deepening disarray and protected by an almost armor-clad circle of corruption & collusion that only recently the true depths of the decay have become apparent.  We are on the verge of one of the most heinous acts of aggression that can be imagined.  The path we've walked en route to this point, while often dark and treacherous, has not gone totally unnoticed.  We have had our glimpses, here and there, and heard the growing howls of discontent amid warnings of danger ahead.  It's time that we stopped and reflected upon those warnings.  We need to act to change our course, if we are to save our nation and ourselves.  

Let's review, shall we?

The recent diary "They Want to Hit Iran" by jorndorff on DailyKos reiterates and forewarns of the impending expansion of hostilities by the US against the Middle East.  Please read it.

This was ~not~ the first time we've heard warnings about the inevitability -- in spite of the rhetoric to the contrary -- of such a strike, nor is it the first time that the spectre of nuclear war has manifested in the form of a "precision tactical strike".  Jorndoff does an excellent job of explaining the internal "neo-justification" of the why & how such a plan could be considered viable by our criminally-inclined leadership.   And for a great summation of just how "awry" this Administration has gone, and the underlying ideo-theology behind it, check out "Pentagon insider speaks:  NeoCons LIED early and as often as possible." by Yellow Canary.  

Given the grave nature of the situation, and the quickly diminishing timeframe in which we can act to avert disaster, I'd like to briefly recap my take and suggestions.  With any luck, we can interrupt this ongoing danse macabre before Iran's dance card is punched.

First, a little history.

After the "selection" of 2000 but before George W. Bush and the neoconservative cabal invaded the house at 1600, I was engaged in discussion with others who, like me, believed we were on an imminent course to invade Iran.  After 9/11, watching the draconian measures that "just happened" to be ready to plop into place materialize and pass Congress under the guise of a "Patriot" Act, we were certain.  I was walking through a bar during the Colin Powell address to the UN, and -- when he spoke the line about Iraq attempting to get significant quantities of yellowcake -- I stopped in my tracks.  The look of complete surprise on my face as I turned to face the nearest television must have matched the looks I received from the patrons when I blurted out "He just lied!"  I left quickly, but was not happy to realize that this Administration was willing to so completely lie and misdirect.  I watched glumly as the propaganda machine went into full swing, stewing silently.

As time went on, I became more active online.  I participated more in political discussions -- something I'd formerly avoided, as I rarely found politicians or political activists who weren't spinning a particular pet project.  I felt that something was missing, and quickly met a few friends who felt similarly.  We worked with a group of folks from all over the internet -- and across several party lines -- to begin to fight back against the propaganda.  We helped to write the "Ten Characteristics of a True US Patriot" when the GOP started their smear campaign against those who spoke out for truth, justice, and our Constitutional rights.  Although time and circumstance continued to pass, and the folks at USPatriotsUnited were forced into a temporary hiatus (they are now regrouping, and will resume their work by the end of the month), I saw little to no improvement in the way our national consciousness was shaping up.

Then the leaks began.

The patriotic whistleblowers who began to step forward, some publicly and some anonymously, provided a few sharp sticks with which to poke our groggy nation into a heightened state of alert.  A state not of fear -- the neocons and theocrats were handling that -- but of danger.  The danger of letting our Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms slide inexorably into the mists of history.  

We've watched as more and more scandals unfold.  The realities of a culture of corruption and a coalescence of conspiracies -- not tin-foil-hat quality, but genuinely prosecutable conspiracies -- began to unfold.  The leaks increased.  And I predicted (and still predict) that there will be more leaks, with more concrete evidence to further nail down the malfeasance of this administration, in the near future. The appearance of General Anthony Zinni on Meet the Press on April 2 is one good example (see it here). The article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, which came out three days after this article first appeared, is another, which was quickly followed by a confirmation article in the Washington Post (reported here, by adigal on DailyKos).  Sharon Jumper's DailyKos diary "General calling on other officers to speak out" regarding Lt. General Gregory Newbold's article in Time illustrates a fourth.   The tightly-wound serpent that has enfolded our national leadership within its coils has begun to loosen its grip, and the nation is beginning to breath once again.  But it's not enough.

The first "red flag" regarding the frightening prospect that the Bush Administration may actually have the intent to use nuclear weapons against Iran leapt to the attention of many people with the publication of the August 1 issue of "The American Conservative" that featured a brief blurb call "Deep Background" regarding some changes by Vice President Cheney:

August 1, 2005 Issue -- Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Deep Background

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

On that date, LaRouche sent out a memo in the form of an international release that made reference to "Cheney's 'Guns of August'."  Jeffrey Steinberg published an expanded piece regarding the building backlash against the suspected plan on Rense.com, following up with a timeline of events on Executive Intelligence Review (EIR). 

While neither source is regarded as mainstream, the information and chronology have appeared to be rather accurate -- with the exception of the invasion that didn't happen.  My own personal take on the Iran Plan coincided more with Hersh -- earlier that year, he'd speculated that June was the probable timeframe for an attack. (Lost my link to the prior article that quoted Hersh...please provide in comemnts, and I will update.)  

Not everybody feels that a nuclear attack is a likely scenario.  Several have posted in various locations very logical, informative rejections of the premise that BushCo is doing anything other than sabre-rattling.  One excellent piece Turning down the volume on Iranian nuke attack by sedrunsic makes perfect sense, and a calm, reasoned presentation.  Under other circumstances, a reasoned response such as this would be the way to go.  But not so with BushCo.

Bush and the neoconservatives are following an agenda.  They've nearly accomplished it all, and they are hell-bent for leather in their push to complete it in their race against time.  They've had to shuffle some players around -- some changes were planned, some were not.  One of the most accomplished members of their team in the runup to the Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, was no longer at their side to help with the manipulation of information and suppression of dissent.  "Wolfie" had been a relentless champion of the Iraq war.  For an idea of just how effective, in addition to some good insight into how the Bush Team fights to stay on message, check out the article "Trigger Man" in The American Conservative magazine.  Here's a key excerpt, pertaining to the clash between Shineski and Wolfie:

In the months preceding the U.S.-led invasion, with the ranks of those opposing the administration swelling, Wolfowitz figured prominently among the officials called upon to rebut any objections to war. Never has a deputy cabinet secretary played such a visible role in making the case for a policy so fraught with controversy. Cool, imperturbable, and relentlessly "on message," Wolfowitz performed impressively. Only once did his mask of self-assurance slip: when the United States Army, in the person of its chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, ventured to say nay.

The clash between Shinseki and Wolfowitz received considerable media coverage. For some, it lives on as emblematic of the arrogance and over-confidence attributed to the Bush administration on the eve of war. But the full significance of this civil-military confrontation remains unappreciated. For Shinseki, an honorable soldier with few intellectual pretensions, was also in his own way the embodiment of specific forces, very much at odds with those that Wolfowitz had championed. Although couching his critique in green-eyeshade, bean-counting terms, the general set out to subvert the very project that represented the deputy defense secretary's life's work.

The administration, Shinseki told members of Congress, was badly underestimating the number of troops that pacifying Iraq was likely to require. Given that the requisite additional troops simply did not exist, Shinseki was implicitly arguing that the U.S. armed services were inadequate for the enterprise. Further, he was implying that invasion was likely to produce something other than a crisp, tidy decision; from a soldier's viewpoint, a display of precision warfare was not likely to settle the matter. "Liberation" would leave loose ends. Unexpected and costly complications would abound.

In effect, Shinseki was offering a last-ditch defense of the military tradition that Wolfowitz was intent on destroying, a tradition that saw armies as fragile, that sought to husband military power, and that classified force as an option of last resort. The risks of action, Shinseki was suggesting, were far, far greater than the advocates for war had let on.

Shinseki's critique elicited an immediate retaliatory response. One could safely ignore the complaints of liberal Democrats or the New York Times, not to mention those coming from a largely inchoate antiwar movement. But if the brass openly opposed the war, they could halt the march on Baghdad even before it began. Besides, how could Shinseki dare even to raise the question of an occupation? Wolfowitz was already on the record as declaring that the United States was "committed to liberating the people of Iraq, not to becoming an occupation force." Shinseki had to be discredited then and there, lest the opportunity to validate the new American way of war be lost forever.

The Bush Administration has been moving steadily forward, following the path that they carefully planned.  They're winning in this game of dirty politics, even as their house of cards begins to crumble.  And the next item on the agenda is the strike against Iran.

We cannot take their words at face value regarding their intentions.  As the revelations regarding the Iran plan are exposed, and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald slowly exposes ties all the way to the Presidency in the CIA Leak scandal, the WH spins frantically while intrepid reporters block the attempts to further obfuscate the facts and rewrite history.

I'd published a warning about trusting this Administration, and interrupting their goals of conquest, in the diary entitled On the importance of being earnest..., but it was relatively quick on the scrollby.  I cited quite a few references for it, all of which should still be good.  There are soooo many more items that can be listed as examples, too.  Here's the main nub of the gist:

Do we now stand by, and heed not the clarion calls that denote the dangers of allowing these international law breakers and war criminals to launch their next attack, emboldened by their artful dodging of accountability and responsibility, even in the face of their own inept failure to plan for and secure the peace?  Is it not, at this moment in time, inherently obvious that a plan to secure such a peace is not now, nor was it ever, intended?

Let us not stand idly by and permit this opportunity in the history of our nation, and indeed the world, pass us unanswered.  We must stand and oppose, on all counts, the ongoing attempts at escalation of hostilities into any new theater, for any reason, while the shadows of deception wield the reins in our nation's halls of power.

We must act now to prevent any further deception that could be used to attempt to justify further engagement in acts of war - and cowardice - that only serve to weaken our nation, divide our people, cripple our defenses, and spread chaos in the world through ill-conceived acts of might that flagrantly abuse those principles that we hold dear.

We are being drawn inexorably toward a precipice that we dare not fall into.

We have evidence of intentional deception, malfeasance, high crimes and misdemeanors on a scale never before conceived or measured in a nation founded upon ideals of freedom and justice for all.  We have seen the taint and corruption that supports this cancer, spreading through all our institutions and eroding our national spirit as well as our founding tenets - our strength, and our soul, as a nation.

We have compiled evidence that not only comprises the heart of a criminal conspiracy but also the artful implementation of unitary incompetence.

Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

In my February 19 entry called WARNING: Failsafe disengaged, I cautioned

We cannot permit these affronts to our nation, to our constitution, to our citizens and to the world to continue.

Bush is guided - sometimes kicking and screaming - by Cheney, Rove and other members of the NeoCon/PNAC/RRR cabal.  But remember - Cheney has his finger on the button by proxy.  And he just got away with shooting a 78 year old lawyer.

For his next trick, he's going to nuke a small Middle Eastern country.  This is our chance; this is our warning.

Do we heed it, or watch as our nation yet again engages in a heinous crime on the world stage, spreading the dangerous cancer that has already crippled our domestic policies and national health?

All this leads me to repeat what I urged in my past diary entitled "Congress Must Revoke the 9/11 War Powers Authorization NOW (with Poll)" -- the Authorization to Use Military Force has got to be yanked.  It's the lynchpin to this headlong plunge down the tracks toward a deadman's curve, with the only the reality of a derailment promised at the bottom.  To quote the opening of that diary:

The time has come for Congress to suspend the 9/11 War Powers Authorization and retain the right to completely revoke it, pending a much-needed and long-overdue review of the performance of the Executive Branch in light of the many duplicitous statements as well as illegal actions. The mad grab for power must be slapped on the wrist, now, and a restraint imposed that removes one of the current convenient excuses for the abusive over-reach.

The likelihood of accomplishing such an objective in light of the current Republican-led Congress notwithstanding, all Congressfolk must propose and pass a suspension of the 9/11 War Powers Authorization. If the Republican majority denies the suspension, it must be forced to do so on a vote that records their names.

These names are the equivalent of "put up or shut up" -- where do folks in Congress stand now, and what are they willing to put their names to?  Do they well and truly support the nation, and intend to do their jobs?  Can they now step forward and begin to insist & ensure that they will, through their own names, be accountable for reinstating the oversight functions that have long been sidestepped in a danse macabre that we can no longer tolerate?

Or will the band play on?

This is Part I of a multipart series exposing this particularly gruesome Danse Macabre.  Stay tuned for the next piece.

UPDATE 4-11-2006: Check out Iran attack in the next "2 weeks?" by Florida Democrat. There are others who feel that this Administration intends to strike before November.]]> tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2006:/talk/blogs//19.228660 2006-02-19T17:46:39Z 2008-10-13T00:59:30Z