
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.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
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 t