This is too important a gathering of minds not to push back:

I don’t see how the regime can be held accountable on the scale needed without using the impeachment mechanism. And not using it effectively means that the single most important tool for maintaining checks/balances, accountability, and separation of powers was simply discarded — for all time. If it doesn’t apply now, when would it ever apply? And how could it ever again serve as a check on unlimited executive power?

Which of the national issues — and Congress is doing such a bang up job on them all, right? — that might suffer from a lack of oxygen is more important than this?

just want to repeat this…

Personal attacks are not permitted. Civil disagreement is encouraged. Threads are kept open for 24 hours to allow discussions to continue even though there is a new post up.

Comments will be pulled that attack or belittle others on the thread. The fact that one uses a nom-de-blog is not justification for belittling their comment.

First, thanks Glenn, for your insights here and on Salon, and for your book, which I’ve pre-ordered and am looking forward to.

Second, as tempting as impeachment would be, there’s a serious question. Sometimes people, even those who hate the status quo, will fight like cornered badgers if their home turf is attacked from outside. Iraq has taught us this bitter lesson.

Do we want to spur the Republicans into doing the same thing? They are now totally demoralized and depressed, but an attack on their already wounded leader might be the one thing that could rouse and rally them. Do we want that? Might it be better to just let Bush limp to the finish line while his party sinks deeper into its funk?

That’s risky, yes, so long as he still holds presidential power and command of the military. But it might be more so if he panics under pressure.

Yes, I’d like to see him and his gang in the dock, but the statute of limitations won’t run out on 1/20/09. Especially if his successor is a Democrat.

Raymond, thanks for the reply. If you are still watching this thread I’d be glad to see additional sources, links, etc.

We may be the only two here on this thread. Thus, I’ll be happy to continue our dialogue, although perhaps we’d be well advised to move our discussion forward to a more current thread in order to avoid the syndrome of simply talking to ourselves and failing to effect any community change.

That said, thanks for the Coll recommedation. I’ve just requested it from my library. I am so busy that it’s hard to keep up with everything, but I think you’ve finally convinced me to put this one on my list.

As to a follow-up on “Charlie Wilson’s War” I’d certainly recommend that you read Seymour Hersh’s remarkable revelation about the escape from Kunduz of thousands of “enemy combatants” in November, 2001 at the behest of the upper echelon of U.S. military control.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER206A.html

I have suffered a hard drive crash and lost about 2 Mb of citations (bookmarks) recently so I will tell you that the Taliban, al Qaeda and Pak-ISI fighters who were spared in the Kunduz Airlift were next spotted in the Kashmir in January, 2002 where they spearheaded the largest border incidents in decades, creating a near-nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and the intolerably right-wing ultranationalist Hindu government of India at the time. And qui bono? (Who benefits?) you might ask? Well, there are unconfirmed reports of battalions of American military contractor sales forces swarming over the capitols of Islamabad and New Delhi at the time.

Is al Qaeda the most useful tool the militarists have in their kit since the old U.S.S.R. went kaput? Indeed it seems so.

So, how do we get some mirth out of all this madness? One suggestion I might make to you is the delightfully over-the-top send-up “Outsourced” by Raelynn Hillhouse. Read her very informative blog here: http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/

“Outsourced” takes a known premise, that the C.I.A. and the D.O.D. are at war with each other and creates a perfect satire that leaves everyone looking like a damn fool, a delirious knave or a deviant demigod. Good stuff, Maynard.

***
But let’s not just pick on the CIA and the DoD. No, that wouldn’t be fair. Let’s make note that the NSA no longer seems able to calculate how much electricity it needs to provide for. Pretty basic math, in my humble opinion as a retired electrical contractor. Why is the NSA so lame? http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/06/24/1718214.shtml

Oh… never mind. I recall now. The idea with corruption is to rip off the taxpayer, not to make sense.

Still seeking sanity, Ray

The premise of America is and always has been that imposing limitations on government power is necessary to secure liberty and avoid tyranny even if it means accepting an increased risk of death as a result. That is the foundational American value.

This reminds me of the Jefferson quotes:

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither.”

Seems to me that far too many people are willing to make that trade.

How do we get back to where Jefferson wanted us to be?

Sure, don’t give government too much power. Choose wisely what you would have government be able to do, because it will do that and more you probably don’t want.

Personally, I don’t think Jefferson was exactly right. You should be free. But you can’t be allowed to let your factory’s pollution kill the air and water. A little less liberty for the factory owner means more life for everyone else. What’s wrong with that balance?

Start with a substrate of basic Freedom (Courts, Civil Rights Law, Property Law, Contract Law) add a layer of Liberal Restraint which individuals can’t manage by themselves (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Product Safety, Child Labor Law, etc.). That gives you the so-called Free enterprise of Republicans and part of the Liberal New Deal. After that you have to be very careful to avoid too much ’safety net’ because that way leads to Socialism and too much interference of Government in the People’s lives. Government should govern, not control or own or coerce or force.

Beyond this there is government activism of several types. The Safety Net helps people as individuals and families. The National Guard and FEMA fall into that category as easily as Social Security or Legal Aid or Farm Bureaus.

Promoting Commerce has been a big topic of debate since the Great Depression. But, I can’t imagine a single Conservative today who would oppose that Commie idea. Strange how times change. Still, it should be approached with great hesitation. Government involvement in the private sector should govern and assist, but not control or give special favors.

Perhaps one of the biggest things political leaders are needed to do is to shape the superstructure of the Law to allow for change in the commercial world and to protect people as change occurs.

The world has changed rather quickly and dramatically since the formation of America. Fortunately our political system has accommodated that pretty well.

Where would Jefferson ‘be’ in today’s world? Who knows? There are many ways to ensure freedom.

For those who are interested, Wes Clark and VoteVets have a petition/website Stop Iran War.

Please don’t be put off by the opening page, which is a petition to bush — there are several useful tools: send a message to Congress, write your local newspaper (at the “Take Action” link), the “Supplies” link provides printable signs, doorhangers, t-shirt transfers, and petitions you can carry with to gather signatures. At the “Grassroots” link, you can order Stop Iran War Buttons — for FREE, thanks to a couple creative and industrous Clarkies.

Please take a few moments to check it out. The more of us speaking out, the better chance we will be heard.

I consider George W Bush to be an immoral sociopath, who believes his world view (and himself) to be Good, and anything that does not serve his world view (and his self-anointed glorious self) to be Evil.

This is the point at which I am discomfited — “Good and Evil” as concept implies a moral framework; Dick Cheney is the essence of amorality, while George W Bush sees himself as the center of the moral universe, and anything that does not serve his interests is evil.

Bush has portrayed the GWOT as a Good vs Evil struggle, which is the root of the military and diplomatic disaster. On the other hand, Bush is blinded by a personal sense of righteousness that is nothing more than sociopathic narcissism — GWB operates without the faintest trace of anything that is considered moral by an average person.

For example: Bush is fighting the imaginary GWOT against Islamic radicalism — since Bush sees himself as the essence of Good, this allows him to ship arms to Sunni Islamic radicals to fight Shia Islamic radicals (and vice versa) depending on whatever he feels most threatened by at the moment. There is no moral center to George W Bush, other than his narcissistic personal identity, and his belief that he is the agent of God.

Another example: Bush hates Democracy, because it gives his opponents (evil incarnate, by his definition) the opportunity to undermine his glorious authority. Hence, using USAs and caging lists and voter purges and voter intimidation and corrupt right wing judges to undermine democracy is a good thing to GWB — for George W Bush, the only scandal in the US Attorney firings is that his (evil) enemies are questioning his authority.

On the other hand, democracy is a useful tool for George W Bush, which makes it “Good.” Talking about Democracy allows GWB to con the rubes and get his way, which is twofer “Good” in the Bush worldview; second, “Democracy” and the rule of law gives GWB and his ruling class gangster cronies the opportunity to seize power, and use the government to advance his own interests. For George W Bush, democracy is both good and evil — although mostly, it’s just another tool in his gangster tool kit.

At any rate, these are some of the issues I have with using “Good and Evil” in the same breath as George W Bush — Bush is an evil man, precisely because he sees himself as the center of Good in the universe.

The narcissism you highlight is what also motivated Saddam Hussein. He was very scared of any perceived threats to his well being, especially his political standing. Thus he could forced to act on his own inhibitions against his best interests at the drop of a hat.

Ambassador Wilson mentioned this in interviews, linked to the pages of TPM that contain Marshall’s interviews available at The Politics of Truth, web page.

The overt calling out of a bully like Saddam and his bluff stakes by Wilson during the first Gulf War shows how well you could determine reactionaries based on their own underlying weaknesses.

For years Saddam lost interactive effectiveness within his country as a result of such inadequacy. Factions, rivals, possible coup splinters were what he perceived legitimate levers of society and government to be at times. So he created enemies where he could of had allies, internally.

These people were later backed by outsiders, but the traction these efforts gained were the result of narcissistic leadership inflaming and inspiring said reactions.

Thus after 9-11 Bush says “with us or with the terrorists” to codify just such a mindset, catered to his own sense of the need to use locker room talk and cowboy bravado to mask policy shortcomings.

Bush had the world ready to help America, his personality was catered to by his handlers, Cheney allowed that to happen for different control methods. His selfishness in business and profiteering eliminated true diverse coalition building to limit America’s risk and maximize the odds for success. His was goal driven, profit and control of targeted fiscal outcome shaped Cheney’s aim. He would shoot opponents (and friends) in the face and shape narratives through control of media, of military, and of torture. Bush’s stance remained the result of his own Oedipal desires to prove self in one upmanship of dad’s handlers, like James Baker, and their caution in the winds of international and regional consensus. They surrendered the shot for Bush Sr to grab two terms in Dubya’s view. Unfortunately it so happened almost every tactic employed for control motifs of Cheney catered to the same sense of being an electoral and rhetorical bully that feeds Bush’s sense of purpose in campaigning.

The biggest part of the tragedy is what this ends as, for a lame duck has no reason to stay in such campaigning modes, and can change things that needs be addressed for the good of government than for expedient results.

This is being abandoned though, the one person most likely able to change this now is Sec.Rice, and she is finding the same wall by Cheney for control that others were forced to abide by.

Iran is the hedge item, she can bring the East and West together via Iran, stabilize the risk of energy futures for the world, and fund a new era of growth on all fronts. Cheney wants war, ten dollar a gallon gas, the coming collapse it will drive on the world economy so he can continue hedge management and predatory purchase of market share. He’s the Monopoly guy, duck tail suits for duck pick hunters. Throwing around bank notes like insults in the Senate chambers, because he can. That continues to feed the sensibilities, or rather lack thereof, of Dubya.

The thing feeds on itself, the thing speaks for itself. Res ipsa los loquitor.

Zach @ 305

In terms of Western Intel financing Al Qaeda… Is the premise that this goes back to what I would call “pre-Al Qaeda”, ie. when Bin Laden was in Afghanistan fighting the USSR? If so, that is not a new theory. It seems that the CIA/ISI and Saudis were involved in funding and training.

Hi Zach,

We will actually get to see this story unfold on the big screen on Christmas Day. George Crile’s paean to Texas playboy arrogance, “Charlie Wilson’s War” is directed by Mike Nichols. This should be interesting. I know Nichols and co-star Philip Seymour Hoffman to be impassioned liberals. It’s hard to tell what they’ll come up with with an ultra-nationalist poser (er, I mean’t to say ‘actor’) like Tom Hanks in the lead. I’m sensing a mixed message.

The book itself was very enlightening and informative for me.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780802141248-8

While it was basically a hagiography to Charlie Wilson (who has retired from the House to lobby full time, especially for Pakistan) the book did expose much of the arrogance and willful disregard for the rule of law that is so endemic to our intel services.

So, in brief, we can say that the U.S. CIA’s largest covert operation in history was the funding of the mujahedeen resistance in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The operatives who were part of that branched out to become the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the Arab-Afghanis who were harbored by the Taliban, other “al-Qaeda” type operatives who flowed out of CIA created and then al Qaeda operated camps into such other hot spots as Chechnya, the Balkans, Kashmir and other venues. If you are interested in some of this history, I can provide more detail and more links.

Raymond, thanks for the reply. If you are still watching this thread I’d be glad to see additional sources, links, etc. This period of time that we are discussing remains very relevant and there is much to be learned. Much of my knowledge on the topic is from the below book that I read several years ago.

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 by Steve Coll

Therefore, the legacy of Bush and the neocons has not completely been “destroyed” — they still seek the total destruction to America’s legacy, as well. Imo, this will precipitate with their lunge towards Iran, militarily. And when Bush sets course towards this next debacle, he’ll drag our democracy and our citizens down with him to the abyss of shame for generations ….with shreds of our Constitution in his jaws.