Bring It On!

What Did The President Know, And When Did He Know It

March 13th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |

Richard Nixon, it seems, has posthumously moved up the rankings of presidential success stories. He’s not at the bottom of the list anymore. Oh, I know that the history books haven’t yet caught up to this reality, but they will. I mean really, how could they not?

As his prideful house of cards continues to crumble around him, George W. Bush is quickly being exposed as either the most petty, egocentric, dishonest and dispassionate person ever to hold the office of President of the U.S.A or he is the world’s biggest dolt. And frankly, a dolt probably wouldn’t have a patented insta-smirk ready to dish out at a moments notice. They just aren’t always that quick on the uptake.

The instances of failure by this administration would span volumes, but failure alone does not bring a president’s stature all the way down to the basement. And a look at the life of George himself would provide ample evidence of an egocentric personality, but again, people tend to expect a more extroverted, self-assured individual in leadership positions, so egocentricity can often be masked well enough. But American’s don’t like their elected officials to be callous or patently dishonest. And when it comes to good old ‘W’ no one does callous or dishonest better.

We already know that multitudes of statements made by the president, his lackies, and Darth Cheney don’t hold up as truth. Of course, we didn’t know it at the time they were spoken, but truth has a funny way of finding the light, and as a result we learned that:

-Despite saying “no one thought airplanes would be used by terrorists” the president and high staff were briefed in August 2001 of just such a possibility and of the increasing probability of just such an attack.

-Despite promising to defeat the Taliban and capture or kill aq-Qaeda and bin Laden, Bush later admitted he “didn’t think about him all that much.” Then later he restated it as a top priority.

-Despite saying that no one anticipated the levies in New Orleans being breached, later video evidence showed Bush receiving just such a briefing before the storm hit.

-Despite insisting that Iraq was on the verge of delivering nuclear or biological weapons into the US, all the evidence now points to an opposite reality. Evidence that Team Bush chose not to include in their public statements.

-Overstating the costs of war. Paying lip service to troop support while cutting pay, triple deploying, gutting the VA, outsourcing care without oversight, underarming soldiers, undertraining soldiers, poisoning troops with depleted uranium materiel. And denying or lying about all of it.

But hey, there’s more- and it’s brand spanking new!

According to reports out today, the US Attorney firing scandal goes all the way up to the top of the food chain. After days of White House denials that the firings were politically motivated, the news is alive today with information that seems to show that the plan to eliminate several, and at one point maybe all, the US Attorneys was hatched at the highest levels. How Bush could not have known about the talk is incredulous I think. Unless we go back to considering him a dolt.

And another report has surfaced that claims that the torture at Abu Grhaib was authorized by Executive Orders. Those, for you who aren’t sure, are only handed down by the president. Yet at the time when the scandal broke, Bush vehemently claimed the “we do not torture.”

The question for America is what did Bush know and when did he know it. Unlike Nixon though, where that same question was rather narrow in scope, with Bush the question applies to almost every deceitful action he’s taken since 9-11-01. And in case after case, after repeated denials, it seems that the president not only knew about the act in question, but either authorized it himself or acquiesced as his flunkies did the dirty work.

When Bush had the majority of Congress to look the other way and rubber stamp his designs, there was little for him to worry about and even fewer glimpses into the dirty workings of this crew. Now with a Democratic led Congress, the shutters are being opened. House speaker Pelosi insisted that impeachment was off the table. But like the president, who always insists that all options remain on the table, as each new indication of presidential abuse and deceit is exposed, impeachment must once again become a viable option.

[tag]Bush, Bush+lies, US+Attorney+Firings, Abu+Graib+Torture+Bush, impeachment[/tag]

  1. 31 Responses to “What Did The President Know, And When Did He Know It”

  2. By Lazy Iguana on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Bush will probably get away with it all. The Democratic Party seems to be terrified to utter the I word.

    Maybe this has to do with the Clinton fiasco. You know, two impeachments too close together. Except in this case, impeachment charges are warranted. The illegal wiretaps. The expansion of executive powers even when that expansion limits or removes civil rights, the signing statements saying “congress passed this law, but I declare it does not apply to me”. The false case for this war. The closed door energy policy that we still do not know attended - and then the record profits for the oil barons at the expense of working people. And so on. And on. And on.

    All you right wingers who think all of the above is a GOOD thing - consider this! One day, Hillary Clinton may get THOSE SAME POWERS. And then after her - dare I say it - Nancy Pelosi may get those powers! And if this happens - then how “good” will they be? You know that the war on terror will not end in the next 20 - 50 years.

    Impeaching Bush will remove all those powers instantly - guaranteeing that Hiliray never gets them. You all should support charges at this point!
     

  3. By Liberal Jarhead on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    As you pointed out, Bush is habitually callous and dishonest.  Some of his other prominent traits are:

    A tendency to disregard laws and moral standards, including a history of criminal behavior;

    A pattern of impulsiveness and an ”I want what I want when I want it” attitude, together with little tolerance for frustration;

    Claiming to care greatly about people and situations when his actions show indifference;

    Blaming the consequences of his actions on others, and the accompanying failure to learn from his mistakes;

    Vindictiveness; 

    A history of abusive and sadistic behavior, as described by his siblings and seen in his treatment of people he dislikes now; 

    A condescending attitude;

    The ability to charm people one on one; 

    A pattern of using people without concern for their welfare;

    A pattern of gaffes and “tone-deaf” remarks that show a fundamental inability to understand others’ feelings and perspectives;

    Anger management problems; 

    A history of thrill-seeking behavior and abuse of stimulant drugs, i.e. cocaine, and alcohol; 

    A sense of entitlement.

    These are all symptoms of the phenomenon known variously as severe antisocial personality disorder, sociopathy, and psychopathy.  Speaking as a therapist with a lot of experience working with people like this in prison and other places, I consider the man a clear-cut psychopath - if he hadn’t been born into a family that could shield him from consequences, he would have been in prison a long time ago.  He has surrounded himself with others like him - Rove, Cheney, the AG and others in his cabinet, and the judges he appoints.  The trail of wreckage they are leaving - death, destruction, and financial ruin - will take decades to clean up, and some of it is irreparable.

    They should be investigated, and if the evidence warrants it as it almost certainly will, impeached.  I hope for that but don’t expect it.  Too many of the prominent Democrats it would take to make it happen are too deeply enmeshed in the same system of corporate patronage and cronyism as the Republican establishment. 

    Perhaps both these parties have outlived their usefulness to the American public; if someone could put together a truly new reform party, something like the Republicans when they started out, it might quickly become bigger than either of the two parties that are dominant now.  But it will take someone with more character, vision, and integrity than a Nader or a Perot.

  4. By SteveIL on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Ken Grandlund said:

    And another report has surfaced that claims that the torture at Abu Grhaib was authorized by Executive Orders. Those, for you who aren’t sure, are only handed down by the president. Yet at the time when the scandal broke, Bush vehemently claimed the “we do not torture.”

    This “brand spanking new” “report” is over 2 years old (it’s dated Dec. 21, 2004).  The fact that nothing has come from the allegations leads me to believe that this “report” is dubious at best, and from a source that is not a legitimate news source.

    As I’ve said, “liberal” Americans only have one enemy: other Americans.

  5. By christopher Radulich on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Steve

    What have conservitives ever done for this country?

    Look at the great conservitives of the past.

       The Tories (American revolution)

       The CSA

        The Know Nothing Party

       The KKK

    Then thereare their great  legestlative triumphs

       The Jim Crow Laws

       The Dred Scott Decision

     

    Then there is their fisical responsiblility

       The two biggest deficits were Reagan and Bush

       Reagan cut taxes for the rich while doubling the SSN tax.

     

    Then there is their commitment to smaller government.

     

       Both Reagan and Bush add huge amounts of people to the federal payroll.
     

     

  6. By tos on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    “consider this! One day, Hillary Clinton may get THOSE SAME POWERS.”

    The thing is she already had those powers. Remember Echelon,File Gate, and the investigating of Bill’s opponents? Swept under the rug along with these little tidbits.

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=14

  7. By manapp99 on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    The real reason the Dems are afraid of the “I” word is that a trial would debunk all of their charges and leave them with no soundbites for 08. They would rather be able to spout off about alleged illegalities without having to offer proof. I mean what if they held impeachment hearings and all the charges got shot down. Can you say Republican majority in 08. They won’t risk it as the soundbites are to valuable and require no proof.

  8. By manapp99 on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    This just in:

    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00612F73C540C778EDDAA0894DB494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fC%2fClinton%2c%20Bill

    I did not want to pay for the article and support the NYT but the blurb tells it all:

    ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS

    function submitCCCForm(){
    PopUp = window.open(”, ‘_Icon’,'location=no,toolbar=no,status=no,width=650,height=550,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes’);
    this.document.cccform.submit();
    }

    *Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information.

    March 24, 1993, Wednesday

    By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk

    Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words

    DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the …

    Check out the date tag, March 24, 1993

  9. By manapp99 on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Keep in mind, Clinton later pardoned Rostenkowski.

  10. By Dusty on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    The House drafts the articles of Impeachment and only need a simple majority to pass them on to the Senate.

    The Senate needs a two-thirds majority to convict. Obviously this means a certain number of Republicans would have to agree with the Dems and vote for conviction under the articles of impeachment.

    The lack of republican’s having the balls to vote to impeach Bush is the reason there won’t be an impeachment proceeding against the Shrub. Nothing more, nothing less. Look at how many of them distanced themselves from him in the last election, they didn’t want him to stand on the same stage as they did. Many republican’s would love to see Bush out of office..their party would be better off..but violating Reagan’s 11th commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican” seems to hold true. They keep pandering to that 27-30% base that will support the Shrub no matter what that warmongering fuckwit does.  

    Preemptive war..wtf is that? Its the new battle cry of the Bush regime. One that Bush thinks will bring him favor with historians long after he leaves office.  

  11. By Dusty on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    And Bush41 pardoned Caspar Wineberger..so fucking what manapp?

  12. By Dusty on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Why do the neocons think that bringing up Clinton will change what Bush43 has done and is doing?

    One has no bearing on the other..jesus..buy a friggin clue. 

  13. By manapp99 on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    The larger point of the NY Times article is that Janet Reno did the same as Gonzales and the move was questioned by the Federal Prosecutor in DC as being tied to the investigation of Rostenkowski. Gonzales has been trashed lately for this same action. The pardon just goes to further the evidence of corruption in the Clinton whitehouse if judged by the same standards as Bush is being judged.

  14. By Chris on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Pre- emptive war - a frighten persons excuse for killing people. For those who believe in it I suggest you try this little experiment. After a fight with a neighbor, go home, grap your gun, and shoot him/her. Then when the police arrive just explain to them that you had it on good authority that the person had a weapon and was going to use it on you sometime in the future. 

  15. By Dusty on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Yeah, right manapp..and I could of had a V-8 too. 

    Chris, preemptive war is double speak for nationbuilding and yanking apart countries that have large amounts of oil and of course threaten Israel…who btw could blow Iran off the map in a matter of minutes, thanks to all the weapons we have sold them. Israel ALREADY has nukes.

  16. By manapp99 on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    A V-8 Dusty? You and the others here have not been trashing Gonzales? Reno did not do exactly the same thing? Which fact do you take exception to? Unless it is the fact that Reno fired ALL of the US attorneys and Gonzales only fired 8.

  17. By Paul Watson on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    manapp,

    Did Reno get to appoint their successors with no Conressional oversight? Because that seems quite a big difference, wouldn’t you say?

  18. By ken grandlund on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    As someone noted earlier, this isn’t about Clinton or what his AG did in office. He’s not there. your neo-con days of trashing Bill have no effect any more. It is wasted breath. It is like complaining that Grant was a drunk. The world has moved on.

    On the other hand, Bush is here and now. His despicable crimes and lies far exceed anything done by past presidents, especially when taken in totality and viewed as a whole. Grab a single instance and say “well, so and so did it too.” SO WHAT! Did that person also do all the other wretched things as Bush has? It is the totality, as I said, that makes this guy the worst of the worst in American politics. The time to put our colelctive foot down is here and now. Put an end to the Bush nonsense and future pols may get the picture.

    We have a simple choice-do we begin to rebuild American reputation, honor, and self-image or do we continue down this path of scum?

  19. By manapp99 on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    I don’t know Paul as you have to pay to get the rest of the story. I am pointing out the fact that other Attorney Generals (one at least) have done the same as Gonzales. It changes the complection of the story don’t you think. Also when Reno fired the entire cadre both houses of congress were Dem. So oversight would not have been an issue.

  20. By Dusty on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Its traditional that all US Atty’s are replaced when a new party comes into the WH. Reagan replaced more people than Clinton..again..so fucking what?

    Try addressing Uncle Al and his history of being a stooge for the WH on all legal matters and usurping power for said Pres.

     

  21. By Dusty on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL, in his own wonderful style said this: As I’ve said, “liberal” Americans only have one enemy: other Americans.

    That makes me proud seeing as how over 65% of the American citizens agree this administration is secretive, warmongering and corrupt.

    Its the neocons who are on the defensive..they only represent up to 30% of Americans..funny how that works out ain’t it? 

  22. By manapp99 on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Ken, bringing up what past presidents goes to precedent. Relevent I believe as some are calling for resignations over the issue and expressing outrage over the firings.

    Dusty, so fucking what is exactly the point. There has been much made of this and no mention of past firings.

  23. By Dusty on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    All the past Presidents went through congress to confirm the new appointees..BUSH inserted a little clause into the Patriot Act that says he doesn’t have to go through Congress to confirm his appointments. Another Power Grab extraordinaire by BushCo.

    The traditional changing of the guard occurs everytime a new party takes control of the WH. The Shrub has been in office 6 years. THAT is what makes the Shrub’s move suspect..plus Uncle Al had the nads to state there were personnel problems..when it isn’t..once again the Boys of Bush lie and stretch the truth. 

  24. By ken grandlund on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    manapp99- again, this is now, that was then.

    When Clinton was president, I was a know-nothing 20-something without a nig eye on politics and how it affects our lives. With Bush I, Reagan, and their predecessors, I was still a kid. Prior to Nixon, I wasn’t alive. Do I care what they did in a hstorical context so far as where we are today? Sure. Does it matter one iota as it concerns how Bush behaves? Not a damn bit.

    Had I been then who I am today, I’d have railed against these abuses by any party in power, and even those out of the limelight. See, politics is supposed to be about public service, not self-service. Yet all you neo-con apologists can do is whine about who did what when? Who gives a rat fuck? This is now!

    We don’t excuse murderers because historically other people have murdered. We take each case on its own, try it on its own facts. Yet you people see no wrong in Bush’s acts, if only because ’someone else did somethign like that too.’ You apologists are shameful and intellectually dishonest and would rather pretend that Bush is some kind of hero instead of the common thug that he is. For shame.

  25. By Dr. Forbush on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    manapp99,

    OK, I ran across an old neocon web site that lists 14 impeachable offenses of Janet Reno. One of them lists the firing of 94 USAs as abuse of power. Let us assume that this is the case. Then why wouldn’t threatening the attorneys because they weren’t moving fast enough on cases of political importance be an abuse of power? And, why wouldn’t firing these attorneys for not complying be an abuse of power? Janet Reno fired everyone without regard of their politics. Which is worse? It seems to me that choosing politics over justice might be worse, but of course you have hold an illogical and politically driven opinion. This is America after all.

    http://www.netowne.com/conspiracy/important/index.htm

     

  26. By Lazy Iguana on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    You really think that there is no evidence? That is funny. Do you always bury your head deep in the sand when there are things you simply do not want to see?

    The evidence has been made public already. If you can not find it then I can not help you. I can lead you to the Pacific Ocean, but I can not force you to look at it and agree that is in in fact a huge ocean and not just some large lake.

    I do not think all Americans are my enemy. That is just silly. Conservatives can keep saying that over and over - but it will never become true. Despite what Hitler’s propaganda minister said about telling a lie over and over.

     Before this war for profit in the name of “terrorism” started I was at a bar talking with a friend of mine. In the discussion we made a series of predictions - ALL OF WHICH CAME TRUE. No WMDs were found. There is no way for us to leave. There is a Civil War going on (unless you have a better name for a war where citizens of the same country are killing each other wholesale), and so on. All came true. Not 50%. Not 40%. Not 95%. 100%.

    Meanwhile exactly 0% of what Bush has said came true. The “end of combat operations in Iraq”. “They will throw roses at our feet”. Iraq has WMDs. Yellow cake. Nukes. Making the world safer. All bullshit.

    You still want to see that evidence?

     

  27. By tos on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    who knew?

    http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

  28. By Dr. Forbush on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    tos:

    John Kerry (October 9, 2002)

    “By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war–that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America’s credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.

    “Against this disarray, it is not surprising that tough questions began to be asked and critics began to emerge. Indeed over the course of the last 6 weeks some of the strongest and most thoughtful questioning of our Nation’s Iraq policy has come from what some observers would say are unlikely sources: Senators like CHUCK HAGEL and DICK LUGAR, former Bush Administration national security experts including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, and distinguished military voices including General Shalikashvili. They are asking the tough questions which must be answered before–and not after–you commit a nation to a course that may well lead to war. They know from their years of experience, whether on the battlefield as soldiers, in the Senate, or at the highest levels of public diplomacy, that you build the consent of the American people to sustain military confrontation by asking questions, not avoiding them. Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism–they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy.”

     

    Obviously the Bush administration never asked these hard questions before we went to war…

  29. By Dr. Forbush on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    tos: 

    John Kerry (October 9, 2002)

    “As the President made clear earlier this week, “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means “America speaks with one voice.”

    “Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.”

    Well, that assumes that there are WMDs. John made a mistake by trusting the adminsitration to tell  the truth. The point is that the administration didn’t care how they got his vote, they just wanted the votes…

  30. By Dr. Forbush on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Quite interesting:

    John Kerry (October 9, 2002)

    “In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize “yet.” Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

    “The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community’s demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President’s new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

    “The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.”

     

    Well, its just to bad that John trusted the Bush administration to have American security as a priority, because in there total lack of disregard they have created a larger mess than existed before the attack on Iraq. 

  31. By SteveIL on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    Ken Grandlund said:

    When Clinton was president, I was a know-nothing 20-something without a nig eye on politics and how it affects our lives. With Bush I, Reagan, and their predecessors, I was still a kid. Prior to Nixon, I wasn’t alive. Do I care what they did in a hstorical context so far as where we are today? Sure. Does it matter one iota as it concerns how Bush behaves? Not a damn bit.

    Had I been then who I am today, I’d have railed against these abuses by any party in power, and even those out of the limelight. See, politics is supposed to be about public service, not self-service. Yet all you neo-con apologists can do is whine about who did what when? Who gives a rat fuck? This is now!

    We don’t excuse murderers because historically other people have murdered. We take each case on its own, try it on its own facts. Yet you people see no wrong in Bush’s acts, if only because ’someone else did somethign like that too.’ You apologists are shameful and intellectually dishonest and would rather pretend that Bush is some kind of hero instead of the common thug that he is. For shame.

    You are kidding, right?  The Supreme Court will use cases going back 200 years to reach conclusions in the cases it is ruling on now.  Historians will find comparisons between events that happen today with those that lasted 50 years ago, and with events that happened 2550 years ago.  Yet, you will ignore the activities of those in the past because you don’t believe they affect you now?  Let me tell you something, sir, and it is something I believe you are smart enough to know; every American event that has occurred has allowed you to do what you are doing now; to deny that is to deny history.  And then you fall into the realm of “Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it.”

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Mar 13, 2007: www.buzzflash.net

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel