Tuesday, May 22, 2007

we just need to get the fuck out

* Atrios:
"The resistance of many pundits to the notion that we just need to get the fuck out is due in part to their belief that We Must Be Able To Do Something. Things are fucked, and someone needs to fix the poblem. It's understandable that people gaze at a disaster, especially one of our own making, and imagine that there's something we can do to somehow make things better, but that doesn't mean that we can. More than that, our presence is a not insignificant part of the problem even if our absence won't cause the pony to appear.

We didn't have the ability to unshit the bed two years ago, and we don't have it now. More than that, this basic belief is part of what caused otherwise sensible people think we could fix things in Iraq in early '03.


* emptywheel:
"But just as important as the new details are the way Comey's testimony changes the scope of this investigation. By describing an event that clearly implicated the White House--and George Bush specifically--in flouting the law, Comey undercut Gonzales' effectiveness as a firewall. For four months, Gonzales has remained in office because he prevented Congress from investigating the White House. But Comey's testimony gave Congress all it needed to justify much more intrusive investigations of the White House.

Those of us paying attention have known Gonzales was a creepy sycophant since before he joined the Administration (though Republican Senators were still able to deny that). But the nature of the charges against Gonzales--and Bush--have changed.


* emptywheel argues that the NSA domestic wiretapping began after 911.

* Digby:
"It's a hard thing to do --- whistleblowers are often somewhat eccentric, because you have to be the kind of unusual person who is willing to go against the prevailing wisdom and throw yourself in front of extremely powerful institutions and people who are deeply threatened by what you have to say. I get why so few people ever do it.


* Sperry:
"Today Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Franks exalt the initial Afghan operation as an unqualified success ("remarkable," in fact, Rummy boasts). But Osama bin Laden is on the loose again because they allowed him to escape from Tora Bora, and then blew him off apparently for good to start a wag-the-dog war in Iraq that's back-firing, big-time. It's that simple.

If bin Laden directs another attack on America from his new redoubt inside Pakistan, the flawed Afghan operation will go down – alongside the non-sequitur war in Iraq – as the worst chain of military blunders in U.S. history."

6 comments:

«—U®Anu§—» said...

In the early 1970s it was well known one didn't discuss illegal things on telephones. I figure mass wiretapping has been going on a very long time. Hey everybody, check it out: Bush issued a directive saying he can control everything in the country in an emergency. We can all relax a little bit with Fuhrer Poobah at the wheel.

Kax said...

I'm telling you those little shit eating grins you see on Repugnican faces as they scoff at us means Martial law is just around the corner. Forget about elections. Can't you just see the Roverator laughing his ass off as concerned Dems rail about paper trails for voting?

Kax said...

EW: Colleen Rowley, former FBI agent who was obstructed in her pursuit of one of the 9/11 highjackers before the event, says that the NSA intercepts began BEFORE 9/11. When this subject first came up, I knew the reference, during her campaign, but can't remember now, exactly where she said it. I think it may have been to Congress when she personaly delivered her testimony.

«—U®Anu§—» said...

Way back then, there actually was voice recognition technology, even though microprocessors were years away. The excuse was the same old, tired "protecting children" from drugs, but Washington cast a far broader net. And who was our President? Richard Nixon. Nixon wanted to require everyone to have a federal "emergency" radio in their homes which would turn itself on to deliver messages from our fearless leader, a dumb idea which died a quiet death. That there are people stupid enough to think such things are necessary still baffles me. I guess there are just a lot of pathetic cowards in the world.

steven andresen said...

digby said above,

"It's a hard thing to do --- whistleblowers are often somewhat eccentric, because you have to be the kind of unusual person who is willing to go against the prevailing wisdom and throw yourself in front of extremely powerful institutions and people who are deeply threatened by what you have to say. I get why so few people ever do it."

In a hospital, as we work day to day to save lives and help people, as a friend of mine put it, one would be encouraged to point out some problem that occurred, or occurred frequently that might harm a patient. So, some drug has been given, and maybe given a lot, but, come to find out, it has been making that patient sicker. The fact that giving that drug has been a mistake, made by the doctors, does not and should not prevent anyone from pointing this out. In this environment, the welfare of the patient comes before the feelings or reputation of the people who take care of them.

The fact that whistleblowers are rare, despite the American people being constantly and seriously harmed, suggests that government is not taking care of its people as it should. It's off doing other things instead.

lukery said...

Kax - thnx for that re Rowley. Was she talking about 'legit' nsa spying, or something else?

SteveA - you're spot-on with the hospital analogy. The recent interview that Sibel gave really highlights a) the problems we face, and b) the reason why WBers are so rare.

It's sad, it's wrong, and it's dangerous.