Torture Memos Release: Why Are NeoCons So Mad?

Neo-Cons like Dick Cheney, Michael Hayden and Newt Gingrich are up in arms about the release of legal opinions justifying torture during the Bush administration.

Why are they so enraged? They can't be really that mad about "secrets" when the memos simply detail what reporters have already written countless stories on. There is no national security jeopardy in that.

No, they are worried about something else: Being held accountable for creating those opinions, and being written down in history as the authors. Simply put, they are scared for their own backsides!

President Obama's decision in releasing the memos was as much about protecting and restoring patriotic values to our government as it was about protecting the very CIA officers ordered to carry out torture.

I applaud the President's decision to stand strong for our values, while at the same time granting amnesty to the CIA employees who followed Dick Cheney and his Torture Cabal's heinous orders.

By releasing the memos, and at the same time protecting the CIA officers ordered to carry them out, President Obama is doing something no one in the Bush Administration ever did: he is holding those who give the orders accountable.

Its time to bring accountability back to our government and this is a great step. Its time to hold people like Dick Cheney responsible for the programs he initiated.  And this is only the beginning.

Neo-Cons famously like to send subordinates out to do the dirty work. They send troops to die while sitting comfortably in their royal living rooms. They draft opinions on torture thinking they can sacrifice their employees, and avoid responsibility for themselves.

So keep this in mind when you watch how fuming mad Cheney gets from all of this. Remember, for the first time in a decade he may well be worried about being found responsible in all of this.

Put simply, he's worried about protecting his own backside when he thought employees at the CIA would take the fall for him. Not this time, Dick.

Thanks for your time,
D. Tree

Threat of Right Wing Extremism Rising

CNN reported today on the growing threat of right-wing extremism and neo-Nazism on the rise in America as a result of the election of our first African American president.

Of course anyone paying attention has seen the signs since Obama was nominated, with the FBI reporting a sharp increase in the number of assassination threats from day one of his candidacy.

But some on the far-right either want to sweep this news under the rug, or they are in denial about some of the less savory elements of our society.

conservative radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock was not persuaded. "If the Bush administration had done this to left-wing extremists, it would be all over the press as an obvious trampling of the First Amendment rights of folks and dissent," he told CNN.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, CNN did not do their full research when printing this story, because Bush DID name left-wing groups as a domestic terrorist threat when he was president!

The extreme right-wing likes to think they are perfect citizens, somehow singled out and always the victims, but its a fake victim mentality. Perhaps they are too self-absorbed in their own angst to recognize and understand what is happening around them. The ironic thing for people like Mr. Hedgecock who either ignore the facts or deny them, Bush conveniently left out right-wing extremists on his domestic terror threat report because they have ties to the Republican Party,

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not include extreme right-wing groups, some of which have ties to the Republican Party, on its list of potential terrorist threats, according to a report last month by the Congressional Quarterly, a publication with high-level sources in Congress and the federal government.

Is it all starting to make sense now? The article continues,

"It is remarkable that there is no mention of the anti-abortion, militia, racist and homophobic groups that do not “publicly ... promote nonviolence,” but rather openly advocate the killing of blacks, gays, abortion providers and government workers. Moreover, these groups have acted on their words.

Fascist, racist and anti-abortion groups are responsible for nearly all the terrorist attacks in the United States—with the exception of September 11, 2001—over the past two decades. These include the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which killed 168 people, as well as bombings of abortion clinics and assassination of abortion providers, and multiple cases of individual rampages, like that of Benjamin Smith, who went on a killing spree directed at blacks, Jews and immigrants in 1999."

We must acknowledge that we have elements in our society that are broken and have been for a long time. I accept that believing in free speech means hateful people like this can say whatever they want short of inciting violence. But when they make threats on the President, or on any American citizens or places, they should be taken as seriously as any other terrorist group.

Thanks for your time,
D. Tree

Challenging Alex Castellanos on "Change"

CNN's Republican strategist Alex Castellanos published a commentary this week in which he claimed the President is not living up to his promise of Change, and - in a remarkably childish "I'm rubber you're glue" moment - went so far as to boast that the 2012 GOP message will be "Change."

Funny, Mr. Castellanos, it appears that the GOP has been obstructing every major effort for Change since Obama was elected.  How convenient for you, then, to claim he isn't bringing "Change" about!

That kind of reminds me of a kid stealing a baseball and then claiming he should be captain of the team because no one can hit a home run!  Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, eh Mr. Castellanos?

But of course Castellanos is intelligent enough to realize this.  Castellanos ("Father of the Modern Attack Ad") is only doing what he does best: making disingenuous arguments.

Let's take a look at some of the other boilerplate arguments Castellanos and other Republicans have been using:

Obama is "Increasing the size of the US Government" - I wonder if Castellanos realizes it was a Republican president who oversaw the last big increase.  Take a look at this Wikipedia page on the Federal Budget and you will notice that George Bush oversaw a  38.7 precent (1.2 Trillion Dollars!) increase in spending during his two terms.  And most of this tax money spent on an unnecessary war. 

Now think about this: While increasing the budget, George Bush redistributed wealth to the richest - the same Wall Street Execs and Bankers we now see getting outrageous bonuses.  If these guys are getting all the tax breaks, then who is paying for all the war?  The rest of us.

Obama is increasing George Bush's budget by 13.8 percent.  This increased spending is due largely to the huge rescue packages for those same bankers and insurance companies who benefited so much for George Bush.  You can't blame Obama for getting stuck with George Bush's tab!

Besides deflecting blame from themselves, what republicans are really mad about is not the size of the budget, but what we will be spending it on: Education, Energy Reform, Healthcare Reform, and Jobs.  This is the Change the American People demanded in the last election.

Republicans want to use government as a police force and friend of the rich. Dems believe in the government intended by our founders: to maintain a healthy and productive Country.  Our founders had no problem with the government they created, why do Republicans seem to hate it so much? 

We should expect more of these rubber-stamp Republicans employing the same tactic as Alex Castellanos: stand in the way of Change, then point the finger at President Obama for not living up to his election promises.  Simultaneously, they offer no no new ideas, instead preferring to recycle the same ones that got us into this mess.

It appears that the GOP has fallen back on their old ways: when you don't have anything new to offer, repeat the same lies about the opposition until people start to believe it... and that doesn't bode well for the GOP in 2012, because people have become wise to their ways and the electorate is much smarter now than they were in 2000 and 2004.

Good luck MR Castellanos, your party is going to need it!

Ruben Navarrette: Obama is "Flunking" Economics

CNN contributor Ruben Navarette posted a wide-ranging piece today in which he claimed president Obama is "Flunking" economics. 

But to many of the rest of us, it's clear that President Obama is flunking economics. He is trying to do too much at once, and so he is not doing any of it well.

He also claims that anyone who criticizes Obama is simply attacked, a clever rhetorical ploy to avoid criticism to himself.

They won't tolerate any criticism of the president or his administration, finding it easier to simply attack critics. And whatever goes wrong that they can't defend or deflect, they just blame on George W. Bush.

Y'know, there is a point to everything you are saying Mr. Navarrette - but I wonder whether some of the criticism has less to do with the President's economic credentials than with the other many ways in which you disapprove of his performance.  The article is less about the ways you would improve Obama's economic proposals and more about the way you apparently dislike him.

Its also strange to hear this claim about defenders of the President in such a negative light.  Most people I've heard defending Obama's agenda are pretty smart, and make intelligent arguments.

Is this piece really about Economics?  Or is this about something else?  Perhaps Navarrette simply does not want to go down the road a large majority of Americans chose when they elected President Obama.  To them Obama is neither moving too fast, nor is he trying to do too much!  He's doing what he was elected to do.

A large majority still support the wide-ranging economic and political Change the President is trying to bring about.  Of course its expensive, and of course its big.  We are trying to pull out of one of the worst economic catastrophes in history!

What I don't understand is the growing plethora of people publicly casting doubt, when we are only 2.5 months into the presidency.  Bringing Change with a big "C" to Washington is going to be difficult as it is without so many naysayers so early in the process.  It's going to take time.

Do we face risks?   Yes, but the rewards are high.  And frankly we have tried the way of the GOP and it has failed.  They are offering the same recycled dishwater plans of tax cuts for the rich but health and education cuts for the poor, and no regulation of Wall Street. The same bad ideas that led us to where we are now.

No we need to do more, and most of the country seems to agree.  We need more than the same recycled ideas, we need BIG changes to healthcare, taxes, wall street, and war.

It is time to put progressive ideas to the test. 


Thanks for reading,
D. Tree

What to Do About Do-nothing Republicans

What remains of the Republican Party has been doing a lot of posing before the camera lately.  Merely 2 months into our new president's term and this band of so-called patriots are doing everything they can to prevent our country from recovering from one of the worst disasters of a presidency we've ever seen.  Several of these self-serving servants of the rich have even publicly hoped for the president to fail in leading our country out of this financial crisis.

Clearly, these Republicans are still working for the very same special interests that got us into this mess.  All that tough talk from the GOP about AIG?  Well, how do you think AIG got us into this mess in the first place?  Through the actions of these same self-righteous republican stooges of the rich who are now complaining loudly about spending and "responsibility."

Well, let me tell you something about responsibility Mr. Boehner, Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Jindal, and Mr. Cantor: take it for your own actions over the last few years.  Your cheerleading of Bush & Cheney for trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in the Iraq war; your irresponsible "look the other way" republican philosophy that allowed Wall St. to destroy our economy so you could pad your pockets with Lobbyist money!

I've been away from blogging since the election, and this is my first post since.  Let this serve as an introduction for a new series of posts entitled "Help our Country Move Forward or Get Out of the Way."  Over the next few weeks, when I have time to post I'll be using the opportunity to call out these obstructive and negative republicans who are holding back progress and who are standing in the way of fixing our broken economy.

Thanks for your time,
D. Tree

Debating Ed Rollins Advice to McCain

Mike Huckabee's former campaign chairman Ed Rollins published this piece giving advice to John McCain on CNN today (Commentary: Time for John McCain to turn up the heat).

Even though I am a liberal I have respect for Rollins.  He is very smart and clear-headed (too bad for McCain he didn't hire Rollins as his Campaign Manager!).

Though I'm not complaining...  ;-)

BUT, i do have 3 points to debate Rollins on.

#1, the 90's argument:

Electing President Obama would eliminate important checks and balances on liberal Democratic power in Washington and that could be a disaster. It was a disaster when Bush and the Republicans controlled it all. It was a disaster when Clinton and the Democrats controlled it all.

Claiming the Democratic Congress & President in the 90's was a disaster needs backing up: most people remember the '90s as a period of American success!  Also, remember, Republicans took over Congress in the mid-'90's,

#2, the "Change is only a brand" argument:

According to the latest Gallup polling, 87 percent of the country thinks the economic picture is getting worse -- another record. The Republican brand is as damaged as at any time since the Watergate scandal 35 years ago. The country is facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression nearly eight decades ago.

Rollins continues to argue,

What [Obama's] campaign has done is create a "brand" that represents change. But voters don't know what that means.

Rollins criticizes the Change theme of the Democrats as merely a "brand," but at the same time laments the GOP's damaged "brand."   The two arguments cancel each other out. 

Furthermore, citing the Gallup Poll above, voters indeed have a good idea what Change means: in this case the definition is a negative one, "Change" means essentially "whatever the Republicans ARE NOT."

#3, the "We don't know him" argument:

...we have seen thousands of pictures and heard hundreds of speeches and watched in amazement as his team has put together a brilliant campaign that beat back the Democratic establishment candidate Hillary Clinton. But we still don't know him.

Really?  Isn't it a bit late to make that argument?

After thousands of speeches and 2 personal books how can we NOT know who Barack Obama is?  He's been out there showing us who he is for over a year straight now.  If we don't know him by now we haven't been listening....

.... and that leads to the major problem John McCain and the GOP have this year: a large portion of public has decided they *do* know who Barack Obama is, and that he is everything he says he is.  

And that, "my friends," is the real reason John McCain is losing this election.  The voters have decided they *do* know who these two candidates are.  One represents the successful fiscal and foreign policies reminiscent of the flourishing 1990's, and the other represents the failed values and policies of the last 8.  Is it any wonder that John McCain is behind?  And as his campaign turns desperately to distractions and personal Swift-boat-style attacks, voters will only be reminded more of the negative politics of George Bush & Dick Cheney.

If there is anything I agree with Rollins on, it is this:

From what I hear, the campaign's plans are to put John McCain back in the seat of his A-4 Skyhawk bomber and drop bomb after bomb on Obama to try to convince voters he is unfit to lead.

I think that formula will lead to failure, just as Hillary Clinton's strategy failed.

Personal attacks won't work this late in the campaign and may backfire on McCain

Best,
D. Tree

McCain Needs a Permission Slip to Protect America?

Do I have this right?  On the question of striking Bin Laden across national borders, McCain says he wants to call a meeting before taking action?

Sure, its been 3 days since the first Presidential Debate of the General Election, and much hay has been made about the candidate's different responses to this question, but I have yet to see anyone compare their answers to a similar question posed to Bush & Kerry back in 2004.

You might remember a different variation of the same question came up, and how Bush and Cheney ripped John Kerry on his answer of passing a "global test" for your military actions. 

Bush said Kerry will allow foreign powers to veto military action:

Kerry "said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry Doctrine," Bush said at a convention of home builders here. "He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. . . . Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions."

Dick Cheney repeated the charges continuously, making it one of his favorite lines:

Vice President Cheney has long accused Kerry of proposing to seek a "permission slip" from foreign countries before taking military action

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears we find ourselves in an interesting situation here: the Republican candidate is saying he would consult with Pakistan before launching a strike against Bin Laden or his top lieutenants?

Indeed, we find ourselves in strange times if it is the Democrat who is asserting that we have a right to strike Bin Laden across national borders, and it is the Republican who is seeking a "permission slip."

My question is, when will the rest of the media - and even the Obama campaign - pick up on this ironic twist of events?