
Update: PoliticsTV has a great interview with Sidney discussing the book. You can see it here.
(Please welcome to the Book Salon Sidney Blumenthal who joins us today with his book How Bush Rules. Sidney will be in the comments section to answer questions and chat with readers. Part one of the discussion began last week with author Rick Perlstein and can be found here.)
Sidney Blumenthal must be chuckling today. As a member of the Clinton Administration who lived through Whitewater and the sex-scandal-that-wasn't, it must be more than a bit amusing (and Sidney is known for nothing if not wicked wit) to watch the GOP in full operational meltdown over the leadership's acknowledged coverup of Mark Foley's predatory sexual behavior. What comes around goes around as they say, but God rarely bothers to work himself up to this grand level of irony.
While others such as Bob Woodward have only recently and reluctantly come around to the notion that access to failure and disgrace are certainly not worth the cost of one's book sales and that the legacy of the Bush Administration should be viewed with appropriate skepticism, Sidney Blumethal has been doing that grunt work for years. Often referred to as "the first blogger" as much for style and tone as well as his lacerating insights, this collection of essays that begin just after the Iraq invasion and on the eve of the 2004 Presidential campaign seem extraordinarily prescient in the current political climate. Those who cannot at this point acknowledge the truth when he calls George W. Bush "the most willfully radical president in American history" simply aren't paying attention.
The book begins by chronicling the events that culminated this week in the passage of the Bush Torture Act, but as Sidney notes, they have been constructing the architecture of that particular monument to George Bush's ego, barbarism and amorality for quite some time. As he notes, it was facilitated by 9/11 opportunism:
The events of September 11 lent Bush the aura of legitimacy that Bush v. Gore had not granted. Catastrophe infused him with charisma of a "war president," as he proclaimed himself. Suddenly his radicalism had an unobstructed path.
As Rick Perlstein observed last week, Sidney possesses "an unflinching understanding of the malignant sociology of the modern right wing." He chronicles with cold horror as Bush dispatches a team of mediocre minds to come up with rather palid excuses why no limitation whatsoever should be placed on his ability to behave like an utter and complete savage:
Executive power was rationalized by a radical theory called the "unitary executive," asserting that the president had complete authority over independent federal agencies and was not bound by congressional oversight or even law in his role as commander in chief…Indeed, Bush signed a directive stipulating that as commander in chief he could establish any law he wished in dealing with those accused of terrorism.
[]
Revelations of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were the tip of the iceberg of the vast network of the detained and disappeared. The Interntional Committee of the Red Cross was forbidden access. Those at the top of the chain of command were shielded from legal accountablity, while a few soldiers and the famle gneral in charge of Abu Ghraib were offered up as scapegoats.
[]
Accountability is treated as a threat to executive power, not as esential to democratic governance. No one at the top of the chain of command has been held responsible for the crimes of Abu Ghraib. No one who commited grevious errors of judgment in the Iraq war has been held to account. Instead they have been showered with honors, medals and promotions.
While the reviewer for the New York Times gave off writing about curios at the weekend knick-knack fair to dismiss this as ilttle more than "Bush hatred," others who have not had their gray matter extinguished over the past six years will recognize the ring of truth.
Sidney's gift for language and analysis pull you into the book even as your impulse is to recoil in horror at the details of the catastrophic Bush regime; the deftness with which he wields his rhetorical scalpel during a frequently painful autopsy make it bearable, and the notion that there were those who saw it all quite lucidly while it was happening and persisted in telling unpopular truths is quite comforting. This book is a testament to Sidney's prescience as well as his doggedness.
From June 2005:
Bush's statement at his press conference on his torture policy is more than a case study of how his White House markets its "products." It reveals his fundamental misunderstanding of the political dimension of the war on terrorism and his failure to grasp the full range of instruments available to advance America's national interest. Bush imagines that his high-flown rhetoric about the "march of democracy" amounts to international diplomacy, but he has no concern for how people abroad can be expected to react to the continuing reports on torture. For him, any opposition becomes further proof of the righteousness of his cause. Bush has faith that he can dictate what should be perceived as fact even when it collides with faces on the ground. The talking points about his virtue, prepared by his staff, play to his vanity. But as he postures for the domestic political market, he undermines America's national interest in the world.
There's also an interesting essay on Bob Woodward, who in this light could be viewed as the sort of anti-Sidney Blumenthal. Considering the fact that while Sidney was toiling away aiming sharp, well-thrown daggers the scales had not yet fallen from Boobie's eyes, I think his perceptions about Woodward (and those who buoy the sales for his seven-figure book deals) are particularly acute:
Woodard's fabled access has inspired comparisons with influential Washington journalists from before Watergate. But unlike Joseph Alsop or Walter Lippmann, he advocates no ideas and is indifferent to the fate of government. His access has been in the service of his technique of accumulating mountains of facts whose scale fosters an image of omniscience. As his best-sellers and wealth piled up, he lost a sense of journalism as provisional and inherently imperfect, viewing it instead as something engraved in stone. He had no point of view and felt no need to provide one because his point of view was the journalist as all-seeing god. But the method also made him particularly vulnerable to manipulation by cunning sources.
It would be hard for a thinking person to argue that over the past six years Sidney Blumenthal has not been right and that Woodward has been anything but wrong, an access pimp played like a violin by charlatans and thieves. Yet Larry King and Chris Matthews will no doubt continue to give him air time whenever he so desires, and we will continue to suffer his doltish credulity well into the future. Why we don't start listening to those who had it right all along, when it counted, remains a mystery to me. But with this new book, Sidney Blumenthal establishes that he was indeed one of those rare and insightful minds.
As a final note: Sidney dedicates the book to to Joe Wilson, who is frequently here on Sunday's to chat it up in the comments section at the Book Salon. Joe is in Connecticut holding a fundraiser for Ned Lamont today and sends his regards:
Please tell those who are on it how valuable I think the book is to understanding our times. Sid did not make the Bush regime radical. He has rather cataloged its radicalism, chapter and verse. It is a must read for anybody who values our democratic traditions and deplores the usurping of that tradition by this authoritarian crowd.
I think that sums things up perfectly.



251 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Thanks so much to Sidney for being here with us today. As always, please be respectful of the topic at hand and if you want to discuss something other than the book you can do so in the previous thread.
Sidney Rules!
Welcome, Mr. Blumenthal! You know, I’m just curious. You have such a keen and penetrating wit. What do you anticipate for this country over the next six months?
I’m am online at Firedoglake now. I’m grateful to Jane Hamsher, Firedoglaker extraordinaire, for the chance to talk with everyone.
Mr. Blumenthal is definitely one of the best journos we have – I subscribe to the Der Spiegel newsletter specifically so I can read him on a regular basis.
Sidney –
I have read excerpts of How Bush Rules.
What – or perhaps I should say who – is the glue that holds together the disparate factions comprising the GOP?
Question:
Are you concerned that Democrats themselves will point to Woodward (quite the Johnny-come-lately Bush critic) rather than you when criticizing Bush, thus reinforcing the accusation that you are too “partisan” and “close to the Clintons” to be a journalist?
So Sidney, not to go OT on the book — which I do love, everyone should read it — but how do you feel watching the GOP scramble like rodents to cover themselves this week? It seems a topic perfectly coiled for your analysis.
Welcome, Sidney. It’s a pleasure to have you with us today to share your insights.
How do you think the right wing will respond to the Foley revelations and those of the coverup? Do you foresee a fight over GOP House leadership, and if so, is there a faction able to wrest control from the remnants of the Delay machine?
Mr. Blumenthal, in all your research, do you think Bush believes what he says and is therefore delusional or is he just sticking to the script that Rove gives him?
What do you think?
I’m glad that Woodward has reversed his course. He gets a lot of media attention for criticisms of Bush that have made by many others for years, including myself. The Rice incident of July 10, 2001 is the big scoop of the book, which she and Tenet and Cofer Black withheld from the 9/11 Commission. They knew they were hiding the incident. If Tom Kean is concerned with the integrity of the Commission he would refer Rice, et al to the Justice Department for obstruction, lying to the Commission, rather than providing cover for the defamatory ABC drama.
Hi Mr. Blumenthal and thanks so much for taking the time to chat with us.
I read your work in The Guardian and Salon and am deeply grateful for your important voice. In these long 6 years, you have been one of the bright lights of truth in the darkness. I watched Jennifer Senior on cspan the other day and was surprised to hear her declare her democratic party affiliation and her wish for the days of Bushco to come to an end. I remain perplexed at her characterization that your writing is without humor, when the entire reign of this President has been so distinctly un-funny and deadly. She got hammered soundly by the right during the Q&A– they were furious!
I feel as though a perfect storm is brewing and wonder if you feel it too. Will the American people get angry and fed up enough to vote for a change this November?
Mr. Blumenthal:
How do you think Mr. Bush’s mediocre intelligence affects his governance?
BTW, Mr. Blumenthal, don’t you think that it is time, at long last, to fess up and admit you are Atrios and/or Media Whores Online?
On the Foley scandal: THE DOJ should investigate. Foley has obviously used the House email system as a predator. The one set of IMs can’t be the only ones. Are there others? They must be made public. Those who covered up must resign their leadership positions, as Chris Shays insists. And every Democratic candidate should demand that their Republican opponents must give back all National Republican Congressional Campaign donations because they are now tainted. Foley gave Reynolds, head of the committee, $100K after Reynolds learned of the scandal. That money has flowed to GOPO candidates. They are now running on this tainted coverup money.
Citizen Blumenthal:
Many thanx and kudos for your courageous contributions to public understanding and, ultimately, history. Your writing will certainly be found referenced in bibliographies of our “long national nightmare” of the last 12 years.
My question is simple, when do we start calling a spade a shovel and use the “f” word (fascism) to label the current “conservative movement” and specifically this administration?
KEEP THE FAITH, NUREMBERG IS MORE THAN THE NAME OF A CITY!!
space @
14
Shhh!!! No outing people in the comments section. This isn’t a wingnut blog.
“While the reviewer for the New York Times gave off writing about curios at the weekend knick-knack fair to dismiss this as ilttle more than “Bush hatred,” others who have not had their gray matter extinguished over the past six years will recognize the ring of truth.”
I get the “you just hate Bush” thing all the time from wingers I interact with, to which I reply: No. I hate Bush’s policies, actions, and overall worldview and how America fits into it. Like how I don’t hate you, I just hate your blind obedience to Bush.
Can’t wait to read your book Sidney.
Bush repeats the lines given to him by Rice, etc. Essentially, these are forms of flattery. He does not think through their illogic: for example, that jihadists hate “freedom” but are reacting against tyrannies in the region. So which is it? This is something that doesn’t occur to him. His fundamental premise in explaining the motive of the enemy in his “war on terror” is absurd. The problem is not that he can’t think. It’s that he can’t change course. He is surrounded by either enablers (Rice) or those whose power is entrenched by his dogmatism (Rumsfeld, Cheney) because if he were to change they would be held accountable for the catastrophe they have fostered.
Are there any ramifications to Rice’s omission of the July 10 meeting?
Welcome, Sidney. Loved The Clinton Wars and have been reading your columns but seeing them again, along with new chapters, in chronological order and with the benefit of hindsight, gives it the flavor of surreal fiction.
I’ve heard that a lot of information on the Bush clan, things like W’s TANG records, traffic and court records, official logs, other Bush sons’ errors in judgement, etc. have been scrubbed over the years with the help of friends in high places. In your opinion, is this true? What kind of loyalty does the CIA have to Bush pere?
The review in the NYT Book Review was jejune, infantile and ultimately meaningless. It was a series of poses struck by someone with no grounding or knowledge, just interested in attracted attention to herself by her attitude. None of the substance of “How Bush Rules” was addressed. But in a short period of time, with the publication of Woodward’s book, what was smeared as “Bush phobia” in “How Bush Rules” is now self-evident truth.
Sidney Blumenthal >”…Foley has obviously used the House email system as a predator. The one set of IMs can’t be the only ones. Are there others? They must be made public…”
I do wonder what the NSA has in their vast store of “interceptions” that have been undertaken under orders from Bush Handlers, Inc. for purposes of “anti-terrorism”
Who else might be caught up in their web & might certain ReThuglican “operatives” have taken advantage of this information to further their agenda ? The John Bolton case comes to mind as well
Many thanks for being here
“Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.” – Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.
In all seriousness, Mr. Blumenthal, to what do you attribute the general reluctance of the Democrats in D.C. — at least until the last year or so — to openly state what you write about, and what most Americans can see plainly: that the Bush regime is seriously radical? Why the absurd praise of bipartisanship even as the GOP attempts to eliminate dissent from the very structure of our government?
People at CIA I know respected elder Bush. Many if not most of them thought that Jr. would be like his father. They went into a state of shock when it turned out he was the opposite. There is no doubt that W’s military records have been suppressed. Though CBS committed journalistic malpractice in reporting documents that were not verified its basic story on W in the military was correct. Unfortunately, that’s been brushed aside. But it’s more important now to concentrate on the secrets of his administration, like Rice and July 10, 2001 meeting.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 19
I think this is quite fundamental to any analysis of the Bush regime (junta?) You can see people running around joking “well, you’re the decider sir,” until it just tickles his funnybone enough he repeats it in public, presuming that its essential truth should be just as apparent to anyone who hears it. Neither self-aware nor possessed of any sense of the ironic, he has no notion of the elements that will make it an iconic phrase for all the wrong reasons.
Sid–
Just wanted to say your insights over these past years have been useful in understanding what’s happening inside the Beltway. I also wanted to say that you should be proud of Max–he’s been doing good reporting, particularly with stories on The Washington Times. That story has got the wingnuttery all puffed up and exhaling ad hominem attacks, sure proof he’s hit a nerve.
Cheers.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 22
Can we please have a Jennifer Senior review of the new Woodward book? Oh yes I do believe we need that. Really. I think they owe us that at the very least.
Mr. Blumenthal:
Even though President Bush seems to have difficulties changing course, under Majority Leader Murtha he will be forced to do so. How will this scenario play out?
We tend to shift in our debates between W is an idiot manipulated by Cheney and others – and W is crazy like a fox and is actually very much on top of what’s being done. Do you come down on either side?
Dear Sidney:
Bush and the Republican Party couldn’t have got away with all their crimes unless they had accomplices, and as David Brock and others have chronicled, their main enablers are in the US corporate media. (It is because of the failings of the US corporate media that blogs such as FDL are sought out by reality-starved Americans.)
I note that the same sorts of “conflicts of interest” that were attacked in you, are excused (in the rare event that they’re mentioned) in right-wing pundits and reporters. Many believe that this is because Big Media likes the GOP’s cutting corporate taxes and slashing government oversight. Would you care to comment on this?
The bill on detainees passed this past week gave immunity from prosecution to those who might have been charged with war crimes under Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 against torture. Bush et al–it was Cheney and David Addington who were in charge of this endeavor–know exactly that they have altered the definitions of war crimes.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 19
In a Nation article in 2001, Mark Crispin Miller said that Mary Matalin described Bush as a “Political Campaign Terrorist.” That, along with his gift for lying, is one of Bush’s few core competencies.
Bush’s willful ignorance allows him to be an empty vessel for the words of others. Do you believe he has any understanding of his self contradictions? His self congratulatory narcissism negates self doubt — does it also shield him from any sense of failure?
Sidney Blumenthal @ 11
Hi Mr. Blumenthal,
I wonder if in fact that was brought up to The 9/11 Commission, in private session. And they just voted not to include it in the report as we now know, Bush and Cheney’s testimony was!?
The detainee bill is so disturbing – do you think we can repeal it with a democratic majority?
On the NYT Book Review of “How Bush Rules,” the Times will run a letter I wrote in next week’s issue. Watch for it.
Mr Blumenthal, GREAT book. I always enjoy reading your work. I agree that Rice is an enabler. Like all enablers they are protected. I am wondering how Rice can still be trusted by the American public after her;
Mushroom cloud false prophecies
Senator Boxers smack-down which proved she is a liar
Her calling the “PDB Bin Laden” a historical document…..etc
All of my European friends say she has absolutely ZERO credibility in Europe
space @ 24
Digby summed it up nicely in his post the other day “Rouge Presidency”
Emp. mine.
Digby rocks.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Max’s recent article on the Washington Times is posted at The Nation’s website. I hope everyone reads it. http://www.thenation.com/doc/2…..ton_times/
Sidney– What effect (if any) has the lack of diligent engagement in the Palestine/Israel “peace process” and the administration’s refusal to call for a cease fire in the Israel/Lebanon war had on our country’s national security?
Mr. Blumenthal,
First of all, I keep a copy of The Clinton Wars on my desk to rebut wingnut revisionism – so thank you for your attention to detail. :)
My question is – do you believe we live in a time when lying is embraced by the political mainstream in a far more intimate way than has been in the past? It seems to me that since the beginning of the Reagan administration we have been living in a deeply dishonest political culture. I’m wondering what your notions about that are.
Mr. Blumenthal, thank you for your book. I have it ordered from Amazon.
Can you explain to me, why the Democrats have laid down like dogs for the past six years? I mean, they really have been Bush’s bitches.
The Constitution is in tatters, more that 2,700 Americans are dead in Iraq, the economy is getting to totally go in the crapper and it took Bill Clinton having a tantrum on Faux N00z to galvanize ANY Democratic resistance to the Junta in the White House.
I have never seen such a band of worthless, gutless pansies in my life, as the current Democratic leadership.
Why are they so spineless?
Fixing the detainee policy will require a new president who will jettison Bush’s policy and issue a new one that is in line with Geneva Conventions and Supreme Court decision in Hamdan.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 43
How much do you want to bet he attaches a “No do-overs” signing statement to this one?
The Democrats are charged with not standing up to Bush and there is some truth in some of that criticism. But for the most part the Democrats bear the burden of having no power anywhere in the system. They have no way of calling hearings, using the congressional committees for voersight and investigation, or initiating legislation. Impotence compounds itself. Its a downward spiral. Only winning something will change that.
Mr. Blumenthal, what qualities would you like to see in the next Democratic candidate for President?
Mr. Blumenthal,
Thank you for your work – caught you talking about your book on TV a week or so ago, and put it on my list. You and Wright (The Looming Tower) are my next two reads.
If Republicans manage to hold Congress, how far do you think they will go between now and 2008?
I think the run-up to Nazi Germany is relevant, and am currently reading ‘The Coming of the Third Reich’ by Evans.
The Germans were educated and had democratic institutions. In a very short while, they gave themselves to a dictator.
Certainly, there are dissimilar parallels, but disturbing trends to go with it.
We tend to ask a lot of questions Mr. Blumenthal – but we’re patient about answers. Hope it’s not too overwhelming! There are so many things we’d like your view on!
Mr. Blumenthal,
Thanks for your books (The Clinton Wars!!!), articles in “The Guardian,” which I’ve enjoyed over the years, your magnificent speech on the steps of the DC courthouse where you were testifying in the Starr GJ probe, and for this book, which I haven’t read.
There are so many good books out there on politics right now. I could fill a shelf with the books like yours published in the past three months which chronicle the current political catastrophes. Other than “please read _How Bush Rules_ first,” what advice can you give to an overwhelmed college prof on which of these books to read and in which order?
Mr. Blumenthal:
Would you care to comment on what strengths we should look for in selecting the Democratic presidential candidate for 2008?
Bush’s deliberate abdication of the Middle East has had the most serious impact on our national security interest. It is impossible at this point to have an Iraq policy–that is, Iraq–without also having a Middle East peace process. That is the fundamental policy required as a start. Bush and those around him are hostile to the peace process, have always been hostile to it, and until that changes nothing really can be done in the region.
Mr. Blumenthal:
Who do you like tonight the Seahawks or the Bears?
; )
Sidney Blumenthal @
45
I agree with this statement, but it’s gone further than that. They haven’t even tried. They haven’t even made a lot of noise.
When I say “lay down like dogs” I mean they didn’t filibuster, they didn’t reveal the truth about what they knew, they voted WITH him in most things since he took office.
I mean, it’s one thing to be emasculated by virtue of numbers, it’s quite another to simply GO ALONG with what the Bush Regimewanted, to vote with him.
Then of course there’s Joe Lieberman and in the interest of the decorum of the Book Salon, I won’t let myself get started.
I will say I truly hope Joe Liebermen is tending his garden next year, muttering to himself and drinking to major excess this time next year.
The Evans books on the Nazis are excellent. The description of the Reichstag fire and how the Naxis manipulated it politically is chilling. I say no more about parallels.
I believe that if the Democrats win the House and/or Senate, there will be a constitutional crisis. Bush will stonewall on production of documents and it will go to the courts.
It will be extremely useful to have a Democratic House and at least enough of a narrow margin in the Senate to pass some decent legislation that forces Bush to veto. That will push him to show his true colors.
what is the best campaign rhetoric to exploit the July 10 CIA warning to Rice and the Presidential Daily Briefing–OBL determined to strike in America?
I think these two events show most clearly that Bush bears THE responsibility for allowing the September 11 attacks. In typical Rove fashion, he took a weakness and made it a strength.
Ditto what Dems should do on the new POW Trial Act-Why can’t that “strength” be made a weakness, by showing that the GOP is dithering. They could have put these folks on trial two years ago.
There are renewed reports that the nuclear option is back on for Iran – do you think this is true and do you think an attack on Iran is inevitable?
I’m originally from Chicago so I like the Bears. Being mad at the congressional Democrats at this particular moment won’t get you anywhere. The Congress has adjourned for the campaign. So what happens rests with the result of the elections.
So many lies have been told by this administration, simply as a matter of policy and in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Many will never trust the government again. Do you think the poisionous partisanship in DC will ever let up?
Mr. Blumenthal
What are the long term implications for the way Bush has ruled? And where do you think the Republican party goes after Bush? Will the next Republican nominee expect to run the show the way Bush (or his handlers) have?
mr blumenthal…what is your opinion of gore vidal’s books, DREAMING WAR and PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE?
The 9/11 commissioners should demand that Rice, Tenet and Black explain the July 10, 2001 meeting and why they withheld information about it from the commission. At the least the Democratic members of the commission should be demanding answers. The Commission had legal authority and flouting it is a violation of federal law. Rice voered up her dereliction of duty in stopping the terrorist attacks. Then she blamed others in order to hide her derelection and to protect the president’s derelection.
Mr. Blumenthal — the despair many felt this past week when the Congress’ voted to approve torture (sometimes), detain people indefinitely (if the President says so), and declare amnesty for prior/continuing war crimes for everyone up through the White House has caused many to ask some very disturbing questions: Have we passed a point of no return? Are we so far down the road of an authoritarian regime that it will be almost impossible to prevent the country from becoming more and more tyrannical? There is a disturbing set of next questions, depending on how these are answered.
So, are you optimistic or pessimistic on where we are headed? And why?
Welcome, Mr. Blumenthal.
It’s not the theory that is radical. It is the misappropriation of the term for other purposes.
I suppose I should give up my campaign to point out that asserting authority over independent federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (the classic “unitary executive” theory) is completely different from the President asserting the power (supposedly stemming from his role as Commander-in-Chief) to ignore Congress on domestic matters and interpret Presidential power to be unlimited (a theory of monarchical, unilateralism that violates both “separation of power” principles and “checks and balances” principles).
But the two are quite different.
One may agree or disagree with the concept of independent agencies (an innovation from the late 1800s and early 1900s not contemplated by the original framers of the Constitution, but serving various useful purposes) — and therefore agree or disagree with a “unitary executive” theory that rejects the constitutionality of such non-executive agencies having executive power.
But that is cut from entirely different cloth than an argument that the President has unilateral power domestically during wartime (as one of the Justices in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer remarked, being Commander-in-Chief refers to commanding the Army, not commanding the whole nation).
What is “radical” is not having a “unitary executive theory” of the old type. What is “radical” is using that term to grab power that properly belongs to the other branches of government or is reserved to the people themselves. That power-grab should be called a “unilateral executive theory.”
Sidney Blumenthal @ 61
How much of this was possibly the decision of the Commission itself (or its managers)? The latest excerpt of Woodward’s book in the WaPo today suggests that Zelikow knew something (perhaps not much) of the meeting.
???
Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
A true honour for all of us here to discuss and debate.
1. Would you agree there are many disturbing parallels with Germany 1930’s (excepting the Nazi treatment of the Jews in Germany of course). The Enabling Act, Emphasis on “the HomeLand”, Got Mit Uns etc.
2. What do you think the Bush Regime endgame might be? I fearfully suspect he might find a pretext for not leaving office – “Democrats cannot be trusted to defend the homeland in time of war” etc. – which idea is being test-marketed IMHO during these midterms.
Kind Regards,
Paul – English, Bangkok
(Please pardon my desire to remain anon.)
I haven’t read Gore Vidal’s recent books so I can’t comment on them. I have read his novels.
The polarization will increase, not decrease, if the Democrats win one or both houses of the Congress. And any Democrat running for the presidency will be subject to harsh smears, as Al Gore and John Kerry learned. Tom Daschle, too, learned that being a nice guy didn’t immunize him.
One of the oddities of the Clinton wars is that many Democrats thought that the assault on Clinton (and Hillary and those in responsible positions in the White House including me) was Clinton specific. In other words, they mistakenly believed that Clinton somehow had caused the problem. Why else would the attacks be so relentless? And they believed that there must be something to all the charges. Then, when they fell under attack, they were stunned. Only later, after the fact, did it occur to them that the Republican strategy is to taint any Democrat who holds or might hold power. Gore and Kerry learned this lesson too late, despite ample warnings. (See “The Clinton Wars” for details.)
Mr. Blumenthal:
Thanks for being here today. I hope to purchase your book on October 11th at your “How Bush Rules” book signing at the Peppertree Bookstore in Palm Springs.
As proprieter and directors of the War on Terror, Bush and his fellow Republicans have said that the war will not end in his presidency. It is now official that the war in Iraq has not made us safe. It is also official that ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda did not exist, and no weapons of mass destruction exist.
In your opinion, is the War on Terror over?
Bush (and Cheney) are attempting to make permanent changes, particularly in aggregating unaccountable executive power. They will do so regardless of the cost in public opinion. Cheney especially doesn’t care. For him this is the last chance in his long career to do what has wanted. The damage is deep, but much of it can be reversed by another president who is familiar with how the executive operates.
Mr. Blumenthal -
What do you think of Gore’s chances in 2008, should he decide to run?
He is “familiar with how the executive operates.”
Prof @63
Thanks for that explication. I was uncomfortable with the unitary terminology and you explained why.
Hello, Sidney and welcome.
g
Mr Blumenthal; I do not understand the Republican thinking on the Unary executive. I does not appear to me to be something they would willingly give to a Democratic president even in time of real war. So how do they retrench in 08, if a Democrat wins the white house? Declare the war on terror over January 19 ‘09? Diebold the election?
Mr. Blumenthal, I appreciate you taking the time to be here today. I am an admirer of your writings.
Do you think that the revelation being made public that the Bush Administration did nothing to prevent 911 will finally gain traction with the public and what will the political ramifications be?
Bush’s war on terror as currently conceived is counter-productive. Everyone I know who is a national security professional or who has had experience–CIA, other intelligence agencies, military, foreign service, and international officials–believes that Bush’s policy is self-undermining. The biggest danger we face is that he will never see that–and he never will see it. Therefore, I am very pessimistic about the next two years. Apart from Democratic control of the House, because of Bush’s stubborn adherence to failure, there will be internal convulsions in the intelligence community, military and among our allies. We are entering a much more dangerous period than we have been in before.
Just want to make sure everyone saw that Joe Wilson sends his regards (Sidney dedicated the book to him). It’s at the end of the post but it’s worth repeating:
Joe is with Ned Lamont today and is always in our thoughts.
Jane Hamsher @ 26
Siun @ 30
And then the question becomes: for the next two years, it is more important first to get rid of the manipulators — Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld — so that Bush himself will become less of a menace — or are they the wrong targets? Should we be focused directly on Bush?
Sidney Blumenthal @ 68
Is this in your opinion, merely a Cheney/Bush goal, or is it indicative of a continued Republican paradigm?
Sidney — I have long believed that the actual language that is being used by the administration (as in the “global war on terror”, the evildoers, the islamofascists, the battle between good and evil, etc.) and repeated endlessly by the MSM is contributing to the lack of critical thinking in our country and serves to perpetuate an endless state of confrontation and fear. Similarly, Bush’s adamant refusal to engage in diplomacy with the the ever growing “axis of evil” is wholly detrimental to our standing in the world. So far as I can see, he has outsourced diplomatic efforts to others and can’t be bothered.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
(Thank you for your answer to my question on the ME.)
I don’t want to get ahead of the 2006 election and theorize about individual candidates for 2008. It’s important to focus on the crucial elections before us right now. The terrain of 2008 will be shaped by what happens in 2006.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 54
Herman Goering, Nuremberg War Trials, 1945
Mr. Blumenthal –
Thank you so much for being here, and for your great work.
I want to follow up on scarecrow’s question.
There are many of us who are experiencing the kind of “cold sweat” which causes insomnia and great anxiety over the road to totalitarianism this government is on. We are students of history in a sufficient degree to understand where this path has led before.
Do you yourself experience great anxiety over the “pincer position” this administration has set up to crush any genuine democratic resistance?
They have set up all the pseudo-legal trappings they need to have the pincer in position for the final snap.
What do you really believe about the extent of the danger we are all in?
Mr. Blumenthal,
It seems that Tony Blair is on his way out–sooner or later. What impact do you see this having on British relations with the U.S.?
Thanks for being here today, Mr. Blumenthal.
I read today that the federal judge in MI denied the DOJ’s request to stay her order to shut down the NSA spying. She gave the admin. seven days to comply and shut it down.
IMO, that won’t happen.
The DOJ will go up the appeals ladder. What are your thoughts on where this is headed?
Sidney this is ot but I was just called by the Western Research Center for a poll. Do you know who they represent? It was lengthy and seemed to have a Repub slant. Sounded as though it was out of India.
Speaking of the 2006 election, we have a Democratic candidate in CT who won in part because of his anti-Iraq war position. How do you explain the continued support of Lieberman by the Democratic leadership, including Clinton, when Lieberman has shown time and time again that he is a Bush enabler? Furthermore, the Republicans are raising money for him hand over fist. Why does the Dem leadership think he will caucus with the Dems? I would think the preference would be for someone who would help stand up to BushCo and its agenda…
I don’t understand the thinking and would love to be enlightened.
Bush’s terminology makes no sense. There is no such thing as “Islamofascism.” Only in Spain was fascism truly unified with the church. Fascism is a form of authoritarian corporatism. The utopian nonsense peddled by bin Laden about a Sunni Caliphate is an offshoot of Wahhabism.
Bush adopots new phrases because they are given to him when other phrases are shopworn. This latest one is DOA. It’s a kind of holding action to provide a rationalization for an utterly failed and hollow strategy. He uses these words as part of an effort to fend off redoing his policy.
On the abuse of political rhetoric and how it is applied to prevent understanding reality see George Orwell’s famous essay on “Politics and the English Language.”
http://www.orwell.ru/library/e…..sh/e_polit
In it, among many other things, he writes:
“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’.”
I see no great change in US-UK relations until there is a new president. Bush will wreck any British PM whoever that might be.
I agree that Democratic control of the house in 2006 will precipitate a constitutional crisis, not only because the WH will stonewall on procuring documents, but because it will implicate the president AND the vice-president and numerous cabinet members as well–Rice, Rumsfeld, Hadley, etc.
The question becomes “can the nation weather the resignations of almost an entire administration?”
chisholm @ 87
Would be sort of a new wrinkle on “the cheese stands alone.” :)
Thank you so much for sharing your time with us today. Your answers are giving us a lot of food for thought.
Based on what we know so far, I’m wondering if you think Bush will ever be impeached, i.e., if you think it a worthy question at all?
Is there anything you might like to add to Noam Chomsky’s view of U.S. foreign policy and how our media “manufactures consent” among the American public?
There can be little doubt that a Democratic House in control of the committees will uncover new Bush administration scandals. We don’t know what they are. Many of them might involve things we know are murky now. This election is therefore very, very, very important.
Fallout may be coming :
“…you cannot save your face and your ass at the same time…” – vachon@shadrach.net
This election is our last chance for accountability.
chisholm @
87
One would hope that it will weather those resignations. How does it weather this present storm in the meantime?
Mr. Blumenthal: What do you think of the missing money in Iraq. From the Post-Gazette:
Billions, perhaps $6 billion to $7 billion in American funds, are allegedly unaccounted for in Iraq under Paul Bremer alone, when the former Henry Kissinger aide was the first civilian administrator after the U.S. invasion. In three years, more than $30 billion has gone into rebuilding a nation that remains without full-time electrical service.
My Machievellian theory is that were the Democrats to take power in Congress/Senate… Bush would have an “accident”… plane, train or automobile! And then be buried in a State Funeral to rival FDR or Jaysus himself. (Had the latter been afforded a State Funeral).
Why?
He would be the first to blab to save his own skin. And thus can’t be trusted to face any enquiry without Uncle Dick there to hold his hand and stay his tongue.
We live in interesting times.
I’d wager those monies are safe in the hands of cronies.
In my view talk of impeaching Bush only helps the Republicans. It provides grist to arouse Republican support for him and obscures the real issues on which he should be held accountable. IF there is a Democratic House, I would hope they investigate issue after issue. Bush has two more years left. Let those years be filled with the exposure of his failures and corruption, not talk of a political show trial that would make him a martyr to his followers. The more he exposed on the issues the better.
ccmask @ 95
One has to wonder how much of it found its way back into the RNC’s bloated coffers.
agree completely on the impeachment issue.
I agree, I never mention impeachment, but as everyone knows, it’s the elephant in the room viz these elections.
Paul @ 96
I guess that democrats taking power is something which they could not possibly leave to chance.
chisholm @ 87
Hell, I’d be willing to weather that.
If there is a Democratic House, the civil administration and contracting in Iraq would be investigated. It is not today. Every question on which we are in the dark would have sunlight shone on it. That’s how vital the election is.
sturgeone >”I’d wager those monies are safe in the hands of cronies.”
Would ceertainly buy a lot of AK-47`s and a lot of campaign ads/”votes”…
“No place is so strongly fortified that money could not capture it.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero
Thank you for gracing FDL Mr. Blumenthal.
I’m still quite curious to know if you think the British public sees Tony Blair as having done damage to England’s democractic institutions by supporting Bush? I know they are hip to Bush being a tyrant, but what of their own house lackey (Poodle).
Tony lied a blue streak for Bush/Cheney.
Sidney Blumenthal @
91
So true. Pach is going to be having a new GOTV column on Thursdays, and we continue to push for our Blue America candidates. This is a very, very critical election and we’re going to be doing everything we can to support a Democratic win — congressional hearings seem to be the only hope we have of unlocking the stranglehold that BushCo. has on oversight and any accountability.
One last question. With the increasingly public friction between Musharraf and Karzai, do you see any hope at all for the poor Afghan people or a change in course of our failed policy and actions there?
No nation has ever receded from the brink.
-Marcus Cicero
Sidney Blumenthal @ 104
Mr. Blumenthal,
Given your statement above, how far do you think the Bush administration would go to insure that the republicans maintain control of the congress? What might they really do?
Sidney Blumenthal @ 98
I agree. Don’t make him a martyr. Let his increasingly rotten corpse twist in the wind for two long, long years, tainting the Republican party with its foul stench. Let him long for the sweet release that impeachment would bring.
Thanks again Mr. Blumenthal, for sharing your insight with us.
Blair has been permanently damaged by his relationship with Bush. Everyone decent who associates with him becomes damaged. See the sad emblematic case of Colin Powell. Everything Bush touches turns rotten and bitter. Powell’s silence speaks volumes.
I was a teen at the time, but I’ve never forgotten a State Department official describing Elliot Abrahams as “an unbeatable combination of arrogance and stupidity,” because even though I wasn’t up on the details of Reagan-era malfeasance the words rang true with conviction.
Any comments on current administration officials who fit the Abrahms mold? (And yes, I know he’s back in business–just wondering who’s following his example better than the one he set).
Sidney Blumenthal @ 57
I couldn’t agree more, Sir. Anyone still wasting time flailing now should stop – immediately – and start channeling that anger towards helping to get real Progressives elected in November. Thank you for your time, wisdom and wit!
If there is a Democratic House, the civil administration and contracting in Iraq would be investigated. It is not today. Every question on which we are in the dark would have sunlight shone on it. That’s how vital the election is.
Why should voters expect the democrats to investigate the white house? Seriously. What evidence is there that the democratic party leadership would have the stomach to stand up to the regime and its minions — including those in the media?
masculine_monica_nyc @ 114
Two words:
Henry Waxman.
-GSD
From Orwell’s essay on political speech:
Orthodoxy, of whatever colour, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style.
Aha, that explains Bush’s speeches.
Bush is doing all he can to maintain a GOP Congress. He understands the stakes. He requires one party rule to continue his radicalism and transformation of the Constitution and the presidency.
There has not been a president who has gone to his lengths to exploit and politicize foreign policy in a mid-term election.
In 1970, Nixon sent out VP Spiro Agnew as his surrogate to do this sort of dirty work, demonizing the opposition. Not even Nixon would do this sort of thing directly as president. Bush’s extremism by his vicious campaigning should be pointed out.
Alas, our media, especially the brain dead broadcast network news, has no historical memory, long erased.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 57
I could not agree more, Sir. Anyone who is still flailing at this moment should stop – immediately – and channel their anger into helping elect real Progressives in November. Thank you for your wit, wisdom and time today!
If the Democrats capture the House they will investigate the administration. That is what Bush fears.
Two words: Henry Waxman.
I take your point, GSD, but the kind of thorough-going investigation to which Sidney Blumenthal refers would require the institutional backing of the caucus, not just the outrage of one or a few members.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 117
I hope you’re right. I think they will stonewall and provoke a Constitutional Crisis. What do you think?
Sidney Blumenthal @
119
And well he should — we’ll be standing here with torches and pitchforks.
Pitchforks!
Torches!
Tar!
Feathers!
Dead Chickens!
Speaking of the Gloria Borgia media, I’d be curious to hear your “personal worst,” in terms of patsy/toady media personalities.
Sidney, Any thoughts on this new theme of the 50’s generation(Happy Days)vs the60’s generation (Woodstock) and Dubya’s latest that the Dems the party of FDR and Truman are now the party of Cut and Run. Do you think he wants to be perceived as Ike?
Right now, I will repeat, every Democratic candidate should demand that every House Republican return all NRCC funds they have received. Rep. Thomas Reynolds, chair of the NRCC, was told of Rep. Mark Foley’s activity as sexual predator, and covered it up. After Reynolds learned, Foley gave the NRCC $100,000. That is tantamount to a bribe. That money has been disbursed to Republicans across the country. Every Republican who has received it is therefore tainted by it. They should return it.
Sidney Blumenthal @
15
Sidney – do you think a special counsel should be appointed? I’ve just heard that Dennis Hastert has requested a Justice Department probe in the Foley case: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15096062/
masculine_monica_nyc @ 120
I actually think that there are not only virtually all dems but also some republicans that want to know the truth. It is not possible for them to speak or act out of lock step now, but I really believe that a deep cleansing breath will be heard round Capitol Hill. No real American feels entirely comfortable right now, imho.
shooogarp @ 122
Frankenstein rakes!
Rotten fruit!
Arrest warrants!
No thoughts on the NSA spying ruling in my #82?
I’m surprised.
Alas, our media, especially the brain dead broadcast network news, has no historical memory, long erased.
This is the issue that interests me most, in the short term and the long term. The traditional media have both too much interest in power and too little awareness of their own institutional history, much less broader U.S. and world histories.
Sidney Blumenthal @
112
Honestly, I have little sympathy for Powell. he knew he was drinking the kool-aid, and he drank it willingly. Same with Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the Democratic *idiots* who voted to authorize. Powell knew the information he presented to the U.N was tainted and he went along. He deserves every ounce of disgrace he lives with as do Blair and anyone else who went along with Bushco in the past six years.
I can only imagine the horror Bush41 feels when he opens a paper and sees “worst president ever” with his son’s name slapped all over it.
The party of Ike and elder Bush–of fiscal responsibility and foreign policy realism–is the party that Bush has cut and run from.
Sidney,
I see the Bush folks are really up against the wall. geopolitically the world is rallying against the US….it also appears that large sections of the government are pushing information detrimental to the leadership…..
Do the so called best and brightest not see that they are headed for a pyhrric victory if they do indeed hold the House and Senate.
-GSD
Gonzales is the quintessence of a Bush toady–if he uncovers anything that could jeopardize Republican control of the House he will bury it, period.
Their lock on power is maddening.
Sidney, Bill Clinton has argued that it’s a “blessing” that Connecticut will have either Lieberman or Lamont, as though it doesn’t matter. But in terms of enabling the radical policies of Bush, whether in foreign policy or support for judicial nominees that would enable Bush’s view of the Constitution, this view is ludicrous. It’s not even clear that Lieberman would support as aggressive an oversight role for the Senate, especially wrt to the Iraq war, as would Lamont. I assume you agree?
And if so, what additional issues/positions do you think would be helpful in turning that election in the right direction? What more might Lamont argue/say?
Hi Salon aficienados.
Just back from campaigning for Ned in Connecticut. Great candidate, great cause.
Sid’s book is a must read as a chronicle of our times, as depressing as they may be.
Right now, I will repeat, every Democratic candidate should demand that every House Republican return all NRCC funds they have received. Rep. Thomas Reynolds, chair of the NRCC, was told of Rep. Mark Foley’s activity as sexual predator, and covered it up. After Reynolds learned, Foley gave the NRCC $100,000. That is tantamount to a bribe. That money has been disbursed to Republicans across the country. Every Republican who has received it is therefore tainted by it. They should return it.
Chris Shays should get on board with that, as well, given his statement that anyone in leadership who knew *or should have known* about Foley should step down.
Has Joe. ShortRide. Mentum. chastised the democrats yet over the republicans’ failure of leadership regarding Foley?
The broadcast news is by far the worst because of its reach. The CBS Evening News under Katie Couric is beyond vapid, a very bad fluffy morning show. Her interview with Condi Rice on 60 Minutes last week was appalling in its journalistic airheadedness. Couric is hardly the worst offender. And she is there doing this shtick because she has been put there by others. The broadcast news media is terrified of Bush and they are abasing themselves wildly before the mid-terms.
ABC has more on Foley
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thebl…..warne.html
Ambassador Wilson -what a pleasure to have you join us! And thank you for helping Ned!
masculine_monica_nyc #122 –
Methinks you underestimate how many Democratic Party members are already in place and ready to roll on investigations.
John Conyers, for starters.
Carl Levin, as Ranking Dem on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee for Investigations, Ranking Dem on Armed Services and on the Intelligence Committees as well.
Russ Feingold, on Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
And I am absolutely certain that Howard Dean at the DNC would fully support a return to accountability and transparency; Deaniacs like me pushed to have him become party chair, so that we would eventually get candidates and incumbents elected who believed in accountability and transparency.
And then there’s always folks like Jane, Christy, Pach, Matt O., TRex who are just itching to cheer on any investigations. Just need the votes.
Thank you for campaigning with Ned, Ambassador!
I’ve also never forgotten Bumiller’s pathetic lament that “it was just so scary being there in the White House press room, too scary to ask any questions” during the great sell-job that got us into Iraq.
Don’t forget Byron Dorgan and the DPC!
Welcome to my friend, Joe Wilson.
My suggestion to Lamont from the sidelines is that he point out Lieberman’s flip-flop on Social Security. Lieberman’s support is older and doesn’t fully trust Lamont as a Democrat.
I’ll try to sneak in a late question. Do you think that a Democratic House will encourage whistleblowers to come forward?
Right now, the environment is very bad. Will those in the bureaucracy that know of wrongdoing be more inclined to speak out if Dems control the House?
Sidney Blumenthal >”…Rep. Thomas Reynolds, chair of the NRCC, was told of Rep. Mark Foley’s activity as sexual predator, and covered it up…”
Apparently he wasn`t the only “duck and cover” one
Deeper, ever deeper…
“As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.” – Voltaire
The CBS Evening News under Katie Couric is beyond vapid, a very bad fluffy morning show. Her interview with Condi Rice on 60 Minutes last week was appalling in its journalistic airheadedness.
Yeah, and her blog entry on Rice was just embarrassing.
The broadcast media, I think, don’t just fear Bush. They fear republicans — and *not* democrats. I recall a column you wrote, Mr. Blumenthal, which pointed out, IIRC, that people in the media see themselves as on a par with democratic politicians, so they have no qualms about challenging democrats. Those same people see the republicans as their betters, so are reluctant to be critical.
Off to bathe the kids. But I did want to stop in to say that How Bush Rules is a running history of a rogue regime and a must read for historians as well as those interested in how Bush’s Washington is run. Bye all. Bye Sid and thanks for writing such a good book.
If the Dems don’t win say goodby to Social Security as we know it.
Ambassodor Wilson — welcome. And thank you for helping Ned Lamont today.
I also invite you to respond to the question I pose at 136. What else (in addition to inviting you — a great move) do you see Lamont doing/saying that will help move voters in the right direction in Connecticut?
If the Democrats win the House, there would undoubtedly be whistleblowers in the federal departments and agencies who would step forward but will not today. The dynamic would change.
Sidney, do you have any feeling at all whether Republicans (the ones who might once have been moderates) are open to pressure on the issue of Foley and other matters were we to launch a hailstorm of “communication” in their direction?
Joe Wilson — thank you for joining us! Give our best to Mrs. Wilson and family.
The most fascinating thing about How Bush Rules, for me, is the glimpse behind the scenes from one who’d been there once and knows the players and the score.
My dad, who covered the WH for the National Journal in the mid-70’s, told me before he died he thought Condi was the most dangerous person in the administration due to her incompetence.
How on earth did these neo-cons, who I thought had been disgraced by Iran/Contra, manage to hang on all this time? Was the remarkable coincidence of Cheney being the hunter for VP, d’ya think, the catalyst for their take-over or part of the plan?
Joe Wilson @ 137
Glad you find Ned as compelling as we do. Many of us have trekked to CT to help the cause. His victory is essential to bringing any kind of accountability to this administration as the current place holder of that Senate seat is quite the toady.
The Foley scandal has just begun. Remember what Nixon said? It’s not the crime that kills you, it’s the coverup.
Republicans know that this scandal has far reaching impact in obliterating their message on “values” and can tip numerous races.
Methinks you underestimate how many Democratic Party members are already in place and ready to roll on investigations.
That could well be true, Rayne. I am, though, well aware of the efforts of Conyers, et al. But I also am aware of the democratic leadership’s failure to learn from history, and of the republicans’ ability to work the media. As SB said above:
One of the oddities of the Clinton wars is that many Democrats thought that the assault on Clinton (and Hillary and those in responsible positions in the White House including me) was Clinton specific.
I think one of the lessons the democratic leadership didn’t learn during the Clinton years was how to deal with the media.
I think the democrats also have an increasingly better chance of taking the Senate–there’s no way Foleygate can be localized to just the House. I think it poisons the GOP brand all-around, because of its breadth and stature.
Your thoughts on the ultimate repercussions of the House scandal, and by extension, its impact on the chances for a Democratic Senate?
My friends and I are placing bets on who resigns first. I say Reynolds.
Joe Wilson @
138
Hi Joe, welcome. How was CT?
Sidney Blumenthal @ 158
Exactly! And Hastert is sweating bullets…
Hastert requests criminal probe of Foley
WASHINGTON – House Speaker Dennis Hastert requested Sunday that the Justice Department conduct an investigation into former Rep. Mark Foley electronic messages to teenage boys — a lurid scandal that has put House Republicans in political peril.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..an_e_mails
If the Democrats win the House, there would undoubtedly be whistleblowers in the federal departments and agencies who would step forward but will not today. The dynamic would change.
That is encouraging. Maybe some career civil servants who have left the federal government because of the toxicity of the Bush regime would pipe up, as well.
The neocons have no natural political constituency. There are no elected neocons (except maybe Lieberman). The neocons are political appointees who are protected by Cheney and Rumsfeld. By no means has their influence lessened. Elliott Abrams, for example, is the key person in Middle East policy through his position on the NSC. Rice is a very weak Secretary of State who is more eager to please Bush than to push diplomacy. She is also intellectually weak, aligned with the neocons on certain policies (Middle East)that fatally undermine her other initiatives. At the end of the day she will not stand up against Bush or Cheney.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 157
Tonight, CNN reporting that Hastert has asked for an FBI investigation. That took 48 hours from when the story became widely reported. Can we expect that now they will answer no questions, because “this is now being investigated?”
In the meantime, videos of 9/11 al-Qaeda, which were known and analyzed months ago, suddenly show up. What next? Diverting the news from the bad stories to the favorable stories seems a strong part of “how Bush rules.”
Neocons are not disgraced (in their mind) when they carry a pardon and anticipate another call to duty in the future.
where’s Pat Paulsen when you need him?
If Hastert is requesting a DOJ investigation, he should at least through his own powers as Speaker order an investigation of the House computer system to unearth all Foley emails to pages and make them public.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 117
Yea, the circus comes into town on Tuesday, for two of the most earnest enablers of the “Decider.”
I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters but a speedy pre-election investigation of Foley was quashed by Boehner and the Republicans when he referred the matter to the moribund (that word seems made for it) Ethics Committee. This kicked the issue past the election. Now while it is true that the Democrats might well investigate in January when they are in the majority, Hastert’s call for a DOJ investigation can be seen to have two clear political purposes. First, it gives the appearance that House Republicans are “doing” something while being an effort to defuse or damage control the affair before the election. Second, a DOJ investigation (which could well take a while to put together and be of dubious independence) could be used as a cover for less than full cooperation with any House investigation. As the late great Scott McClellan was so fond of saying, “I can’t comment because of the ongoing investigation.”
Note that elder Bush appointed not a single neocon to a position of responsibility in his administration. The idea that Jim Baker would have tolerated the neocons for a second is absurd.
Hugh: bull’s eye.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 167
I assumed that calling for a criminal investigation was his way of avoiding conducting an open, House investigation. The Leadership will simply claim they are cooperating fully with the FBI — and remove themselves from accountability and responsibility for getting any further facts out there.
Note that elder Bush appointed not a single neocon to a position of responsibility in his administration.
Well, doesn’t at least some of GWBush’s affinity for neocons derive from his disdain for his father?
Hello all.
Pardon if this question has been addressed already…I’m just joining.
The biggest issue I have is with the electronic voting machines. Diebold is run by an openly partisan Republican and there is evidence of malfeasance in Ohio in 2004. I think we need to keep a close eye on the exit polling coming out of the key races. These machines are so dangerous because there is no way to conduct a recount in the case of a close call. Why did the Democrats wait til the last week of the session to raise these issues? We must also remember what happenned with Brian Bilbray in the CA-50 special election; the results weren’t certified and Hastert swore him in anyway. What’s to stop him from swearing in illegitimate candidates in January? We need to be very skeptical and follow these races/machines closely. I think we (the blogosphere) should organize some sort of poll watching effort for 11/7. All our hard work will be for not if we let them steal another one.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as we are seeing today with the Republican party. And the truly sad part is that the democrats are too frightened to fight back, for fear of being too soft on terrorists. The republican party is the party of Terror and fear: that’s how they control our citizens, and our media. How far will we fall into the rabbit hole?
Mr. Blumenthal,
If you were able to put together a campaign “dream team” (rapid response, P.R., campaign manager), who are some of the individuals you would want on your team?
Hatert says now that Foley’s quit he’s no longer under the Houses authority. FBI and Florida authoities are determing juridiction.
I think we need to keep a close eye on the exit polling coming out of the key races.
The AP and five tv stations filed a lawsuit in FL last week challenge a state law that bars exit polls near voting places.
scarecrow @ 173
I don’t see that happening. The media smells blood in the water and won’t let this go, IMO.
I have attempted with my book to focus on Bush’s radicalism as the number one all-encompassing issue. Republicans are running away from his embrace on the campaign trail. I have tried to shine the spotlight back on him. Only a Democratic Congress can provide a check and balance. He has needed one party rule to maintain his regime. Everything is now at stake. That’s why I’m doing all I can to get this message out. Firedoglake is one of the most important voices helping to spread the message. None of us are spectators here. There’s a lot of work to be done in the weeks ahead.
Sidney Blumenthal @ 168
It appears that Foley was using an aol account for the emails. Perhaps something was left on the house computers. I have a sneaky feeling that Foley has spent all week-end formatting, magnetizing, smashing his home computers and putting parts into seperate convenient store trash cans around town.
Mr. Blumenthal, thank you so much for your work. I did read your son’s article, it is truly shocking:
Sidney Blumenthal @ 39
Mod note: the link goes to the middle of the article, possible to knock off the “4″ in his comment at 39?
Link to the first page:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/2…..ton_times/
———-egregious, reporting from California
BTW, I will be speaking at the Book Stall in Winnetka, Illinois, on October 4, at 7 pm, and at Politics & Prose, in Washington, on October 7, at 6 pm.
The republican party is the party of Terror and fear
As the king said in his radio address yesterday: “The only thing we have is fear.”
and cursed be he who cries, “Hold, enough!”
If there is lot of work to be done, why did the democrats come unglued with the NSA bill, and the torture bill? There was no unity. Why should I, or anyone else trust the democrats to do anything except vote themselves another raise?
Foley may not be a target for discipline because he no longer a member of the House but as they say, it isn’t the crime, it’s the cover-up so that leaves Hastert, Boehner, Reynolds, and Shimkus who continue to be members and in a few months are likely to find themselves in the minority. And a House investigation could still subpoena Foley to find out which of the above he may or may not have interacted with. I would expect him to show up and plead the 5th throughout.
Thank you Mr. Blumenthal. I know that I and my friends and family have never worked this hard to change the status quo that is destroying our Constitution and reputation in the world.
Sidney Blumenthal @
181
No kidding. I have so much personal stuff to take care of my head is about to explode but there is so much to do as we come up to election time it’s all getting pushed off.
This is, as you say, critically important and thanks so much for taking the time to chat with us today, Sidney. We really appreciate it.
Thanks Sidney–you’re a great and inspiring writer.
Thanks for the heads up on the Book Stall. I’ve bought books there for years. Will call the shop to make sure I have an opportunity to meet you. Am a huge fan.
I have attempted with my book to focus on Bush’s radicalism as the number one all-encompassing issue. Republicans are running away from his embrace on the campaign trail. I have tried to shine the spotlight back on him.
On Bush, himself, or on his administration? Is it not also important to tie Rumsfed, Rice, Tenet, Black, etc., around the necks of republicans running for congress?
Yes big THX Sidney,Joe and Jane.
Hugh @ 188
Yes and only slightly OT (I’m courting the edges of my own rule, I know) — Jay Fawcett (whose GOP opponent for Joel Hefley’s house seat, Doug Lamborn, was endorsed by Hastert on Friday) is over at Kos with a diary calling for Hastert to step down. If you’re a Kossack please go recommend and say “hi,” I already did.
Mr. Blumenthal- There was some discussion last week about “radical” in your title, and if “radical” itself was necessarily a bad thing. I took your use of “radical” in the context of on “rules (the ruler)” and “regime” in the title. I trust that you don’t think that “radical” is always bad. Perhaps you could clarify with your own definition of the term.
masculine_monica_nyc @
179
Last week a Federal Judge in Ohio threw out a similar law
Sidney, It’s a wonderful book, thank you.
Great post, and comments too! Yet another reason for a Democratic House: to get the House put back in order.
Hastert’s in his own pile of doo-doo with his handling of Foley over the last couple of years, given what ABC and others have reported with regard to his own participation in this. He can’t win if the investigation stays in the house – it’s got to come from outside. He’s not a disinterested Speaker of the House, but a player in the drama under investigation.
Most critical to me is whether any of those who supervise the pages reported their suspicions of Foley to the DC child abuse offices. This would include any members of the page committee with knowledge of Foley’s conduct, as well as others in the House “chain of command.” Obviously, such reports are anonymous from the agency’s point of view – for good reason – but if I were a staff member that had oversight responsibilities for the pages and I had made a report, I’d be sharing that with someone. On the other hand, if I knew about this and didn’t make a report . . . I’d be talking to my lawyer.
Maybe that’s why it took Denny 48 hours to call for a DOJ investigation.
Thank you Mr. Blumenthal – it’s a real pleasure to read your thoughts and we’re honored you took this time with us.
Great to see Sidney Blumenthal commenting here! I’ve read his dispatches from the UK with pleasure for quite awhile now. A wonderfully insightful writer (especially compared to his old pal/nemesis, the alcohol-addled Christopher Hitchens).
Meanwhile, let’s pray that Foleygate sweeps out the loathsome John Boehner along with Hastert & Shimkus & Reynolds! It’s getting exciting now!
These machines are so dangerous because there is no way to conduct a recount in the case of a close call. Why did the Democrats wait til the last week of the session to raise these issues?
Some democrats have been on this issue since 2000 [Conyers] or thereabouts [Rush Holt]. The caucus doesn’t share the concern, at least not publicly.
Ooops! I’m about to disagree with Sidney Blumenthal… (with the utmost respect).
I am inclined to disagreee with your use of the word “Radicalism” with regard Bush – insofar as the word Radicalism has implies philosophical roots. Possession of some underlying doctrine based on some recognisable set of principles.
Rather… I am inclined to see his regime as seeking continued power at any cost masquerading as “radicalism” in a Rorschach Blot kind of way for those seeking to justify their vote and continued support for him.
Bush’s supposed “ideas” might be simplistic, lacking in nuance, but they are not “radical”.
I daresay his eyes would glaze over during Neocon Philosophy 101 – before the first coffee break.
Anyhow. My twopennyworth. Offered with utmost respect
I agree with Paul in a technical sense, but ultimately (whatever the actual roots of the word) the result of Bush’s insane powermongering is radical as we understand it today, i.e., extreme, rupturous. Distressing as it is to contemplate, Bush appears to be a sociopath, enabled by a greedy, amoral Congress and mainstream media.
Bush’s supposed “ideas” might be simplistic, lacking in nuance, but they are not “radical”.
Not radical in this sense?
Sidney Blumenthal @
45
Sidney,
My conclusion on that is that not having any institutionalized power, the Democrats do not have any institutionalized methods of reaching a consensus decision that all will support.
That means that if any Democrat steps out on his own, the Republicans can find Democratic turncoats like Joe Lieberman to use against them, so (as you say) ipotence compounds itself.
Congressman Murtha has been trated that way, but his long pro-military resume, his seniority and his close connections to members of the military have shielded him from the counter-attacks. But he is tailor-made for that issue.
Without an instututional power-base in the government, any Democrat who steps out against the Republicans on a given issue can easily be separated from the flock and discredited.
That’s my best guess regarding what mechanism might cause the individual Democrats not to speak out without some form of institutional power to rely on.
I submit this idea for your criticism.
Pulp Radicalism
OT– fyi and forgive me– woodward on 60 minutes has started. (the patriots and redskins won)
Ah, the story about Rove/Abramoff/Ralson e-mails will be featured in upcoming Newsweek article.
The folks around Karl rove are on the hot seat again.
trifecta @ 182
Not to fear. AOL readily (and consistently) provides its records to the government for lesser reasons that the investigation of a sexual predator.
masculine_monica_nyc @ 204
Fiar comment. ANd indeed, ONE of the “definitions” of radical in the Webster Dictionary speaks to this.
I did preface my comment with an “inclined to think”….. good debate nonetheless!
It’s the conflict between definition [2] and [3] that set me off in a somewhat confused direction.
Anyhow. It’s just a word. And we all know he’s trying to change the status quo vis a vis unitary power in the exec. My contention is that this is to stay one step ahead of any accountability, rather than for reasons of a sincere, radical belief in some philosophical principle.
“Main Entry: radical
Pronunciation: ‘ra-di-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root — more at ROOT
1 : of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1) : of or growing from the root of a plant (2) : growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground b : of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c : of or relating to a mathematical root d : designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue
2 : of or relating to the origin : FUNDAMENTAL
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs “
Mr. Blumenthal,
Welcome to FDL !
thanks so much for taking the time to be with us here today.
am late to the thread but am pleased to see all my questions have been asked and answered
can not tell you how many times your work has prompted a welcomed a ha ! slap to the forehead – it’s like knowing what cards they are holding
may you enjoy every success with this book
Mr. Blumenthal, it’s an honor to have you at FDL.
John Casper @ 213
Ditto. Thank you for taking our questions.
masculine_monica_nyc #202 –
Maybe it’s the use of the word “caucus” that throws me, but to whom are you referring to when you use that label?
Howard Dean on electronic voting in 2004 (BEFORE the November elections) — I’ve never heard anything from him that indicated he’s backpedaled on this position.
John Conyer’s report was completed by Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee — I’ll bet that’s more than a handful of Dems, and that a clear majority of House and Senate Dems concur with the findings.
At state and local level, I know that Dems are very, VERY concerned about this; I’ve yet to run into one who hasn’t agreed with the Conyer’s report findings.
Who is this “caucus”?
Thanks to Jane and Christy and everybody at FDL for making these chats possible. Everyday. whether I observe by reading or participate actively here, I feel like I am part of something positive. On Sundays and during our ActBlue chats, I really feel like we are participating in a 21st century model of democracy.
It’s so fantastic! Reading the wonderful books along with all of you is also powerful.
GREAT comments, GREAT article, haven’t read the book yet but willSidney Blumenthal @ 78
do you think it’s possible to overcome election fraud?
e voting, preventing democrats from voting, providing too few polls where there is a concentration of democrats
here at firedog lake, not too many people believe Bush won either election, the second one in particular we believe was due to e voting, 40,000 votes more then voters and facts like that
what can we possibly do to insure a proper count, a proper turnout, and the actual results we vote?
Breaking News, via ABC and MyDD –
Time For Hastert To Resign
Sidney Blumenthal @ 154
let me mention something that’s VERY important as far as “whisleblowers”
the term is self defeating
the term itself carries a negative connotation similar to “rat fink”
we NEED to change the dynamic, we NEED to change the title of the protections for these watchdogs of democracy
I propose we end the use of “whistle blower” and begin using the term “watchdogs of democracy”
this sentence from the Publishers Weekly review really ticked me off -
reeaally ???
forget the nine retired generals – in light of this week’s news that the Army Chief of Staff has taken the unprecedented step of publicly refusing to sign Rumsfeld’s budget -
maybe the PW reviewer can get together with that little wonkette wannabe over at NYTROB and share their meal of crow
oh yeah, they got a letter
Sidney Blumenthal @
54
The right-wingers seem to have no idea that their power is ultimately limited.
What likelihood do you give to the idea that instead of accepting defeat at the hands of the Congress and the Supreme Court they might instead attempt some form of coup de etat or similar extra-Constitutional action?
When faced with failure it is my impression that the right-wingers will normally attempt to avoid defeat by escalating their attacks with no regard for propriety or normal social limitations.
I would expect such an action to be a combination of propaganda followed by military action because of “the Emergency.”
No, I’m not paranoid. I’m a Democrat living in Texas. Since 1994 I have watched Republicans attempt to eliminate all boundaries on their power, and I have been thankful for the almost dysfunctional State Constitution adopted here as soon as the Republican Army withdrew after Reconstruction. I don’t think they will admit to defeat without taking ulimate action unless clearly stopped somehow.
SherAn @ 210
Wouldn’t that be poetic justice for the Republicans? The House leadership hoisted by its own petard…
masculine_monica_nyc @ 204
WHat’s more, monica, a careful reading of this [3] definition, speaks to “advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs”. RETAIN? RESTORE?
Is there is a “radicalism” to be applied as a concept here – and I think there MIGHT be… it is all the way back to the idea of Monarchy. And that, by definition, is UNAmerican!
Good luck there in USA anyhow. Today has been interesting to see the intellectual exchanges going on. And Sidney Blumenthal is one of the high priests of the much needed intellectual movement to undermine these fascists.
Gotto go. It’s sun up here in Bangkok.
——————————————-
“3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs ”
me to me >
Democracy`s Inspector Generals (hat tip to Jesus`s General)
“Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable” – attributed to John F. Kennedy
“How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime”
So, I’m multitasking and off reading Justin Raimundo at antiwar.com and he gives a link entitled Red State Fascism
I think this reinforces Mr. Blumenthal’s premise to elect Democrats
Thank you Mr. Blumenthal
I have been out of the country this week, in China. There, CNN International has had the Foley story, also in China Daily. This is big.
CNN also has the maps of the Senate and House seats that look likely to change. They say “a week is a very long time in the campaign season, and there are still 3 weeks to the elections.”
I think the wheels are coming off the wagon very fast now. Despite all the bad news this week vis a vis the last minute votes on torture, appropriations, and etc.
The media is joining in with some critiques now, at last. Mr. Blumenthal’s book and all the others hitting the stands now along with the emerging additional ethics scandals that have the potential to tar the rest of the Republicans who have taken money, will help American voters to realize that it is time for a change.
that’s b/c they never took the time to read
‘Fall of the Rovean Empire’ – my favorite bedtime story
http://dir.salon.com/story/opi…..index.html
Sidney Blumenthal @ 154
The election of a new Representative Colleen Rowley (MN-2) would not only help that change to happen, but it might also channel the phone calls to a single office. Not to get ahead of the election, but might I suggest she look for an appointment to Henry Waxman’s committee. They could probably use a former FBI agent . . .
me to me @ 217
I don’t see any negative connotations to it. It’s a term accepted by the whistleblowers themselves, and has, traditionally, meant someone who’s attracting attention to the breaking of rules–just like the sports referees from which the term derives.
Cheers.
cbl 227 — Ah, thank you so much for linking that article! I’d enjoyed that one, too, was alternatingly happy with validation, disturbed by the implications, and hopeful that the House of Rove could be upended.
Which brings me to yet another question for Sidney, if he’s still reading here:
Did you happen to read the emails published by the House Reform Committee via Henry Waxman? If so, do you have a different opinion of any of the players involved in the Team Abramoff scandal?
Personally, I can no longer believe that Susan Ralston was an innocent administrative person used by scheming manipulators; I believe she was in it up to her ears as well, scheming along with them, although perhaps not as gifted. Yet.
Just Say NO to Republican Child Molesters –
Vote Democratic . . .
Rayne @
230
Rayne – apropos of what you just mentioned about Susan Ralston, have you seen this? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15…../newsweek/
I want to be a poll watcher this November. If I had a choice, I’d go where a large number of hispanic voters are expected.
It seems to me little has been discussed about possible shifts in the latino vote since the massive demonstrations last spring against Republican immigration policy. It’s true that some of the most important things are often the least talked about. I’d be shocked if republicans don’t harbor some fear that could prompt targeted shenanigans.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 232
From the article by Sidney Blumenthal, linked to by cbl:
oh sweet jesus Jane Hamsher, thank you so much for this
Rayne – how about The Long March of Dick Cheney ?!?! – a virtual primer for anyone having to be anywhere near Cheney /Rumsfeld – (clearly Condi has digested it’s lessons) either folks like Powell or Card didn’t read it or these clowns somehow think it will be different for them
and hey Stephen Parrish, CPA – ah Jack Abramoff – the gift that keeps on giving*g*
Mr Blumenthal –
I’ve not yet read your new book, but I want to personally thank you for Our Long National Daydream, an artfully-presented rogues gallery, many of whose personages continue to menace our country (Will, Ledeen, Perle). It’s great stuff.
My question is: David Frum has been yammering in his mournful neoconhack way for a few days now that Bush is going to deal with Iran in a fashion that lets the Iranians keep a nuclear almost-capability. In neocon terms, this of course is a sell-out (a conclusion the tone of Frum’s writing makes plain), the prefered and manly neoconservative course being to bomb Iran into the stone age. Frum alleges that at least one story has been planted in the WaPo to prepare the proper framing of the deal. What Frum is implying is that there is someone within the administration who is encouraging Bush, for domestic political reasons (’06 elections) to make the deal, to Bush’s advantage. In other words, Frum says that while many think Bush will attack Iran before the elections, he sees Bush appeasing Iran instead. Does Frum mean Karl Rove? Is there a schism or a potential for a schism here, between the nutcase-war wing and the political wing at the WH? Is Frum paranoid? Is there a (relatively speaking) good angel whispering in the ear attached to the Preznit’s melon that might counter the war-mongering demons whispering in the other ear?
Muzzy @ 233
You can link the recent detainee treatment bill to the issue you’re interested in. This was in the Boston Globe last week.
LEGAL RESIDENTS’ RIGHTS CURBED IN DETAINEE BILL
Published on September 28, 2006
Author(s): Farah Stockman, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being “enemy combatants.”
cbl @ 5:37 pm –
and hey Stephen Parrish, CPA – ah Jack Abramoff – the gift that keeps on giving*g*
As you can see, that’s not the only gift that keeps on giving!
Good Lord is Americablog finding bruiser material
referees and lifeguards are whistle blowers
chisholm @
239
Do you have a link, please? What in particular do you see there?
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
G.O.P. = Grotesque Obscene Perverts
SP CPA — yes, I’d seen that Newsweek bit; I’d ranted about all of the emails throughout the course of a couple of threads on Friday, including that damning bit in March 2002 where Abramoff mentions the upcoming war in Iraq. Ugh…don’t get me started.
I’m in the process of converting all those emails from PDF’s to text files, for the viewing and searching “pleasure” of others. There’s so much criminality in them that the House Reform Committee couldn’t touch but that we can nail them on in the near future; text will help us greatly.
cbl — oh, yes, The Long March of Dick Cheney was equally wonderful and disgust-inducing. I’ve thought of that article a few times recently; it’s crossed my mind that the October Surprise could be a new “Halloween Massacre”, wherein Cheney displaces Rummy in a reverse move of the first Halloween Massacre, in order to prop up Dubya’s JAR’s. Dubya’s JAR’s are the bellweather indicator we need to watch; if his JAR moves above 42%, winning any one of the two houses is nominal. It’s funny, however, that although even the right-wingers vehemently dislike Cheney, his JAR never affects Bush or the rest of the Repug party, yes?
Wow. From Americanblog:
GOP Rep. “Shimkus is toast”
They held a lottery for the pages to bid on who got to go to dinner with Foley.
“You can’t make this up.” Jane Hamsher
scarecrow @ 237
IIRC while military commissions are restricted to “alien” unlawful enemy combatants, there is no such restriction on being declared an “unlawful enemy combatant”. Even an American citizen could be so declared and then be held indefinitely because anyone held under this status has no habeas corpus right.
Welcome to the new improved United States.
George Soros, previously on Book Salon, now on Book tv — C-SPAN2, being interviewed for Age of Fallibility
“It is not our will that is being tested; it is our understanding of reality.”
New Thread — Toxic
Sorry I didnt get to ask this question of Mr. Blumenthal but I’ll throw it out here and check back later.
What do you make of Bush’s replacement of John Carlin, the national archivist, with Allen Weinstein? Will Weinstein be able to rewrite the book on the Bush administration? And is there any oversight of the national archivist?
I have been reading this book and I highly recommend it to anyone interested about this administration. It’s well written and engrossing. I am drawn to it when not reading it. I have to say, though, that I cannot come to feel anger towards Woodward. Maybe the watergate thing and all it did made me see him as this wonderful person or something. It just carrys over even if you disagree with him. I do sometimes feel he needs the guiding hand of Bernstien still to keep him focused and critical. But, I just cannot whip up anger towards him.
Where is the American judicuary that took an oath to up-hold the laws that the criminal republicans are breaking on a daily basis?