BUSH'S IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES! Plus: the relative novelty of Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul

A letter to the editor of my local newspaper:

Is this the America we have become?

In recent testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, CIA director Michael Hayden testified that the agency had used waterboarding on three "enemy combatants" and that the technique is probably illegal under current statute.

Later, like a spoiled brat, President Bush, strutting his macho Rambo stuff, announced that he reserved the right to authorize water boarding on those he, in his wisdom, decides need it.


A short video at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19259.htm about American torture gives a small glimpse of how America under Bush has strayed from its founding principles in the last seven years.

Is this the America we have become? Is this an America we can be proud of? Is this who we are?

George W. Bush has taken us on a path from which there is no return to undo the evil we have wrought. We are an empire with more than 700 military bases in about 130 countries (see "Nemesis" by Chalmers Johnson).

Defense and expansion of that empire requires belittling, demonizing, even torturing anyone who gets in the way of our crusade to dominate the world (as has been true of every empire in history - in the end there are no benign empires).

It's called American exceptionalism. In his 1920 poem, "Four Preludes On Playthings Of The Wind," Carl Sandburg laments the demise of an "exceptional" nation with the monotonously repeated hollow refrain; "We are the greatest city, the greatest nation, nothing like us ever was."

Even as the nation decays into rubble populated only by rats and lizards.

Robert R. Regl

Hattiesburg

My response:

Great letter, Bob.

Mr. Regl never said or implied that GWB put 700 military bases around the world.

As Bob said, Bush has publicly admitted to at least one other criminal act--warrantless wiretapping. It doesn't matter whether GWB has one year or one hundred years left in office. He should still be impeached, tried, and put in prison.

The trial ought to be very short--it could consist of someone reading the FISA act and then playing videotape of Bush admitting to warrantless wiretapping. Then someone could read statutes relevant to cruel and unusual punishment or whatever law forbids waterboarding (granted, it's not decapitation, but since when is it OK for us to do exactly what the bad guys do) and then play videotape of Bush's latest admission. Cut and dried. Open and shut. Maybe it'd take about 45 minutes. Bye bye Bush.

Then we let Cheney go ahead and take the oath of office, after which he'd also be tried and convicted in a similar manner. So with the swearing in and the trial, maybe an hour and half goes by. Then we go to lunch, by which time President Pelosi knows that she better mind her p's and q's or she'll get the same treatment (this would have the added benefit of taking the potential title of "first female president" away from Hillary Clinton, thereby cancelling out the novelty of the idea of Clinton becoming president, turning the mood of the country toward another novelty--following the Constitution and voting for Ron Paul)!

Also, Regl is far from alone when it comes to "hating Bush." Nobody likes the guy or wants to have a beer with him anymore. He's got miserable poll numbers. It's not divisive to speak out against Bush, it's mainstream!

JOBS, INSIDE JOBS, AND SNEAKY PETE

So there are going to be recounts in New Hampshire. That’s good, because the machine tallies confounded the expectations created by the pre-primary and exit polls, while the paper ballot tallies comported with the expectations created by the polls. Not only that, but at least two townships originally reported zero votes for Ron Paul but admitted they had made a “mistake” when voters from the townships said they had in fact voted for Paul.


And it’s not surprising that the voting machine chicanery has already begun. It turns out that Ken Hajjar, the marketing and sales director for LHS Associates--the company in charging of programming all of New Hampshire’s (as well as 4 other states in New England) Diebold voting machines–is a convicted felon. His crime? Selling narcotics.

Traffic Tickets vs. Selling Drugs

Which leads me to a question–how does a convicted felon get hired by an election services company? I mean, ex-cons have to make a living too, but do they have to make a living working in elections? Hajjar must be a REALLY good marketing and sales director to be able to get such a job. Or, as it turns out, being an ex-con is almost a job requirement to work in the elections industry.

But this brings me to my own job search. I fill out applications all the time that ask whether or not I’ve been convicted of a crime (I haven’t) and for details if I have. Some applications ask me to volunteer information about my traffic violations, whether driving is a big part of the job or not.

Was none of this done in Hajjar’s case? Or was he just part of the good ol’ white boy club, in which all is forgiven, and nobody checks a good ol’ boy’s criminal record–it just isn’t done. That shit is for the little people–the little people have to be haunted by the paper trail being created for them to “keep them safe” from “terrorists.” Only the little people have to wear the scarlet letter.

Getting vs. Finding Jobs

A lot of people use the terms “find a job” and “get a job” interchangeably, as if “finding” and “getting” are the same thing. I’ve “found” lots of jobs, but I don’t “get” lots of jobs. What I’ve discovered is that if you want to get a job making say, I don’t know–the tubes that are inside paper towel and toilet paper rolls–you either have to have experience doing THAT job, not one kind of similar, OR you have to have a degree in making paper towel/toilet paper rolls. If you don’t have that, forget it.

But it seems to me that the job market has not always been this way. In fact, my parents always told me it wasn’t–they’d say, “You just need a college degree, it doesn’t really matter all that much what it’s in.” Boy howdy, has that not turned out to be true. But again, I’m not sure it’s always been this way, with a degree for everything and nothing without a degree.

What Sneaky Pete told me

Who told me so? Sneaky Pete. You know, of the Flying Burrito Brothers. Pete Kleinow, who died just over a year ago this month, may he rest in peace.

I interviewed him a few years ago in my last job. The reason I got to talk to him was because his new band Burrito Deluxe had just released their debut album. Anyway, he told me that when he moved to California, he didn’t have a job. This would’ve been in the late 50s or early 60s–I can’t remember exactly. I’m not transcribing this from the tape, I’m just going off what I remember.

So when he got to Los Angeles, he had to look for a job. He looked in the newspaper and saw an ad for a studio that needed animators. He said he’d never done anything like that in his life but was intrigued, so he decided to see if he could get a job there. He said he went down to the studio, and the guy in charge was showing him around. At some point, they let Pete kind of sit in with some of the workers. The guys that worked there showed Pete what they were doing, and being a quick study, he caught on and started doing it also. Long story short–Sneaky Pete got a job in the animation studio even though he’d never done any animation work in his life.

And that animation job wasn’t just something he did for a little while until he got on his feet or whatever. It turned into a career for him. Here’s how the Washington Post described Pete’s animation career:

Mr. Kleinow also won acclaim as an animator, special-effects artist and director of commercials in television and film. His credits ranged from the original "Gumby" series -- he wrote and performed the theme music and designed cartoons -- and the relaunched "Twilight Zone" to the movies "Under Siege," "Fearless" and "The Empire Strikes Back."

To be sure, Sneaky Pete’s a genius, but that’s not the point. The point is that he was able to get a job with no experience or education in the field. That’s virtually unheard of these days.

Just sayin’...

GOD DAMN THESE DEMOCRATS!

With few exceptions, these Democrats are totally fucking worthless. Kucinich tries to bring up his Cheney impeachment measure--again--and Hoyer fights to table it. Meanwhile, the Republicans try to stymie Hoyer and force debate on Kucinich's resolution.

I swear to the Lord Jesus...how can these weak, compromised Democrats like Pelosi and Hoyer not impeach Cheney? And/or Bush? I mean, besides the fact that they're weak and compromised?

Bush and Cheney are war criminals. They are peace criminals. They are criminal criminals. They are liars and profiteers and torturers and murderers. There's simply no way around it. And I don't say that only because they're Republicans--there are plenty of Democratic war criminals, too. I say that because it's true.

Ron Paul Revolution

So Ron Paul just got $4.2 million in 24 hours. I've always said I'd never, ever, as long as I live, vote for a Republican, but I'd make an exception in his case. I don't agree with everything the man says, but he is unequivocal in his opposition to the Iraq war and foreign intervention in general. He's the only candidate I'm aware of that knows and will talk about the scam of the Federal Reserve.

He is real--you could have a beer with him. And learn something.

I just want an antiwar candidate that I can vote for that actually has a chance of winning. I love Dennis Kucinich--even if he did see a UFO. Kucinich's UFO story is a lot less crazy than Rudy Giuliani's 9/11 "heroism" story.

But anyway, Kucinich didn't just raise $4.2 million in 24 hours. I wish he had. Kucinich did try to impeach Cheney. Paul didn't do that. So credit where credit is due--they both have their strengths. But Paul's got the dough-re-mi.

Paul/Kucinich '08

I wonder who Paul would choose as a running mate. What current Republican could he pick that would bring voters to his side but not compromise his positions? If there is such a person, I can't name him.

So why not get Kucinich? The party-line crossing story would be huge. They could be the ultimate antiwar ticket, running for the unity of the country. They don't agree on everything, but does that ever happen? I mean, look at Bush and Cheney. Bush is a homophobe and Cheney's granddaughter is being raised by his lesbian daughter and her life partner. They seem to have made out all right--for a couple of war-mongering demons.

But I digress...Kucinich and Paul have similar positions on a lot of issues. Why not highlight those and the press angle could be this: the guy who raised $4.2 million in one day and the only guy who had the nuts to impeach Cheney are running together, even though they're from different parties.

You couldn't stop the press from talking about that shit, yo! Unless you were their corporate paymasters...