at-Largely

Mike Malloy reads my Bush appeasement essay

As a writer, I sometimes have a difficult time reacting to my own work once it is written, because all of the emotion is spent in the writing of it. I have to somehow see the work through a reader's eyes to react - afresh - to my own emotions at the time of writing a particular piece.

Mike Malloy's reading of my essay on Bush's comments about Nazi's on the Knesset floor brought me to tears. I listened to his passionate reading and I simply reacted while listening. I got up and paced around, sat back down, got up again, all the while shaking because I heard what it was that I had conveyed to someone when they spoke those words back. I don't know if my piece is as powerful as Malloy's reading - somehow I doubt it - but I urge you to listen to his reading of it and see for yourself if in hearing it, it added something more than I think I alone could ever have gotten across.

I think it us ultimately our many voices, our many pens in hand, our many words spoken, our many songs sung, etc., that together make the monumental primal scream that can change everything. Thank you Mike for reading this the way you did.

Someone posted it on YouTube. I hope they don't mind me borrowing it for you.

Part I

Part II

Day After "Appeasement" Remark, Ghost of Prescott Bush Hovers Over WH (satire)

Posted by Brad Jacobson

One day after President Bush likened presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama to those who appeased Adolph Hitler, the ghost of the president's grandfather, Prescott Bush - in an SS uniform, muttering German and gesticulating angrily - has been hovering high above the White House since dawn.

An anonymous Bush administration staffer said the White House initially believed MoveOn.org, which many administration officials have compared to Hamas, had orchestrated the specter of Bush's grandfather. (Prescott Bush, a true American hero, helped fund Hitler's war machine and, as the BBC revealed last year, co-conspired to overthrow President Roosevelt to create a Nazi-style government in America.) But MoveOn.org spokesman Adam Green denied his organization's involvement, saying, "Dude, if we could do that, we would've done it a long, long time ago. We would've saved a lot of money."

Prescott's ghost has attracted crowds of onlookers who might otherwise have taken the usual long-distance gaze at the White House before moving on to the Capitol's heavily trafficked monuments. One dumbstruck eyewitness, Stanley Huffle, a history professor at American University, said, 'It's as if history and karma have merged."

Around noon, the National Guard attempted to shoot down Prescott's ghost or at least disperse him to a less visible area. But the bullets merely sailed through his shadowy form, only seeming to further inflame his rhetoric. A passing German tourist quoted him as saying, "Our failure to please the fuhrer has led directly to this point in history, where a schwartze might be president, homosexuals can marry in California, and bagels are more commonplace than f***ing Wonder Bread!"

Following yesterday's heated Hardball confrontation between host Chris Matthews and right-wing radio personality Kevin James, James returned to discuss Prescott's ghost with Matthews.

"You see, Chris, like I said yesterday, Obama is an appeaser," began James. "Fine. Whatever," replied Matthews. "Just tell me whose ghost is floating above the White House right now."

"Look, Chris, an appeaser appeases those who make use of appeasement, which leaves us vulnerable to another 9/11-style attack." Matthews repeated, "I've asked you a simple question. Who is hovering sixty feet above our White House, sir?"

"But that's not the point, Chris. Appeasement--" "Listen, you mutant, just answer the question. You don't know. Do you? Do you?" "Of course I do, Chris. It's the, the...ghost of appeasement's past or something."

"Wow. Wow. You really just lucked into that, didn't you? Just stepped right in it."

"If luck means appeasement, then yes."

"You're an idiot. Thanks for coming on."

"Thank you, Chris."

During an impromptu White House press conference, press secretary Dana Perino told reporters, "First, let me start by saying that though some candidates think the afterworld revolves around them, the appearance of Prescott's ghost over the White House has nothing to do with President Bush's speech in the Knesset yesterday."

Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas replied, "Sure. Pay no attention to the man behind the cloud."

Cross-posted from MediaBloodhound.

Bush "manifesting the Zionist vision"

Posted By Cernig

Yesterday, I wrote that while a by-blow of Bush's Knesset speech may well have been to attack Obama and other Democratic rivals, the main purpose was to give a "wink and a nod" to Israeli hardliners that in the closing days of his presidency they can do no wrong - including attack Iran, should Israel wish to, or scuppering any chance of a Palestinian peace process.

Reports in the Israeli media say that Israel got Bush's message, loud and clear.

"We are on the same page. We both see the threat ... And we both understand that tangible action is required to prevent the Iranians from moving forward on a nuclear weapon," Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said.

Regev described diplomatic efforts so far to exert pressure on Iran as "positive", but added: "It is clearly not sufficient and it's clear that additional steps will have to be taken".

Asked about the option of using military force, Regev said: "Leaders of many countries have talked about many options being on the table and, of course, Israel agrees with that."

Senior officials in Jerusalem said Thursday that Israel is fully satisfied with the results of Bush's visit, including policy on Iran's nuclear program.

"In talks with the president of the United States during his visit it was made clear that Bush's statements on the subject of Iran's nuclear program are fully backed in practice," a senior official said.

One Zionist member of the Knesset even suggested Bush's next job should be to replace Olmert as Israeli PM.

As a former Knesset speaker, MK Reuven Rivlin, put it Thursday, "I wish our leaders would make speeches like this." Rivlin described Bush as "manifesting the Zionist vision."

Contrary to the applause Bush received for his address, the speech by Prime Minister Olmert was less popular and stirred considerable controversy.

Olmert promised that when there is a peace agreement it "will be approved by a large majority in the Knesset and it will be supported by the vast majority of the Israeli public."

Two MKs from the National Union, Zvi Hendel and Uri Ariel, left the plenum in protest, complaining that the event was "used to promote a political agenda that is opposed by most of the Israeli public."
Hendel issued a statement calling on Olmert "to learn from the president of the United States what Zionism is."

MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) called out during Olmert's speech, "in your dreams."

He later proposed that Bush should replace Olmert.

Olmert mainly drew criticism for parts of his speech concerning the Palestinian peace process, saying that "we will bring before the Knesset an agreement that is based on the vision of two states for two peoples. This agreement will be approved by a large majority in the Knesset and the entire nation." That's when Hendel and Ariel walked out.

Perhaps they should have been more patient. Today Olmert made it clear he wanted no peace process at all, as he denied to Palestinians what Israeli Jews have held themselves had all these years - a right of return.

Six months into negotiations sponsored by Bush in the hope of a deal before he leaves the White House, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman used some of the toughest Israeli language yet to insist that President Mahmoud Abbas abandon 60-year-old refugee claims if he wants to establish a Palestinian state.

"This demand, which does not exist under international law, for right of return, is the ultimate deal breaker. You cannot have peace and this demand at the same time," Mark Regev said.

Some 700,000 people, half the Arab population of Palestine in May 1948, fled or were driven from their homes when Israel was created. Letting them and their families live in Israel now would undermine its nature as a Jewish state, Israel argues.

It also disputes the legal basis of the right of the return first set out in a United Nations resolution of December 1948.

There's no doubt in my mind that Bush's speech - which described Israel "the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham, Moses, and David - a homeland for the chosen people in Eretz Yisrael," has given Olmert all the political cover he needs to torpedo the Bush administration's own hopes for a deal. Needless to say, Palestinians are not happy.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told Reuters: "He should have told the Israelis that, 1 mile from where he was speaking, there is a nation that has lived in disaster for 60 years. He should have told the Israelis no one can be free at the expense of others. He missed this opportunity and we are disappointed."

...In the Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam, columnist Samih Shabib wrote: "Bush is blind to the right of return.

"The U.S. administration's attitude towards Israel inherently promotes hostility and deepens hatred towards the United States and its policy. Is this hostility, and its consequences, in America's interest? I don't think so."

You can see why Bush likes to think that diplomacy and negotiation are weak and "appeasing" - he's so bloody bad at them. He's much better at bringing violence and war through tough talk and ill-judged adventures.

All the President's Nazis (real and imagined): An Open Letter to Bush

(cross-posted at Huffington Post)

Dear Mr. Bush,

Your speech on the Knesset floor today was not only a disgrace; it was nothing short of treachery. Worse still, your exploitation of the Holocaust in a country carved out of the wounds of that very crime, in order to strike a low blow at American citizens whose politics differs from your own is unforgivable and unpardonable. Let me remind you, Mr. Bush, of your words today:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Well Mr. Bush, the only thing this comment lacked was a mirror and some historical facts. You want to discuss the crimes of Nazis against my family and millions of other families in Europe during World War II? Let me revive a favorite phrase of yours: Bring. It. On!

The All-American Nazi

Your family's fortune is built on the bones of the very people butchered by the Nazis, my family and the families of those in the Knesset who applauded you today:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler's rise to power, government documents show.

Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp. (search), a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose Nazi party Thyssen believed was preferable to communism.

--snip--

Both Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during World War II.

Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

A Wink And A Nod

Posted By Cernig

Today I read Bush's speech at the Knesset and thought "Aye, there's yet another another 'wink and a nod' to Israel for an attack, if they want it."

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

...America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Most American pundits want to see Bush's remarks as an attack on Barrack Obama but folks - it's not always about your country and your political races. For one thing, as Brian Katulis adroitly notes, if negotiating is appeasement then the Bush administration has done an awful lot of appeasement itself over the last seven years. And Brian doesn't even mention working with Sunni Awakening members in Iraq who not too long ago were terrorists attacking US forces! For another, if Bush's remarks were really intended to help John McCain, the latter wouldn't go shooting himself in the foot like this:

“Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'’ Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. “I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’

Need I say that "Iran-Contra" and "appeasement" really do belong in the same sentence together?

No, (probably) even Bush's speechwriters aren't so crass as to make such a blindingly partisan move in the American electoral race when their dummy is acting as Head of State of both Democratic and Republican Americans at a major international event. We need to look beyond purely domestic motivations - and we'll find them in the aspirations and dreams of the neoconservative lobby and their Very Serious Person enablers in the media.

Yesterday, University of Columbia journalsim Professor Todd Gitlin had a very timely post at Talking Points Memo which, I think, points to Bush's real agenda.

I'm attending Shimon Peres' President's Conference on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel... for two days now, so many speakers have been preoccupied with Iran, and talking rather casually about the prospect of a preventive strike.

The sense of threat here is vivid, it is deeply felt, it is completely comprehensible, and it rises occasionally, or more than occasionally, to a well-nigh hysterical pitch--so much so that the Amerian strategist Edward Luttwak arose Monday night at a banquet at Peres' house to warn assembled luminaries against fearing annihilation at the hands of an Ahmadinejad who, after all, was not Hitler but Mussolini, and an inept one at that. It is not lost on any Israeli that Ahmadinejad, in his usual delicate manner, last week called Israel a "stinking corpse."

Weirdly, at a Wednesday afternoon workshop, the selfsame Luttwak declared that Iran's reformers would actually welcome a sharp outsider's attack on their nuclear facilities. No other panelist disputed his suggestion, which was greeted with much applause from a largely Israeli audience.

Which explains Bush's thinly-veiled threats of regime change in his speech.

After Luttwak's proclamation, and a game but much less applauded attempt by UCLA Professor Steven L. Spiegel to speak up for an alliance-negotiation approach to Iran instead of a mlitary attack, the session moderator, Israel's former ambassador to the US, Itamar Rabinovitch, somehow intimated--I'm sorry I didn't take down his exact words--that Israel's government would put it to Bush that if he didn't take action, Israel would.

Just outside the hall, I ran into a friend, also a liberal Jew, who had attended the same session, wasn't sitting with me but heard the same implicit threat. Alarmed (can one be too alarmed about such matters?), and assuming that Rabinovitch would be well informed, we checked out our dire impression with a sober, well-connected European official. This person isn't quite sure what's up against Iran but also worries that such an attack might be in the offing even if no government in Europe would be onboard.

And veteran British political reform campaigner Anthony Barnett adds in comments to Gitlin's post:

I have heard the same concerns in London. The 'urgency' is that the Russians are providing significant ground-to-air systems which apparently are likely to be operational by September and could be relatively effective given the distances and the need for more than one strike and therefore the lack of surprise. It seems that the Bush administration is regarded as too weak and the US military too opposed for an American strike to be considered - so it has to be an Israeli one permitted by Washington over the summer.

Bush, in his speech to the Knesset, signalled clearly that his administration will quietly support Israel if it decided to take direct action against Iran - as it did recently against Syria. It's worth noting that any Israeli attack on Iran would almost certainly have to transit Iraqi airspace.

Our beloved leader... not really...

With 80%+ of the US public not much liking our leader, Bush has found love in the arms of a foreign nation, Israel... nope, not hardly.  In Jerusalem, over 14,000 police officers have to guard Bush from the public.  Yes, one city has to basically empty out its police stations so that the most unpopular leader in the history of the United States can make a cameo to spin the "we come in peace" version of reality.  Maybe Bush should go to where he is most at home - Saudi Arabia.

Red Alert - While you were counting polls...

My good friend and former CIA spook Phil Giraldi has some disturbing news in the American Conservative:

"There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants.  The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action.  The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation.  The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran.

<snip>

It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties.  The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final.  The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made."

I have said this before and I will say it again. I am convinced that the Cheney-side of the Bush-Cheney administration will take a scorchand burn policy on their way out. They know a Democrat will take the White House, so I suspect strongly that sometime after the November election, but before the new President is sworn in, this bunch will launch a hit on Iran and leave the mess for the new administration. If we only had a Congress who could decide on matters of war... oh well.

CounterProductive CounterPunch Story on Iran

by Jeff Huber

At least one high profile war critic sounds alarmed by a recent revelation that Mr. Bush signed a “secret finding” against “the Iranian regime” six weeks ago.  I’m frankly less than agog about it.

In a May 2 CounterPunch article, Andrew Cockburn wrote that Bush has launched a “covert offensive” on Iran that is "unprecedented in its scope."  The “directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan.”  The directive, according to Cockburn, also permits an expanded range of actions, “up to and including the assassination of targeted officials.”

Wow, I thought as I read it.  That’s some scary sounding stuff.  Then, out of habit, I rescanned the piece to note who Cockburn’s sources on the secret finding were, and here’s what I found: “those familiar with its contents.”

Great.  Caesar’s.  Ghost.  Credibility wise, that kind of thing puts Cockburn and CounterPunch on an even footing with Michael R. Gordon and the New York Times.

Can you spot the corrupt officials in this story?

Sorry folks, I have been on deadline. Now, some very strange news today that I have no idea what to make of and since it is by way of Foxified WSJ, it really provides me with little ability to even speculate as to why this happened:

"WASHINGTON -- Federal agents raided the Office of Special Counsel, a government agency involved in several high-profile and politically sensitive investigations. The agents seized computer files and documents from its chief, Scott Bloch, and his staff.

Mr. Bloch, who was appointed by President Bush, has been under investigation since 2005 by the Office of Personnel Management for employee claims that he abused his agency's authority, retaliated against its staff and dismissed whistleblower cases without adequate examination. Mr. Bloch couldn't be reached to comment.

<snip>

In the Journal article, Mr. Bloch confirmed the Geeks on Call visit but said it was needed to eradicate a software virus. He said that none of the documents sought in the inquiry were affected and that the employee claims against him were "unfounded and unfair."

The Justice Department had no comment about Tuesday's raid. A Special Counsel spokesman said, "we are cooperating with law enforcement. We do not yet know what this is about." He said the agency "is continuing to perform the independent mission of this office."

In the Tuesday raid, 20 agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and an inspector general's office served grand jury subpoenas on Mr. Bloch and searched his office and home. At least 17 employees were asked to appear before the grand jury next week and answer questions about possible obstruction of justice and destruction of federal records during an investigation.

The Office of Special Counsel, created in the 1970s in the wake of the Watergate scandal, probes sensitive personnel and whistleblower claims by government workers. It also enforces the Hatch Act, which forbids the use of federal resources for partisan political purposes.

Among the office's recent inquiries was whether former White House political director Karl Rove and others improperly used U.S. agencies to help elect Republicans.

Mr. Bloch's investigation of the White House political operation began after a Rove deputy gave a series of political presentations to government agencies on Republican prospects in specific congressional races."

Is this related to the series Raw Story and Harpers has been doing on political prosecutions in the deep South? I don't know. Can we trust the DOJ - after everything - to police itself and actually investigate someone helping out the Rove machine? I don't know. Is Bloch a patsy target or corrupt? I don't know. Honestly, this is where things have gotten to. When you cannot tell if the alleged criminals are those making the arrests and raiding offices or the ones whose offices are being raided and who are arrested. Justice is the true victim of this administration and on every level.

Bob Schieffer, Company Man

Posted by Brad Jacobson

Bob Schieffer's coverage during the George W. Bush years, weighed against his hushed compromising relationship with the president, belies the CBS newsman's projected image as an unimpeachably principled journalist and typifies the way our media class operates.

In a Sunday post on Crooks and Liars, under the headline "Schieffer Wakes Up to Life in the Bush Administration," Nicole Belle wrote: "I don’t know where Bob Schieffer’s been these last seven years, but he thinks that the White House might have an credibility problem." She was reacting to Schieffer's Face the Nation commentary on the Lurita Doan scandal:

SCHIEFFER: I saw a story in the Washington Post the other day, where a reporter granted a government official anonymity in order as the newspaper put it, ‘for the government official to speak more candidly.’ Well, that made me wonder. Do we no longer expect government officials to tell the whole story if they must take responsibility for what they say? Even worse, do we believe that is acceptable?

For sure, the White House won no prize for candor last week; it gave the outgoing head of the General Services Administration, Lurita Doan, a big send off by thanking her for making government buildings more energy-efficient or some such, when in truth, she was forced out. She was the object of multiple investigations, suspicious dealings on government contracts, and asking government employees what they could do to help political candidates, which is, of course, against the law. Even the government’s watchdog agency recommended she be disciplined to the fullest extent. Yet the White House spokesman declined to say if her resignation had anything to do with any of that. From the White House came only thanks and confirmation she was gone. The government saw no obligation to say why, which leads me to this: have decades of secrecy, spin and stonewalling conditioned us to accept less than the whole story from the government? Is telling the whole truth no longer a given? Frankly, I’m not sure. What I do know is more and more people seem skeptical of everything the government says and does. What we saw last week may be one reason why.

Belle then pointed out the underlying absurdity:

The Lurita Doan scandal is such a minor one relative to all the other lies, spin, incompetence and outright negligence of the Bush administration that it’s tragically laughable that this is the one that Schieffer thinks exemplifies why the American people are skeptical to what comes out of the White House.

This also epitomizes Schieffer's reporting on the administration, which has treaded between muted criticism and outright fawning. It's no wonder after Dan Rather's departure from CBS Evening News, President Bush gladly granted Schieffer an exclusive interview. Something he never afforded Rather.

In a March 2003 interview, Schieffer was asked "if the Pentagon's decision to allow reporters to embed with troops" will "make it difficult for journalists to remain objective?" His answer was telling:

BOB SCHIEFFER: No, I don't think so at all. I think it was a very good decision. I must tell you on this one, I'm sort of like Ronald Reagan who used to say of the Soviet Union, "Trust but verify." I take them at their word at the Pentagon, if they're going to let these reporters go along and give us a view of this war if it does come. But I'm going to wait until the shooting starts until I give a final opinion. So far, they are saying all the right things. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they're going to try to do the right thing. But we'll see once the shooting starts if they follow up. If they do what they say they're going to do, it would be a very good thing. I also think it's not just good for the American people to have independent observers along, I think it's also good for the military. Had there been a reporter along with Lieutenant Calley when he massacred those people in Vietnam, I think that probably wouldn't have happened.

The truth is, however, in covering the Bush administration, Schieffer has been overly willing to trust and, whenever discrepancies between administration claims and the facts are verified, ever reluctant to hold anyone accountable. The ideal company man. Affable and avuncular yet trusted and above the fray. Walter Cronkite without that pesky willingness to speak truth to power. In the end, Schieffer might as well replace "trust but verify" with "ask but don't follow up."

Throughout his January 2006 interview with Bush, Schieffer responded "Um-hmm" and "Okay" and jarringly changed topics when the president's absurd answers demanded further inquiry. His misplaced deference lent credence to Bush's specious, unconstitutional explanations on everything from wiretaps, speaking with our enemies, the state of Iraq, Katrina, healthcare and energy independence. Moreover, Schieffer's final three questions were embarrassing softballs: "Has the presidency changed you, Mr. President?"; "What has been the worst part?"; and "What has been the impact on your family?"