question for talkradio/pseudo troop supporters.. you claim that the Dems in the Senate have undermined the trrops..didn't they increase their salaries more than king Bush wanted? Of course King Bush sqwaked like the chickenhawk he is protested the increase. .but,but,but the GOP supports the troops better.. Oh I see the troops must love the moral support but not the financial support
Fight The Power! consortiumnews.com 'A Coup Has Occurred' By Daniel Ellsberg September 26, 2007 (Text of a speech delivered September 20, 2007) Editor’s Note: Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20. Below is an edited transcript of Ellsberg’s remarkable speech: I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state. If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth. Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? … They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they’re not now they will be after another 9/11. And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps. It’s a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran’s reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. … This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it. Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don’t think so. Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in – and there’s no move to do this at this point – unless that happens I don’t see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic. The Next Coup Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup, that completes the first. The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment. There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans. I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution. I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn’t have the exact challenge that we have today. That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren’t found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government. It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president – elected or not – with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint. When I say this I’m not saying they are traitors. I don’t think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country – but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought. They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.” It’s [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution. Founders Had It Right Now I’m appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right. It’s not just “our way of doing things” – it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming. That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. … But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don’t mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it’s not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences. Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn’t, it doesn’t even make it unlikely. That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress – Democrats and Republicans – and the public and the media, we have freed the White House – the president and the vice president – from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever. And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs. And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. … I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible. What I’m talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do. And … we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that’s where we’re heading. That’s a very ugly, ugly prospect. However, I think it’s up to us to work to increase that small perhaps – anyway not large – possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives. Restoring the Republic Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don’t get started now, it won’t be started under the next administration. Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can’t be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little… We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, “traitor,” “weak on terrorism” – names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called. How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn’t just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office. I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services. And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran. I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do. I’ve often said that Lt. Ehren Watada – who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war – is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath. The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that’s the standard that I think we should be asking of people. Congressional Courage On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate – and frankly of the Republicans – that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority. I’m not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that. Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they’re acting like it’s their sole concern. Which is business as usual. “We have a majority, let’s not lose it, let’s keep it. Let’s keep those chairmanships.” Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years? I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we … get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution. We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day for saying the simple words “swear him in” when it came to testimony. I think we’ve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it’s only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran. And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves – they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree. That has to change. And it’s the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you. Daniel Ellsberg is author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.
Limbaugh’s Cowardly Smear by Joe Conason Published: October 2, 2007 Tags: Opinion, Politics, Rush Limbaugh This article was published in the October 8, 2007, edition of The New York Observer. The controversy over what Rush Limbaugh meant when he uttered the phrase “phony soldiers” last week isn’t just another broadcast sideshow. As the political power of conservatism declines, the symbolic authority of figures such as Mr. Limbaugh is likewise shrinking. That is why he backs away from his own words, rips them from context by selectively editing his program’s transcript and insists he didn’t demean soldiers and veterans who dissent from the Bush White House war policy—as he and his fellow partisans have done so many times before. This revealing episode began on Sept. 26 during a conversation between Mr. Limbaugh and “Mike,” a caller who identified himself as an active-duty soldier and supporter of the Iraq war, who warned against the consequences of withdrawing U.S. troops as urged by a previous caller “because Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.” At that point the host interjected, “There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even—if—the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull—what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t—I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home. Save the—keep the troops safe,’ or whatever. It’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” Replied Mike, “No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.” That was when Mr. Limbaugh said: “The phony soldiers.” Two days later, under heavy critical fire for using those words to describe critics of the war who have served in uniform, he claimed to be the victim of a “smear.” He served up a neatly trimmed transcript of the Sept. 26 program, which cut more than a minute and a half of yakking to make it seem as if his “phony soldiers” reference was intended solely for an antiwar activist who had allegedly masqueraded as an Army Ranger after washing out of basic training. That falsified transcript has provided fodder for Mr. Limbaugh’s defenders, a motley assortment of bloggers, Fox News personalities, and a Republican congressman from Georgia who has actually introduced a resolution commending the radio blowhard. Not content with insulting the troops, the Limbaugh clones seem to think any soldier who examines the transcript will be too dumb to figure out how they have tampered with it. It is equally telling that both Mr. Limbaugh and his defenders change the original phrase “phony soldiers” and say “phony soldier” instead—because the plural belies his alibi and makes his nasty intention so plain. Today he whines because Media Matters for America, the progressive watchdog group, caught and publicized his slur. But he cannot escape what the audio proves he said. Only in a media environment where conservatives have long felt exempt from serious scrutiny would Mr. Limbaugh still feel free to mock the military service of those who disagree with him. He is, after all, a certified chickenhawk who cheered on the Vietnam War as it ground up tens of thousands of young Americans, but saw no reason why he should serve. His local draft board in Cape Girardeau, Mo., a town where his family enjoyed great political influence, granted him a 1-Y deferment after he dropped out of college and forfeited his student deferment. Explaining how he escaped the draft, he has cited both a “bad knee” and a cyst on his backside that supposedly rendered him medically unfit for service. Despite that undistinguished record, however, he has never hesitated to denigrate the service and patriotism of Senator John Kerry, former Senator Tom Daschle and other Democrats who volunteered to wear the nation’s uniform. He called Mr. Daschle “Hanoi Tom,” and he spent many hours repeating the “Swift boat” lies when Mr. Kerry ran for president in 2004. And now he insinuates that the troops and vets who question this war are “phony soldiers.” No doubt what really worries Mr. Limbaugh and his right-wing comrades is that more and more of those who bravely serve America abroad, from foot soldiers to flag officers, have begun to voice their anger at the reckless and dishonest policies that have cost them and their comrades so dearly. Leaders of Vote Vets, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organized in support of smarter military and security policy, have angrily challenged Mr. Limbaugh to repeat his slur to their faces—something he is most unlikely to do. Thanks to all the veterans with the courage to speak out—no matter what their affiliation or opinion—it is no longer so easy for the Limbaugh crowd to claim that the military and the flag as their exclusive property. That illegitimate seizure of everyone’s patriotic heritage is coming to an ignominious end. http://www.observer.com/2007/limbaugh-s-cowardly-smear
we keep waiting, and waiting, and wating...do you, mark mc carthy mark, believe the government should be allowed to censure private citizens? answer the question.
You have a lot of nerve. You duck and dodge every question that gets posed to you. I'll give it a shot though. Yes, in the interest of free speech, our representatives should have the right to censure any statement made by anybody. A censure is the result of free speech. I also think they look pretty stupid doing it. Nice distinction by the way between Rush as a "private citizen" and moveon, when you know the two censures were the exact same thing. I think both of them were stupid and I also think it's stupid as hell to get hung up on what people say while ignoring actions as large as those that landed us in the mess everyone's making oh so offensive statements about.
well, no, Rush and MoveOn are not the same. Rush is a broadcaster, MoveOn is a registered PAC. big difference. and i'm fascinated to see you come down on the side of government suppression of politically inconvenient free speech. i see your true colors, shining through... don't be afraid to let them show. <object width="425" height="353"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y7sQxumb_W0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y7sQxumb_W0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed></object>
Dork. I come down on the side of letting Congress pass any silly censure they want as a matter of free speech. They are also welcome to censure Ahmadenijad for his Holocaust denial and Ann Coulter for her heinous comments about the 9/11 widows for all I care. I have more important things to get upset about, like for example that stupid war you and Bush have been so wrong about on every count resulting in massive and needless loss of life. The distinction you make between a liberal website PAC and a hypocritical hate monger radio jock is one of convenience only, such that you can cheer one stupid censure and boo the other. You're a joke. This is your big "gotcha?" When did you give up on arguing the war?
Rush was called an honorary member of Congress after he tirelessly campaigned for Republicans in 1994. I don't think any Dem has offered such a title to MoveOn. By the way, I think with your intense support of the actions undertaken by this administration, you have demonstrably proven that your views on Constitutional matters are not serious.
We're different, you and me. My opinions are my own. I'm not told how to think by politicians. I do agree with Feingold on most things, but I'm not the least bit troubled by an apparent disagreement on what amounts at best to a technical one resulting from distinctions made in an honorable if flawed attempt at campaign finance reform. And of course you don't care about the distinction either except as a means to cheer the right and bash the left. I say again, this is what you're pretending to care about these days? A censure? People are still dying in your BS war. When did you stop pimping that?
More like flat out runs, or vanishes, only to come back later and pretend like the questions he ran from never existed.
