Login HereWhile I wait patiently for the press to notice that George Bush admitted to instituting a regime of torture last Friday, I wanted to call your attention to one of Bush's most famous statements purportedly denying that we torture. The statement came on November 7, 2005, just after Dana Priest's Black Sites article appeared, and in the middle of Congress' efforts to forbid torture. The statement came within days--if not hours--of the time when the CIA (supposedly working on its own) destroyed the evidence of torture.
The statement starkly follows the logic of John Yoo.
Q Mr. President, there has been a bit of an international outcry over reports of secret U.S. prisons in Europe for terrorism suspects. Will you let the Red Cross have access to them? And do you agree with Vice President Cheney that the CIA should be exempt from legislation to ban torture?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Our country is at war, and our government has the obligation to protect the American people. The executive branch has the obligation to protect the American people; the legislative branch has the obligation to protect the American people. And we are aggressively doing that. We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture.
And, therefore, we're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible -- more possible to do our job. There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans, and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet, we'll aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law. And that's why you're seeing members of my administration go and brief the Congress. We want to work together in this matter. We -- all of us have an obligation, and it's a solemn obligation and a solemn responsibility. And I'm confident that when people see the facts, that they'll recognize that we've -- they've got more work to do, and that we must protect ourselves in a way that is lawful.
Note the logic of the statement:
- Our country is at war
- The executive branch has the obligation to protect the American people
- The legislative branch has the obligation to protect the American people [Remember, Bush and Cheney were successfully convincing Congress not to prohibit the CIA from torturing]
- What we are doing is "aggressively" fulfilling our obligation to protect the American people
- Our "aggressive" efforts to protect the American people consist of: bringing terrorists to justice, gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding, trying to disrupt their plots (that is, torture)
- Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is within the law
Bush does not say, "torture is illegal, but we do not torture, therefore we are working with the law." He flips the whole question around, as Yoo did. He basically states that anything the executive does to fulfill its obligation to protect the American people is--because it is done in the name of protecting the American people--within the law. The rationale for these activities--protecting the American people--and not the nature of the activities themselves, is what makes them legal, according to Bush.
Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is, therefore, within the law.
Stated, as Bush did it, in response to an implied yes or no question, "do we torture?," it appears to be a denial. But stated after you've read Yoo's memo, it is, rather, an assertion of extra-legality. Anything Bush does to the end of protecting the American people is within the law, Bush promoted a torture regime ostensibly to the end of protecting the American people, ergo, torture is within the law.
It took them five years to declassify the OLC memo, but in truth, Bush has been waving it around like a red flag since it was issued (the memo had already been rescinded by the point Bush makes this statement, though it had been replaced by a still-classified Bradbury memo in early 2005).
Of course, Bush's response to the question was not presented in the press as an assertion that "Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is therefore within the law." Rather, it was presented as a sharp denial that we torture:
Bush: "We do not torture" terror suspects
Bush defends interrogation practices: "We do not torture"
US does not torture, Bush insists
We do not torture detainees, says Bush
Bush: "We do not torture"
Which I'm guessing is the problem the press, all of it, is now having with Bush's admission on Friday. On Friday, Bush glibly admitted to approving of meetings at which is top advisors approved water-boarding. We all know water-boarding is torture. Therefore Bush has glibly admitted to instituting a program of torture.
But the press has been uncritically accepting Bush's twisted sophism for years, interpreting a claim of extra-legal powers as, instead, a denial of torture. How can the press explain now that, contrary to what the press reported for years, all along Bush has been claiming that torture is legal?
Share This 
Spotlight
You are waiting patiently.
Any ideas of “how” to get the press to respond?
He’s always been parsing his words on this, as Gonzo did over and over again. “We do not torture”, could mean that Bush and Mrs Bush, personally, don’t torture, right?
What does Cheney have to say on torture? Sometimes, he’s a little more forthcoming but his comments often get dismissed as being so off the wall.
I think its more like Barney doesn’t torture because every time I have to listen to him, its definitely torture.
Somewhat O/T, but Scott Horton is alluding to a coming “mass media” article about ?War Crimes? charges against Yoo et al….
Horton at Balkinization
Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is, therefore, within the law.
That, of course, is their major argument.
But they also had another one, just in case: whatever we do to the detainees is stuff we don’t consider torture, therefore we don’t torture. Maybe in the eyes of the rest of the world it may be torture, but we don’t think it is. Simple.
Well, if the President does it, it’s not illegal.
Yes — even if he’s saying something close to “If the executive does it, it’s not illegal,” he is still also saying that torture is not “torture.”
Wasn’t it Kenneth Wainstein who testified to the SJC that waterboarding (as the CIA did/does it) was not “waterboarding”? Not that he would explain the difference.
Does the term “special prosecutor” hold any meaning here, or what?!! The implication is clear: Cheney/Bush are torturers and should be renditioned to the Hague for trial…and, through their own hubris, their own admission! This is outrageous: We are in more danger now than ever before in our history! Sign onto ACLU’s Petition to Congress for A Special Prosecutor.
Speaking Friday at Duke University, on a panel discussion of extraordinary rendition, Michael Scheuer, the man who first developed the extraordinary rendition program under President Clinton, said, “I’m perfectly happy to do anything to defend the United States, so long as the lawyers sign off on it”. This another statement, like Bush’s, turning the argument on its head and saying that it’s legal because attorneys in the administration have signed off on it. How he can be “happy” with this is beyond me, but I think very illustrative of the sickness in the Bush administration.
At that program, there are further revelations about the nature of extraordinary rendition before and after 9/11. I have posted more on this topic, and links to press accounts of the panel discussion at ondelette’s new blog on torture.
Bullseye.
Pointing out the Grand Canyon-like contradiction differences in Bush’s words is a great start to getting the MSM’s attention. I’m off to make the WaPu aware of this in their online politics discussion today.
Thank you ezdidit @ 8 for the link to the ACLU petition. I’ll pass it on to others to sign.
EW, you are nothing short of tenacious…please don’t stop covering these important crimes and the press’s criminal neglect to investigate and expose them to light. We need your journalistic voice!
If ever we needed a Special Prosecutor it is now…the crimes are piling up on this admin.
Oath of office is to “protect the Constitution.” Not the people. So, what happened to that priority??? If we get our priorities straight, it will be clear that “torture” cannot be condoned.
I just sent this to the WaPu link I referenced above.
I doubt they’ll publish it, but I tried to make it as amenable as I could. If others want to take a shot, the hour-long chat starts at 11 EST.
YES! The MSM has not even decided IMHO to write clearly and unambiguously that waterboarding is torture. It is safer to write about the Yoo memo, even though it is not ubiquitous, because it crosses the line about torture. But they do not want to get into a legal argument about what “techniques” are torture I would imagine. The free pass they have been giving about what is and is not torture is doing a great deal to hold them back.
Since we are on the topic of telling the truth, I thought I might link to the truth telling award for some inspiration…. Here are some bios about this year’s winners and last year’s winners of the Ridenhour Prizes… Bill Moyers won the courage award. Christy linked to his speech on Saturday in her Pull Up A Chair…
http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_03.shtml
http://www.ridenhour.org/recipients_03e.shtml
http://www.ridenhour.org/recipients_03d.shtml
Here is the speech from this year’s winner.
http://www.ridenhour.org/diaz_.....ript.shtml
These awards were just awarded on April 3, 2008.
http://www.ridenhour.org/index.shtml
One of my favorite parts of Moyers’ speech was:
.
(my bold)
Enjoy reading about life from the “truth base”. Thanks for being a big part of the “truth base” EW. Thanks for your endurance and exhilaration! You and Moyers are kindred spirits!
Done: Rush/Durbin/Obama.
Thanks for the link to the ACLU, I just used it.
OfT, regarding this:
Although I doubt you intended it, it was imo very disrespectful to emptywheel. It also displayed a massive unfamiliarity with her work.
O/T (something else to do during what could be a long-assed wait; I talked to some well-informed folk this weekend who had heard nothing of Bush’s admission):
I often say that there’s no game plan or playbook that tells you how to run a Great Depression. However, if I wanted to take that as my objective, one thing I’d probably try to set up would be a housing crash that takes in all of CA and FL and … well, the United States, and also London, Madrid, Australia, Hong Kong, New Delhi, and Tallinn.
Not saying it would, but that just could get ‘er done.
emptywheel:
I read the weekend’s posts and comment threads and was stunned by that “the suicide attack — I mean, the 9-11 attacks” slip LS and Hmmm also noted. Bush, the poor bundle of nerves, always lets the cat out of the bag. Any ideas what the cat is, if there is one?
“Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is, therefore, within the law.”
Transcription to Bush-Mind [Rovian] “Morality-Free” Thinking:
1 - If I ‘demonize’ my Enemies first
2 - Then I can do anything I want to them
Otherwise known as The Grand Inquisitor’s Model:
Anything we do to the end of protecting the Church, therefore, is within God’s Law.
Absolute Power will Corrupt Any Container…
He was going to say “…they’ll recognize that we’ve acted lawfully”, but that’s oldspeak, not the same as this new doctrine: We are the law.
This is fascism………..
But hasn’t the congress already given Bushco retroactive immunity for torture/lies/warprofiteeering through one of the many Protect
BushAmericans Acts? I think it was the one which passed after the fake terrorist attack on Rayburn alert just before one of the many recesses?It’s easy really. The media have been willing to ignore that this emperor has no clothes for years. So when the President’s own statements catch the media with their pants around their ankles, they follow the example they have set and ignore their own sartorial choices.
corpogovernment……….
Orwellian doublsspeak !
I would give a lot to see Bush seated across the table from the Patrician of Anhk-Morpork. The Patrician would steeple his fingers, sigh and say, “Ah, Mr. Bush………..”
Their approach to torture is cut from the same cloth as their military adventures: pre-emptive attack on you name it — Iraq, detainees, political enemies, the Constitution, the rule of law.
and any of the media who are still foolish enough to believe in a free press.
America is bleeding and some people are more concerned about comments concerning bitterness?? Retarded………
Every American should be pissed/bullshit/ and bitter at the fascism shoved down our throats these days under the facade of protection!! Just like Nazi Germany!!
Protecting the American people is nowhere in the president’s job description. But both congress and the president take an oath to protect the constitution. And the president has a duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,”
the “Iraq Oil Plot” is the “1933 Business Plot” never realized because of the actions of Gen. Smedley Butler! Fascism is alive and well in America today because people permit it. No silent German here!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nor is he our ‘Commander in Chief’ as the Dems continue to let the media proclaim.
….faithfully executed to protect the present energy delivery system at the expense of America and the constitution, should we continue to permit it!!!
Yes, it is, isn’t it. “Fascism Done Right!”
O/T — The Preznit and The Pope on CNN. I’m waiting for Preznit to give Pope a backrub or a McCain huggie.
I would also point out that the media have managed not to notice for more than 7 years that Bush is the worst President in our history. If they have dutifully not picked on this, none of us should be surprised that they fail to report on Bush’s most recent admissions on torture.
My thanks to whoever first came up with the Upton Sinclair quote:
This is the most concise and accurate history of the media in our times that I have found and think could be found. They have chosen to be complicit and keep their jobs.
Diesel fuel 4.25 a gallon for the average stiff here. Hunt Oil Texas sells fuel to large corporate trucking firms at $1.50 per gallon per assertion of educated Oregonian American trucker who was in the eastern USA making deliveries. He states Americans have no clue as to the level of corruption!!
That is true. But can’t we hijack them somehow? Let’s fake a terrarist attack and then whip out our signs and banners….
..and get tased in the streets
…and rendered somewhere on the dark side
Victoria, I will not be tased by anybody. I can protect myself very well!
What an apropros quote for our corrupt times.
JamesJoyce — I have no doubt that your fuel story is true and that even a cynic/realist would be shocked at the depths of corruption going on these days.
You have nicely articulated the gene splicing technique for constructing an English sentence that Bush’s rhetoric relies on. It’s implications in light of his admitted illegal behavior are startling. They reveal the “open” lies he’s been using for years, which many inside the Beltway would have known about but kept to themselves. As you’ve asked before, if Bush admits to torturing his prisoners, what has he done and authorized that is so much worse that he still hides it?
Churchill, whom Shrub’s writers creatively compare with their boss (inherently demeaning WSC) fought mightily to master the simple English sentence. He did and worked wonders with it. So do Bush’s writers, but they do it by splicing it to fit their master’s grade school level English and to say the truth while lying about it. They tack unrelated phrases next to each other, implying a logical sequence that they don’t mean and isn’t true. That doesn’t give us Dolly the Sheep herded by Cheney, but a two-headed monster.
Spying on US from the get-go…
Torturing at the First Opportunity he got…
Lying US into a Pre-emptive War of Choice…
Is it any wonder Bush is losing E-mails, operating out of the RNC, failing to preserve any documentation, unwilling to cooperate with anyone, making blanket assertions of Executive Privilege, etc, etc?
He’s been Running from his Mistakes of Twisted Judgment for Years - Enabled and Shielded by his Blindly Loyal “Can’t Tell Right From Wrong” Sycophant Gooper Courtiers - and his goal is that the Truth Never Come Out, at least not until after he comfortably passes away of old age in his Servant-filled Mansion…
…everyone else be damned.
Shorter Junya’s Administration: “EJM - Ends Justify Means.”
It has always seemed more than passing strange that Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
It obviously wasn’t her idea.
What did she do for Bush that made him want to Reward her, like Bybee, with a Lifetime Appointment to the Bench, and, in her case, to the Bench on the Highest Court in the Land?
What did Harriet do for Bush?
Thanks again emptywheel! Stay on this topic until the “good Germans” wake the fuck up.
Another great read today (via eschaton): http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1485/135/
Is anyone ever going to mention that the country is not “at war”. “Terrorism” is not a country, so the only thing we are “at war” with is the notion that there are people who would do us harm. Well, there will always be those who would do us harm.
We are not at war w/ Iraq, we are not at war w/ Afghanistan. Just because the military has been mobilized doesn’t make it a war (or else, we were at war w/ Katrina, too) and the laws regarding torture shouldn’t be different just b/c Bush says we’re at war.
Hell, isn’t it this administration’s view that Al Queda detainees are NOT prisoners of war?
NYT is reporting Justice is investigating James Reisen and anyone who talked to him. Maybe that’s part of why the press ain’t exactly jumping on this.
That might indeed be their excuse du jour, because I’m pretty sure this was already known. Have further steps been taken, or did they just have a feeling we might be wondering?
Please explain…. DOJ conducts investigation into “chocolate’s” price fixing, meanwhile oil speculators and energy providers control our lives liberties and happiness via underlying cost of energy. The rising cost of gas! Then to add insult to injury…..using the state tax code legislatures now penalize the taxpayer citizen who fails to comply with laws mandating one now purchases health insurance, from, get this…. tax exempt health insurance corporations doing “business” in the state. They argue its like auto liability insurance! Really now, tell me how after paying monthly payments for a car, then, the sales tax, exercise tax, insurance fees, gas tax, license fee for the privilege to drive, you are legal and “free” to operate your car once you buy the gas, if you have the cash?
Now using the color of law citizens are penalized and taxed for having a life (and car) (”by state and corp-government” collusion), if they have not the ability to pay for.. mandated health insurance’s inflated premiums and inflation costs. Oh cost of oil just went up!! So? Meanwhile, people who create illegalities blame others who point it out!! A text book
nazitactic! BTW what is the status of the DOJ’s “IMPORTANT” chocolate price fixing case, in Pennsylvania where thecandidatesare? What is that word…Oh yes…. special prosecutor, Mr Conyers????? Please, any chance any chance????192 billion for the cost of war through 2013????? Suicide??
11 billion a day we spend on gas????
“Oath of office is to “protect the Constitution.” Not the people. So, what happened to that priority??? If we get our priorities straight, it will be clear that “torture” cannot be condoned.”
The precise words, “Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States” are interesting and critical here. Has anyone ever heard a reference to the oath, and the concept behind it in any Bush utterance other than when he was sworn in? I can’t find one.
What does it mean, conceptually, to shift the job description of President from “protecting and defending the Constitution” to the non-constitutional construction of “protecting the American People”?
If Illuminati members heavily infest the management of MSM then it makes entire sense they will play dumb and spin things away from Bush and the game plan. This scenario does explain everything.
Sara - this is a profoundly important point, and very apt considering the militarization of American society. Moving from the protection and defence of the Constitution to “protecting” the American people is trying to turn the clock back from the Enlightenment to the Middle Ages. Instead of a society based on the inalienable rights of free individuals, which was envisioned by the founders, focusing on the Leader’s “obligation” to protect the people is analogous to feudal social structures, leading to hierarchal relationships between lords and vassals and peasants, with the vassal performing military service for the sovereign and the peasant performing physical labour in return for “protection”, which tends to work out more for the protection of the assets of the nobility than the actual protection of the poor serfs and churls and peasants.
… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic …
He thinks he was elected to be Big Brother.
I suggest using the “spotlight” feature of this website– It’s much more useful than the Digg feature. Get this into the hands of reporters across the country, and add your cover message about why this is so important in your own words. You’re limited to target 10 reporters in each spotlight, but if you choose well, that’s no problem. And if lots of us do it, there will be a multiplier effect.
Bob in HI
Sara at 52
Bush makes a reference to the Constitution here - From a 12/11/05 article at the Leftcoaster:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006250.php
(cut cut cut)
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
[Author Doug Thompson] talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
You nailed that Ishmael.
We are serfs and der Leaders need to protect us. Bernard Lewis would love the Middle Ages Clash of Civilisations.
Me , not so much.
“He thinks he was elected to be Big Brother.”
It also is a complete rejection of the “rule of law” conception. Afterall American Law, one way or another, all derives from the Constitution. Law either fits within it as determined by practice or court decisions, or it doesn’t, and gets cast out. I don’t think near enough has been made of this as part of the public debate. Ishmael makes the point it is pre-enlightment — totally agree. Caste and Class determine whether one has the “protection” of the Prince, and the religion of the Prince must also be your religion in the pre-treaty of Westphalia construction of it all.
We need a clear way to make this distinction very obvious to a very broad swath of American Voters.
“What does it mean, conceptually, to shift the job description of President from “protecting and defending the Constitution” to the non-constitutional construction of “protecting the American People”?”
The actions of this administration are treasonous. 911 provided the opportunity for the neocon fascist to undermine the “Constitution” just as the “Gliewitz Incident” was by used Nazis to launch WWII’s Nazi Blitzkrieg while consolidating power. Does not matter if 911 was canned or not! The “Iraq Oil Plot” with Shock and Awe followed. Now we are in the mess we are in, with no accountability! This is what happens when you shift the job description, for the interests of corporate aristocrats, from defending the constitution, to defending “corporate profit” under the guise of protecting the American people. After the “Gliewitz Incident,” Nazi Germany rationalized its attack on Poland as “protecting the homeland.”
Tell that to American paying 4.25 for fuel who has lost his job, health insurance, home and now his son in Iraq….. Protecting the homeland, with the logic of witch hunts, we have seen this before! This is treason and Jefferson’s worst fear, a shredding of the constitution by corpo-aristocrats usurping the constitution in the lust for endless profit, similar to a King and his corpo-cohorts in colonial crime as they mercantiled the colonists. Would the current “policy makers” meet FDR’s definition of fascism? Reality enabled by…. a conceptual shift!
No silent German here!
Larry Johnson informed us earlier on good authority that orders to torture were issued from the top and that Bush himself witnessed the interrogation (via tape, or live?) of Abu Zabaydah. Knowing what we do know about this president, this shocking and unthinkable charge only makes sense. OF COURSE George W. Bush would want to watch, would want to participate! It is certainly no surprise that Bush was not kept out of the loop, but was actively involved with the whole development of the torture policy. I am certain that he wanted to know every detail. It is likely that he also has “trophies” of the horror. Trophies are big to a man with a certain type of mind-set. Some private contractors have videotaped their pot-shooting assassinations of innocent Iraqis in cars, for sport. Some U.S. soldiers transmitted gruesome images of dead Iraqis in exchange for internet porn. The killer of Che Guevera recently auctioned off a lock of Che’s hair that he had kept as a personal trophy all these years. Bush himself is known to keep as a trophy the handgun of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps he also kept the flightsuit he wore when he landed on the deck of the Navy carrier. (He wants so much to be part of the action). I wonder what other trophies Bush is keeping for his personal viewing pleasure. (You know he’s got them!) Didn’t his college fraternity, Skull and Bones, keep the skull of Geronimo in its display case as a trophy? (And wasn’t it even his own grandfather who stole the skull for the fraternity in the first place?) Didn’t he brag immediately with a smirk on his face that Zubaydah broke easily and gave away a trove of secrets, naming names? He was crowing then and we didn’t even know the half of it.
There is also the Orwellian (forgive me, St George) inside-out use that the cons make of words that sound positive, even cheery, on the surface: protect, security, prosperity, safety, etc. In practice all those words are meant by these regimes, yours and ours, to scare people. If the people need to be protected or the “homeland” needs to be secured, the implication is that they are in some danger and the people should be afraid, be very afraid. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (NAFTA plus) implies that the whole of North America faces security threats, and that our prosperity is somehow endangered (which of course it is, but first of all by the sneaks who are running the show).
Department of Public Safety, anyone? We have one. The tall forehead who thought that one up had obviously never heard of Robespierre.
I googled Bush and Torture, Cheney and Torture; not one major US paper reported on ABC news interview of Bush authorizing torture! What in the fuck is wrong with this country, our Congress and MSM. We all should be up in arms over this instead we get zip, zilch, nothing!
Oh, I did find on Google News one report — from a TV station in Louisiana (Shreveport). It is a short report, but it included both of the diagnostic quotes from Bush (both “approved” and “enabled”).
Is it time for a Torture Timeline to track the history of this criminal enterprise?
The NSC involvement - directly - in the Torture Program makes the Rove-Hadley e-mail containing one of Karlie’s Hysterical Classics:
“I didn’t take the bait…”
all the more interesting. Was the e-mail system ‘manipulated’ with a ‘planted’ piece of fiction to alibi Rove? What are the forensics on that particular e-mail?
What did Hadley know, and How did he know it?
Did Bush engage in Reverse-Pixie-Dusting by ‘creating’ a ‘factual-looking’ record of ‘the Truth?’
IOW, would Bush present Lies as Truth, in order to Convince US to go his way?
Northward on this very page. True, the focus is a bit diferent, but it’s a start.
-There was some reference at the Baltimore News Sun on their political blog but it was quite limited…
EW,
Submitted a comment with some great links. Once again I think it is “gone”. I sent it shortly after my comment at 1…
It had some nice links about telling the truth…and Bush…
Here’s another from Larisa that focuses on Bush and his war crimes. Apparently there’s more of this one in the works.
Klynn, if you will refresh your screen, it should now be there at about 15. Comments with multiple links often go into the moderation queue. Sorry about that.
Timeline of Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Elsewhere from History Commons (the folks formerly known as Co-operative Research Network). Nicely categorized, so that for instance one can call up articles discussing human rights groups, types of abuse performed, interrogation centers, etc.
Agreed, finding a way to articulate this message in a much better way than I did is vital - distilling the message from abstract historical and philosophical summary is the problem. We need a metaphor and a communication strategy that everyone can understand - Jefferson did something similar with the Missouri Compromise, a complex political and philosophical question, when he said its enactment… “like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”
This phrase,”We are at war”, has a familiar ring to it. I don’t have the research skills to locate the info, and I invite those who do to find the data, and correct me if I’m wrong about this, but I seem to recall it being reported that on the morning of 9/11, the president was reading a story to school-children in Florida when his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, approached the president and whispered into his ear these (or similar) words: “A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. The United States is under attack; we are at war”. Much mockery has been made over the long “puzzled” and “helpless” look on the president’s face that follwed.
I have often thought about that look with a much different take on it. I think he was considering the long-range implications of his advisor’s words- and so should we. My first reaction was to the words; being at war triggers the Commander-in-Chief authorities. In hindsight we can more clearly see what lay ahead , and I think that was just what the president was thinking about as he waited for his staff to arrange getting him out of that classroom in an unpanicked manner.
My next set of thoughts about those words concerned how strange it seemed that they should arise so quickly from the executive branch and anticipated we’d soon see some interaction with congress about the War Powers Act. Still, even though the executive does have emergency powers, it astounded me that the words, “We are at war”, instead of comming FROM the president to marshall his administration to a course of action, were being said TO HIM.
Some have taken this as an indication of puppetry, but I suspect another interpretation is in order (but not one that denies such puppetry). It is conceivable to me that it was anticipated that some event would occur, or be orchestrated, to invoke to Commander-in-Chief authorty, in order to carry out the Unitary Executive program, and the invasion of the middle east. I am not suugesting that the WTC attack was planned,(nor ruling that out), but saying that I think some event was expected which would allow the triggering of CinC authority, and series of executive orders that would follow, which would tansform the nature of the republic, perhaps forever.
So now we again have these words, “the country is at war” being used to JUSTIFY political action of one human being over another that the revolution of 1776 and the subsequent Constitution was intended to abolish. The reaction of corporate media and corporate congress seems to be: “Old news”, “So what”, and “Who cares?”
In in old PBS series, I, Claudius,there was an exchange between the Roman Emperor Claudius and his son that bears remembering. Claudius was wishing for a return to the republic which long ago had been abandoned in favor of empire. In his old age he was advising his son on a course of action he could take to advance that return. The son replied, ” Dad, I don’t care about the republic, and none of my friends care about it. The only one who cares about it is you.” Indeed, who cares?
Frankly, I’m beginning to think the strategy of more and “better” Democrats is not the answer. I don’t envision a Progressive wing of the Money Party. What I,m considering is akin to what I recall from a song from the early Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, called ‘Wooden Ships”, in which a group of disenfranchised claim the dominant society doesn’t value them so they decide to leave it.
75 - In retrospect, Andrew Card’s wording so early on 9-11 is odd. Pre-planned with deeper meaning, even.
“What I,m considering is akin to what I recall from a song from the early Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, called ‘Wooden Ships”, in which a group of disenfranchised claim the dominant society doesn’t value them so they decide to leave it.”
Which is precisely what the left did at the end of the 60’s, “Turn on, Tune in, and Drop-out.” All too many who were hit up the side of the face in the streets of Chicago by Mayor Daley’s thugs, decided not to stick around for the next engagement — having tried with Robert Kennedy and Gene McCarthy to change the course of things, they decided to retire from the field. Some went nuts and became weather persons, others sought solace in hemp and other things, but most just turned off. Hopefully people know enough about that rather recent history to understand that change does not come easily, and backing off the field of encounter is not exactly recommended.
Hey thanks bmaz! I knew posts with multiple links did have “lag” I’ve just had a bunch of posts blip away as soon as I hit submit. It’s been happening since last week. I noticed a few other posters noted the same problem. I only post a comment if they “blip” when I think they are not in “moderator mode” in hopes of addressing any problems coming up with the site.
Thank you for your help.
(75 & 77)Sara and RHGrn you might appreciate Bill Moyers’ quote @ 15 above…
It (the unitary executive and war in the middle east) was pre-planned…the neocons wrote that in order to execute their agenda a new Pearl Harbor was needed.
There are to many people to whom it can be spotlighted. I needs to be coordinated in order that one news organization or a couple of journalists hear from all of us.
Hey, klynn — suddenly I see what you mean because I try to read everything along the way, and I’d never read that post before. I’m glad I have now, though.
I noted on this site back on the 4th of July that my son asked us to leave the 4th of July fireworks in our fair city before the finale ended. Exxon Mobil was the sponsor of the finale and the music which was played in synchronization to the finale was the piece from Star Wars, The Death Of The Republic.
My son totally understood what message was being given that evening and walked away from the event loudly expressing how incomprehensible it was and others started to understand what he was saying and began to walk away from the finale as well. Few clapped for the finale.
It left an emptiness in us. And made us contemplated “that expression” on the President’s face on 9/11 and the words, “We Are At War…”
Why didn’t Card just stop at, “We are under attack.” Hmmm?????
In the interview why does Bush ask twice, “you mean back in 2003″?
(my bold)
Nice catch brendanx
Card probably never said it. It was more likely a line invented to add a dramatic flourish to the narrative, and, in the long run, to establish the necessary “state” under which they could dismantle constitutional government.
The “We are at War” statement was made independently by a number of Senators, members of Congress, pundits, etc., on 9/11. It may have come from the Bush circle too for all I know, but by late afternoon there was a real effort to change the Rhetoric away from the “War” theme. The reasons for this are interesting.
Once the WH had the chance to consult with their lawyers — likewise the legislators — they came to understand that any “Declaration of War” had huge implications, given contract law, insurance policies and all — most have clauses in them making them inoperative in time of war. In fact, it took about ten years after WWII to untangle such commercial and legal matters that arose simply because of the suspension of so much normal commercial law, given the legal state of war beginning in December, 1941.
That’s why we don’t declare war anymore — we just do war. It is why the Presidential Warpowers Act was such a difficult piece of legislation to write, and why so many think it would be unconstitutional if tested in the courts.
Anyhow, mid afternoon on 9/11, the word went out not to use the phrase, so as to not stir up a movement demanding such a formal declaration. It could well be the reason Bush abstained from using “POW” and substituted “Unlawful Combatant” in their rhetoric.
I have wondered about Card’s farewell speech…
brendanx & Sara,
You’re correct Card did not say it…Bush did here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....Jun17.html
9-11 Panel
I’m assuming the bumbling nervous nellie is letting something slip again with this.
I’d say so… probably confused with:
Something is definitely up with Bush’s determination to only speak about “2003″ with Raddatz.
What is the solution to our corporate owned media. We need a short term plan and a long term plan.
Short term plan would be what? How do we get the american people to understand that our democracy was turned upside down when Bush decided that defending the people “his way” was more important than the constitution. How do we get the word out, if we cannot rely on mainstream media??
This is probably a historic moment for america, and what we do in response determines our direction. Deeper into fascism, or save our constitution and democracy?
Sara @77
Yes, there are different ways of leaving. I didn’t want to “leave” thing as I did in my comment, but it seemed to be getting a bit longish (In fact upon rereading it, I wish I had not even begun the last paragraph, as the comment had more to do with the phrase, “We are at war”). I wasn’t advocating any such mindless dropping out (and for that matter, Tim Leary didn’t either). What I had in mind is what many Germans did when it became clear what the Nazis were up to in the 30s, and what the Puritans did when religious pressures began to pile up in England on certain ways of thinking. I also see problems with this, since wherever one goes, there are others already there who may not share your enthusism for establishing a new order; consider the American Indians’ problem with westward expansion. Also consider what happens if the United States should regard some new settlement which intends to create a truly democratic republic as presenting some kind of threat.
What I’m pondering is, as the Weathermen did, how do you deal with a superpower who has all the means of annihilation, especially when its actions seem to be endorsed, at least passively, by the society as a whole. More and better Dems doent seem to cut it. I stopped being a Democrat when Hubert Humphrey would not reject Johnson’s war policy,for fear of alienating the “silent majority”. I still see many who cannot envision an existance outside the Democratic party, and not unlike the blacks who seemed to have no other place to go, are stuck with a party that continues to take them for granted. The leaving I’m thinking about is for progressives to begin considering leaving that party for their own “territory”.
Another masterful parsing of bush·speak! I read the 2005 comment in a less sophisticated way, “You can’t yet prove that we torture, and you don’t yet know how we’ve redefined torture, ergo ‘we don’t torture‘.”
I wonder if bush·speak has been officially adopted as an Official Republican Language. I’d hate to see us spend all this time learning to translate it for naught…