The Final Frontier

Whoa, hey, when did space become a Republican issue?

Apparently, when Bush started talking about it.

Sure, we can't trust Dubya with a program to screw in a light bulb. I concede without reservation that the Bush Regime is utterly corrupt and incompetent. The last time I believed that this administration could do something right was in Afghanistan, shortly after the September 11 attacks. After all, how could they possibly let partisan foolishness or short attention span ruin our chances there again?

Man, did I learn my lesson. There is no job so important, no task so simple, that Rove can't screw it up by pandering to the regime's base.

And yes, we have no business starting some outrageously expensive project whose benefits are years if not decades down the line when the budget is half a billion dollars in the red. (Hm. My recent DMY column aside, maybe that is why they call them red states.)

However.

Space travel is our future. Not only are there vast scientific benefits to be reaped from the endeavor alone, not only are there endless resources to be found out there, resources that can be acquired without damaging our own precious biosphere, but sooner or later mankind must take to the stars. Whether because of our own carelessness with the environment, overpopulation, or just a slowly tiring world or star, eventually humanity must leave the cradle.

And conservative rhetoric aside (sorry, Admiral), does anyone out there honestly believe that businesses today are willing to make the huge long-term investments to get serious about space? Russia's space program is in tatters, China's just getting off the ground (and be honest -- do you really want them to have space superiority), and the EU is floundering. Only one nation has the resources, the structure, and the will to get us Out There.

Yes, these things take money. That means things like (gasp!) raising taxes, just like most of the other ways we need to undo the damage the Bush Regime has done. Still, liberals can't give up on the final frontier, even if Bush is using it as his latest propaganda set-piece. Space is too important to allow the rhetoric of the moment to hold our future hostage.

(/) Roland X
Who still has his Space Shuttle poster around here...somewhere...

Human Wrongs

Via Atrios, we find this stunner in the Daily News:

He didn't free the slaves.

He didn't rid the world of Hitler.

He didn't even - like his father - preside over the destruction of the Berlin Wall.

Yet George W. Bush tells New Yorker writer Ken Auletta: "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."

With stunners like that, no wonder he spends so little time with journalists.

That sound you just heard? That was my jaw crashing through the floor.

Perhaps Resident Bush has forgotten the name George Washington, the General-turned-President whose courage and genius won freedom for America.

And Thomas Jefferson, who made such minor contributions as writing the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

And then there are the aforementioned Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Bush I, though "presiding over the destruction of the Berlin Wall" seems a bit...kind. "Happened to be in office at the time" is more how I'd characterize it.

Still, given that Dubya may be the greatest enemy of human rights ever to reside in the White House, it's certainly fair to compare his father with him favorably.

Meanwhile, the article bravely continues:

Political guru Karl Rove claims that the job of journalists is "not necessarily to report the news. It's to get a headline or get a story that will make people pay attention to their magazine, newspaper or television more."

Is it just me, or has the Daily News become the Big Apple's antidote for Die Poste?

(/) Roland X
A quote like that is beyond .sig-parodying...

Nakedly Craven

Found through Buzzflash, this article from the NY Daily News:

Getting an extension could be a political headache for Bush if the final 9/11 report is issued in the summer. Kean, a Republican, has said the report will name names and point to failures in the Bush administration.

Good for him. It's nice to know there are still honest Republicans.

The White House response?

The White House proposed greenlighting the extension if the commission would agree to release the report after the November election, but then officials pulled back the offer, Newsweek reported yesterday.

Sure, we knew they were this conniving, but so openly? They can't think they can get away with it, can they?

Oh, wait. So far, they have. Never mind...

(/) Roland X
One Wing to Bring Them All and in the Darkness Bind Them
In the Land of Crawford Where the Shadows Lie

A Paul on the Presidency

The bombshell:

CRAWFORD, Tex., Jan. 10 -- Former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill charged in remarks released Saturday that President Bush began planning to oust Saddam Hussein within days of taking office and before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The response:

A senior administration official said O'Neill's "suggestion that the administration was planning an invasion of Iraq days after taking office is laughable. Nobody listened to him when he was in office. Why should anybody now?"

Naturally, my fellow pro-freedom bloggers have been all over this. Equally naturally, this looks like it'll blow over before the interview is even broadcast. Still, since we all know full well that every brain in the administration not named "Powell" wanted to invade Iraq since before the 2000 election, IMO the truly interesting element of this story is the response. Sure, the politics of personal destruction are used on anything that vaguely resembles a Democrat, but widening the circle to include a Republican who served in the Bush administration is a fascinating development.

Is this a coldly calculated attack, unconcerned about the obvious contradiction due to Americans' short attention span? Is it the legendary rage of the Bush political team (aka Karl "like he's never been f---ed before" Rove)? Is there actual desperation involved, as the opposition becomes more motivated and organized while Bush's failings become more public? Is it some combination of the above? After all, this is a man who served under Bush for some time -- if no one listened to him while he was Treasury Secretary, why in hell was he appointed to that office? And how did he keep his job for so long?

While the Bush administration is supposed to be in the driver's seat in 2004, surely men like Rove realize that once the general election campaign season begins, all of the Regime's policy failings, foreign and domestic, will be aired for public consumption. They've practically conceded this point, and are already trying to frame the election in terms of attitude over accomplishment. So every time a revelation like Mr. O'Neill's receives public attention, it's a direct threat to that second term, as well as the power and "legitimacy" the Bush team so desperately want.

So it will be interesting to see whether O'Neill's visibility is vanished, brutalized, or both (kept out of the general public's eye, while savaged by the wingnut policy hacks). While I seriously doubt that this revelation will do any real damage to the administration, their reaction will prove instructive. Coming next: [fill in the candidate] is too liberal, too Clintonian, hates America (yes, even Clark and Lieberman), and looks French.

(/) Roland X
With thanks to Hesiod

Return of the Blog

Whoa, is it 2004 already? :-)

Getting serious, December just slipped out from under me (very busy month), and it was tough enough keeping up with my DMY commitment. Nevertheless, again I offer my apologies. Though I am stating for the record that the Justice Log will likely be more sporadic in the future, I will do my best to keep up on the latest from the left, and offer my observations on same, when I can (and I have more to offer than on my DMY column).

And now, a blast from the past:

Article 4       ABUSE OF POWER

The President misused and abused his office and impaired the administration of justice.

1.      The President made false and misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States;

2.      The President made false and misleading statements to members of the Cabinet and White House aides;

3.      The President frivolously asserted executive privilege;

4.      The President made perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress (answers to 81 questions).

Clinton? Or Bush?

Then again, how on earth could anyone say that "making false and misleading public statements" to Congress, White House aides, and the American people constitutes an impeachable offense? Absurd, right? Well, not to the GOP:

Using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the laws governing the integrity of the judicial and legislative branches and the truth-seeking purpose of coordinate investigative proceedings.

Whoa. strong words. So, a president who lied to Congress and the American people to started a war on false pretenses, endangered the lives of millions of New Yorkers by covering up the damage done by post-9/11 emissions, and suppressed a commission on the intelligence failures involving that same attack, will be impeached too, right?

And of course, the good old GOP will add the betrayal of Valerie Plame-Wilson to the Articles of Impeachment, I'm sure:

ARTICLE III

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony...

Sure, some of the details are different. But the Republican party would never allow such piddling peccadilloes to interfere in the pursuit of justice. Surely, they won't resort to "definition of is" style of hair-splitting, will they?

Who are we kidding? Of course they will. Of course they have.

I could go on at length about the many other issues at stake -- Enron, employment, the environment, deficits that respected economists believe may endanger the entire global economy -- but if you're here, you probably know about all of that. So for now, I'll stick to this reminder of what used to constitute an impeachable offense...when a Democrat was in the White House.

(/) Roland X
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you an enemy of the state.