Scott McClellan's New Book
Scott McClellan administers a dose of Nemesis to the endless hubris of our deluded Bushies. Neocons gnash their teeth; they call him a disgruntled former employee and a left wing blogger. But we know what happens to those with hubris-- and especially for neocons, the truth hurts.
McClellan tells us that "war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary." He explains how Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something Bush believes is only available to wartime presidents. "Lack of inquisitiveness" and a "detrimental resistance to reflection"--that's our president, says McClellan. Sickening stuff.
BreakTheMatrix members will not be surprised to learn that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war." "Over the summer of 2002," McClellan writes, " top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."
McClellan's departure from the White House came on April 19, 2006 in a shake up engineered by Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolton (extreme warning-- Goldman Sachs alum). At the time of departure, Bush had this to say (with McClellan at his side): "One of these days he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas, talking about the good old days and his time as the press secretary. And I can assure you, I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, 'Job well done.'"
- Nemesis's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 576 reads
****
Boy, I know that sounds like lunacy, especially on BTM. However, if anyone can remember back to Jan - Aug of 2001, Bush's first 7 months - there was only one complaint about him: He spent too much time at his ranch. I thought that was the greatest contribution to freedom and prosperity a president has made in 50 years! He spent a total of about 6 weeks, or 1 1/2 months, at his ranch in Crawford, where he could do far less damage than he could in Washington. That's about 21% of the first 7 months of his presidency. Had 9/11 never happened, he might have got it up to 50% and truely been the greatest president of the past century.
Give me the "Eisenhower doll" for president anytime (you wind it up and it does nothing for 8 years). God knows, the government has done enough. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
always wanting to play with dolls
"Over the summer of 2002," McClellan writes, " top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . ."
There has been a million too many words addressed to this topic on another thread - but I want to clear something up.
In criminal defense work, the lawyer/client confidentiality is almost sacrosanct. There is nothing that can make me reveal my clients secrets when he confides in me for it is judged that a client's sixth amendment right to a fair trial and adequate representation requires the lawyer and client to have no barriers in communication. This privilege extends as far back as ancient times and human experience tells us it helps courts arrive at the full truth.
That being said, there is one time when not breaking the privilege can get the lawyer in trouble and that's when something said to him/her in confidence could result in somebody being seriously hurt or killed. For instance, if a client tells me that his buddies are going to murder a potential witness to an upcoming trial- I must break the privilege and inform on him. This is both a legal and ethical obligation and it is deadly serious. If I fail to do so, I could lose my license to practice law and face potential civil liability.
In Scotty's situation - where he knew an unecessary war was being ginned up as early as 2002 as the quote above highlights - his duty and bond to his employer - the President -and whatever executive privilege he may have with that high office - did not and cannot remove his human ethical/moral duty to inform on him when people's lives are at risk. My duty as an attorney to break client privilege applies when one person's life is in danger. In his situation, millions of lives were and still are at stake. He had a moral duty to humanity and Providence to expose the truth; even if he had to do it secretly and suffer the loss of his job, his career, etc... He failed. 4,200+ U.S. soldiers are dead. Nobody knows how many more will die. Ten times as many wounded and ten times as many as that will have some lingering mental issues if anything we read from this horrible situation is correct. And thats just a small fraction of the total on the American side. The trajedies suffered by the Iraqi people who asked not for this war and do not want us there still... are unthinkable.
I apologize for the length of this post, but i think its important to state clearly that my animosity against this guy is not bush derangement syndrome - there are ethical duties/moral obligations that we have as people - living amongst other people -and especially when one is a public servant - to Act in certain situations where failure to act is a moral failing tantamount to complicity in the consequences of failing to act. In this case, untold misery on a grand scale. I urge you all to not buy this book. Do not let this S.O.B. profit from his own moral and human failing. Thank you.
> his duty and bond to his employer [...] did not and cannot remove his human ethical/moral duty
human ethical and moral duty? who draws the line here on what's moral and ethical? if he hears that the president is planning to invade a country his duty is to run to the press? what kind of argument is that? does he have a moral duty to call the cops if he sees his employer snorting coke?
> He had a moral duty to humanity and Providence to expose the truth
you are such a socialist. i suppose people that are well off have a moral duty to support third world countries as well? how far does this ideology of yours extend?
> He failed. 4,200+ U.S. soldiers are dead.
give it up already. he's responsible for the war? looks it you find yourself a scapegoat. congratulations.
>does he have a moral duty to call the cops if he sees his employer snorting coke?
Yeah, actually he does. Just because someone is in a position of power over you, does that place them above the laws of the land, or the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God?" To claim that it does is absolutely ludicrous. There can be no peace or prosperity without rightly created and enforced laws.
>> He had a moral duty to humanity and Providence to expose the truth
you are such a socialist. i suppose people that are well off have a moral duty to support third world countries as well? how far does this ideology of yours extend?
Telling the truth to save life and giving to the poor to save life are two separate principles, with two separate spheres within which action is required. Do we have an obligation to tell the truth to save life? Yes, and that is the principle which Mcclellan violated. The principle of giving to the poor to save life is a separate discussion. Don't try to blend arguments that do not fit together. If socialism is the redistribution of wealth, how can requiring someone to tell the truth to save lives be construed as socialism? Your argument makes absolutely no sense.
Lets not confuse what you call moral obligations to what others call personal choices.
Let me give you an example
Would Mr. Morality decide to tell the truth because it was his moral obligation, if he saw someone commit a murder and was threatened with his and his families life if he talked.... Or would he make a personal choice and keep his mouth shut?
You have removed the scenario I set up into a different scenario, but that is fine. I propose a more trying scenario, where a German man refused to salute and say "Heil Hitler," though such an action may have sent his family to a concentration camp. This is a real incident, Herr Hilbert did refuse, and his family did suffer because of his actions.
Would it make giving allegiance to Hitler good, or moral, because refusing to do so might bring an unjust consequence? Saluting could have been so easy! It could have been so easily justified--far more easily justified than not testifying to a murder. Still, Herr Hilbert did what was noble and right--regardless of the unjust consequences that might be inflicted by evil men. I wish I had as much character as he did! His example gives my soul courage.
Last night I watched an old John Wayne movie. I think it was called "The Dark Riders." In this movie a banker's son shot another man with whom he was having a disagreement. Before the trial, the villain of the movie, the town school teacher, rode out with a band of disguised men to threaten the jurors with their lives, and those of their family members, if they did not acquit the murderer. When the final verdict was about to be announced, I hoped that these good farmers would be courageous and give the verdict that they knew was right. I was disappointed when they yielded so easily to evil, and handed down a verdict of not guilty. Right then I lost respect for those jurors, and considered them cowardly. How could they do such a thing, when everyone knew that the banker's son was guilty as sin? That was their choice, to do what was expedient rather than do what was right. Expedience is the essence of immorality.
To a lesser degree, I think we all exhibit such self-protecting/self-indulging immorality at times, but that does not make it right. I know I wish I had more character than I do. Anyone else? Or is everyone here perfect in their ability to rationalize away their lack of character?
> some things are more important than life
extra massive WOW!
> a German man refused to salute and say "Heil Hitler," [..]and his family did suffer because of his actions.
i wonder what his family thought about his expression of moral obligation.
> Still, Herr Hilbert did what was noble and right--regardless of the unjust consequences that might be inflicted by evil men. I wish I had as much character as he did! His example gives my soul courage.
by his actions his family suffered. that's real noble of him. that's a real nice model to go by. this hero of yours sacrificed the well being of his family for his morals. you should tell that bit to your significant other today: "honey, i wish i had the balls to sacrifice your well being for what i deem to be moral." you'll be sleeping on the couch that night my friend.
> To a lesser degree, I think we all exhibit such self-protecting/self-indulging immorality at times,
there is the meat of your ideology right there: self preservation is immoral. never will i agree with this thinking.
beat me to it.. You Bastard! :)
i see a good one i go for it right away :) better luck next time. i'm sure there'll be plenty more opportunities.
Don't move the goalpost. Of course the press secretary doesn't have the authority to declare preemptive wars based on made up intelligence. But since you won't accept the morality of the whistelblower; nor accept that there are times when legal privilege's, even those of the executive variety, must be broken; nor accept the fact that Scotty himself knew that the intelligence (as the Brits say) was being fixed around the policy; I am at a loss as to why you keep defending this man. You are quite good at arguing with me, but I have seen no defense of him or his actions - or more precisely, inactions.
Riddle me this awesomo5000:
You remember the Pentagon Papers? Remember how Daniel Ellsburg was privy to private information as a Pentagon employee and member of the RAND corporation? Well, what he read in those papers convinced him that if the people - the American people - had access to these documents & the information they contained the war in Vietnam would be over sooner rather than later. If they didn't get out, the war would carry on and untold thousands of more people would die. So he found a willing Senator in Mike Gravel to read the top secret papers straight into the Senate record in a one man filibuster thus making them public. Soon enough thereafter, the war did in fact wind down and eventually end.
Do you think Dr Ellsburg - technically a traitor who could have spent the rest of his life in prison or been hanged- did the right thing by exposing to the public the lies at the foundation of that war? At the time he committed his treason, he couldn't be sure that his ploy would work. And in fact he was arrested and tried. But was it morally and ethically the right thing to do - on principle?
I am serious. Because from what I have read so far from you suggests that you would consider Dr Ellsburg a traitor who deserved whatever punishment is prescribed for leaking secret info and betraying his employer, the Pentagon. No matter how many more people would die in that war. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Lastly, this isn't about socialism or even political philosophy. Its about people put in trying moral/ethical situations - with real options before them with real consequences. Betray your confidences with your employer and help your country avoid an admitted (by him) unnecessary war with the knowledge that only you and a few other highly sourced people shared - or do nothing and carry on like business as usual? Put yourself in his situation - in that moral dilemma, back in 2002 - what would you do? Or better yet, what would Ron Paul do?
I think you know what I would do.
a man has an obligation to help himself and his immediate family, an obligation to not hurt people intentionally, but there are no obligations beyond that. if you see something wrong somewhere and you feel that you want to volunteer yourself to 'help' then it's entirely up to you as an individual to do so.
where you go wrong is when you state that: well, i did the right thing, so everyone else should be expected to do the same.
who gave you the authority to decide that mcclellan had some obligation to save the world? that's preposterous.
what is the 'morality of the whistleblower'? this seems to you an obvious concept, but to me it isn't and i reject your morality as a guideline to anything. be careful when you base any of your notions on 'morality'. chances are you'll be running into arguments with someone at some point about what defines it.
here's a good exercise for you: make your point about mcclellan, leaving morality completely out of the argument. you will quickly realize that the argument is done.
also, just to be clear, i'm not defending mcclellan, i'm trying to argue against your perception of him, as i think it's way off. he did his job as a spokesman, it is misguided to have expected him to do anything beyond that.
If Mcclellan thought that what the Bushies were doing was wrong, then why didn't he just resign? Obviously his lack of MORAL clarity at the time was brought on by an IMMORAL desire for power, or position, or some such self-aggrandizing deception. There are plenty of people of integrity who, though they will not break their word and reveal information they have pledged to keep secret, will refuse to be a part of something sinister. Mcclellan did not have to continue participation on what he knew to be a murderous farce.
It's funny that he can now bring his disregard for what was being done into the light of day--as it is now possibly making him millions. How convenient.
Nothing immoral being done here folks, just look the other way, because there is no such thing as good or evil. In fact, Mcclellan seems to be beyond good or evil--oder meine Freunde?
The principles of private and public virtue--upon which this nation was founded and made secure--are lost on today's moral relativist. To perdition with morality; Washington was a fool.
> If Mcclellan thought that what the Bushies were doing was wrong, then why didn't he just resign?
maybe Ron Paul should leave politics too, since he thinks that the government is going in the wrong direction. that argument you make here i could understand coming from a child that doesn't know any better, not from a grown man.
> It's funny that he can now bring his disregard for what was being done into the light of day
in what way is that funny? while he held the position, he did what he was told. when he left, he expressed his discontent toward his former boss, publicly no less. i think that takes some balls.
> as it is now possibly making him millions. How convenient.
there it is again. it's the money he'll make by selling a product he created that bothers you. maybe he should spread this new wealth with the people, don't you think? that would redeem him.
Good Men" so many of our current crop of politicians believe that they live beyond any moral code because they can handle the truth while the public "can't handle the truth"
Without firm moral standing our leaders are twisting in the wind.
Clinton replaced morals with polls and Bush replaced polls with a rumbling in his gut...
You write above: "a man has an obligation to help himself and his immediate family, an obligation to not hurt people intentionally, but there are no obligations beyond that."
I accept the above premise when it comes to private citizens in their private lives. There is no law requiring anybody to be a good samaritan - - however, I think your theory breaks down when applied to a public servant. The obligation of a public servant isnt simply to mind his own business and not intentionally hurt others.
And I agree, my judgment of scotty as a person is harsh - as I think it is deserved. As i stated much much earlier, he was either willfully blind to what was going on around him or the stupidest guy on earth to not see it. I dont think he could be that stupid; so he was likley acting wilfully ignorant. Now, he is playing the victim card (i.e, the big bad bush administration lied to me about outing a CIA operative) Is this based mostly on conjecture on my part? Yes. Do I think that is what really happened (i.e, that he was wilfully ignorant) also yes. And all i am asking people to do is not buy the asshole's book. But you know, go ahead and buy it. Perhaps with his millions he will donate a large chunk to the military widows or wounded vets.
"Inexplicable humans...how can you combine so much baseness and so much greatness, so many virtues and so many crimes?" Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire, 'The World As it Is" circa 1748.
> I think your theory breaks down when applied to a public servant.
no it doesn't break down, it stays the same. a job is a job no matter whether your employer is mr. big or the public. there is a chain of command in every position and you do what they pay you for, not what you think is right. my (not really mine, i adopted it) philosophy does not ever break down because it's simple, there are no exceptions, ever.
> The obligation of a public servant isnt simply to mind his own business and not intentionally hurt others.
i wouldn't call it obligation, i'd call it work related duties. and those do not differ from any other job.
> he was either willfully blind to what was going on around him or the stupidest guy on earth to not see it. I dont think he could be that stupid; so he was likley acting wilfully ignorant.
not enough choices. i doubt that he is/was stupid, and i know that he wasn't 'wilfully blind' since he was aware enough to take some notes and write a book after he left the position. so, neither one your judgements was right. he was doing his job while he was there. he wasn't cooperating with the press as i'm sure that's what he was instructed to do. i fail to see where he went wrong here.
> Now, he is playing the victim card
i don't know about this. i've not read the book. i'm assuming that this bit refers to the book he wrote.
> And all i am asking people to do is not buy the asshole's book. But you know, go ahead and buy it.
that's your main problem with the man then, as i've pointed out earlier. you just resent the fact that he'll make money with this book he wrote.
that's a weak argument. really.
you hate the fact that he'll make money.
profit bothers you so much that you're willing to overlook the fact that the book he wrote actually is along the lines of what the truth about the current administration is (from all the quotes i read from it so far).
with Scott boils down to petty jealousy that he is going to make money on book sales - after everything I have written on this damn topic; you sir, are an ass.
Yes, it is true I do not want him to make money - but its because I consider it blood money. Ill-gotten gains. I, before any posts on this subject were created, considered the possibility that he was kept completely in the dark during his time in Texas and in the White House; that he didn't know he was being used by his employers; that he had the best interests of the American people at heart; that he was just doing his job - - and I rejected them all one by one because it simply didn't add up.
I dont think you have considered any alternative to your own reality. What if Scott knew about the obviously forged Uranium shipment documents, the fake mobile weapons lab BS - -what if Scotty knew that the iraqi defector "curveball" had never been interrogated by U.S. agents and was considered to be an unreliable witness from the Germans, what if Scott knew that the White House Iraq Group was ginning up intelligence to make the case for war - and knew that people he associated with on a daily basis were the source of leaks to the press from "top administration officials" and who then turned around and went on meet the press or fox news two days later and quoted the very same anonymous officials' (i.e, themselves) intelligence reports? What then? According to you, there is no distinction to be made if he was the used employee or an active collobarator because he was just doing a job. I say that is bullshit.
There is a difference; whether you see it or not. And since I get the feeling you are just playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing - i find it doubtful that i will respond to you on this topic any more.
between the obligations and responsibilities of private citizens vs. public servants.
This doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but to assert the contrary on no grounds other than your personal substantiations is without merit.
S.M. is playing the victim card. This will become apparent if you read a book review, the book itself, or listen to an interview (one wonders at the argument of ignorance you propose -- why not find out what's going on, then comment, rather than comment on the fact that you are unaware of the contents of the book -- i.e. one of the major topics of this thread)
Swarelis, you seem to propose that as long as someone "is following orders" then their actions are defensible. Of course, history suggests otherwise and it does so repeteadly. Courts have proven otherwise. Again, you don't have to agree with history, law, or the conclusions reached by past debates, but to disagree based on a notion that has proven over time to not hold up suggests an assumption reinforced by ignorance rather than an idea enhanced by knowledge or informed debate.
Why not inform yourself of the general assumptions of the book that is being discussed here (along with the author) before carrying on with your repetitions.
> between the obligations and responsibilities of private citizens vs. public servants.
just as an exercise, what are those distinctions?
> S.M. is playing the victim card. [...] why not find out what's going on [...] i.e. one of the major topics of this thread
what happened here with the comments in this thread was a personal attack at the author without giving any mention to what his book is about, starting with the first comment (yours by the way). go back and read it to refresh your memory.
> Swarelis, you seem to propose that as long as someone "is following orders" then their actions are defensible. Of course, history suggests otherwise and it does so repeteadly. Courts have proven otherwise.
that's what you hope i propose so you can make an argument against it. but that's not really what i claim. what i in fact said is that in any job, you do what is required of you by your employer. i also clearly mention (something you seem to overlook here) is that no one person has any right to 'hurt' other individuals, ever. this means that if your employer 'orders' you to do harm then it's on you to take responsibility for your actions. this is a simple concept. history does prove this. if you directly inflict harm on other people then you'll be accountable. where do i argue otherwise? again here you deluded my claims and made an argument against something you invented.
> Why not inform yourself of the general assumptions of the book that is being discussed here (along with the author) before carrying on with your repetitions.
take a look at your first comment in this thread and tell me just how much i have to read up on to be able to comment on it myself.
"if you directly inflict harm on other people then you'll be accountable..." This makes sense and I think we are getting somewhere in this discussion. The problem I have with your thought process, unfortunately, is that you cannot get past the "directly inflicting harm" scenario. What about indirect harm? What if that indirect harm was easily foreseeable? Is there no accountability for the probable consequences of inaction when some type of action could have mollified the potential (future) harm? Is there not a situation you can think of wherein indirect harm is also worthy of accountability? What if the costs of acting to the actor are minimal - and the consequences of inaction are proportionally much much greater?
I remember from law school torts class - the following two fact scenarios: One - a lifeguard on duty at a public pool is sitting in his chair. A little kid falls in the pool and sinks like a stone. Lifeguard sees the kid go in, sees the kid drop, and does nothing. Kid nearly drowns (saved by another person.) Lifeguard says he knew someone else was going to help the kid so he didnt do anything. Kid suffers severe brain injury from lack of oxygen.
Second scenario: Lifeguard on duty at a public beach. Swimmer gets pulled out to sea by a strong riptide current. Lifeguard does not go in after him to help save them for fear of being pulled out to sea himself. Swimmer dies.
In the first scenario, everyone agrees the lifeguard (and hence the municipality that hired him) should be accountable in tort for damages and most (but not all) people agree that in the second scenario the lifeguard and his employer should not be.
What is the difference?
Apply what you learn to scotty.
"Inexplicable humans...how can you combine so much baseness and so much greatness, so many virtues and so many crimes?" Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire, 'The World As it Is" circa 1748.
> What about indirect harm?
once you start branching out this way you run into problems. if i buy a cheap tshirt made in a sweatshop in China where children are forced to work, am i inflicting indirect harm to them? you could argue that if i, and everybody else collectively decided not to buy these tshirts, the shop would go out of business and all the children would be let go, free to roam around and have fun. you have only an obligation not to directly harm others or their property. that's it. a man is only responsible for his immediate environment. i think Ron Paul was trying to explain this on a few occasions when people presented him with "but what about the environment?"
> One - a lifeguard on duty [..] injury from lack of oxygen.
the lifeguard didn't do his job. his job is to rescue people from potential drowning. this case scenario is pointless. this happens everyday where people don't do the job they were hired to do and they face consequences.
> Second scenario: Lifeguard on duty [...] sea himself. Swimmer dies.
the lifeguard has to make decisions. it's his job to make on the job decisions. whether he was right to do so or not would be decided by an investigation. again, this case scenario doesn't present any dilemma whatsoever.
> In the first scenario, everyone agrees [...] the lifeguard and his employer should not be.
i don't agree. people can try to sue anybody they want for anything they want. the lifeguard. his family. his employer. the city. that's what disclaimers are for when you go into places that are potentially dangerous. if there is any question about where responsibility lies then it is resolved in a court of law.
> the lifeguard (and hence the municipality that hired him) should be accountable
'and hence'? this is somehow apparent? how does this follow? assuming the lifeguard is an adult man, being paid to perform a duty. if he fails, it's his failure, not his employer.
> Apply what you learn to scotty.
you imply that you were teaching something here. you've presented nothing worth contemplating. these are everyday situations that are handled, most times, in a consistent manner.
the distinction between public servant and private citizen is commonly held -- this means that it is easy to find many writings on this notion should you ever humble yourself to read and consider what published authors of the past have provided us. Go and do the research yourself -- I suggest the topics of political philosophy, ethics, politcal science, etc. There are ample examples you may come across. Of course if you are willing to acknowledge that the words "private" and "public" represent distinct concepts you'd be giving yourself a head start.
You should always be aware of the content of a discussion you are engaging in. Especially when you are doing most of the engaging (be it in a negative and reactive manner). My reason for calling for S.M.'s head (metaphorically speaking - as I don't own a guillotine nor do I possess the power to condemn a man to death) is based on the content of his book, his public activities as a proponent of the Iraq War and the War on Terror, his engaging in slanderous attacks on press members who challenged the assumptions of the war on terror, and his recent public assertions of victimhood. It seems as though you are having an emotional reaction to my first comment along the lines of "it's not nice to chop off someone's head"
Rather than base an argument around your own stated ignorance of the content and an emotional reaction to a comment on the content, you would do well to acquaint yourself with the content that is being discussed here. While there is always room for platitudes and generalizations they are never very intersting, insightful, or useful.
Content is an important and essential part of BTM. If you are unwilling or unable to offer any, you should at least force yourself to read what is offerred by those who have something to offer.
Public servants must be held to a higher standard --- one that is implicit in their title - that of serving the public. They take taxpayer dollars and have a reponsibility to the taxpayer.
Scott MC isn't just some random guy without public responsibilities. He misused his public office to mislead the public, further a corrupt and illegal agenda, and personally attack those that challenged the agenda (listen to the press conferences).
He belongs in prison.
"... mislead the public, further a corrupt and illegal agenda, and personally attack those that challenged the agenda."
Isn't that part of the job description?
If someone is going to be the spokesperson for a corrupt, illegally (unconstitutionally) operated organization, isn't it pretty much given that they are going to be lying most of the time their lips are moving? At least we are getting a bonus with this guy. ("Don't beat me up, Scotty!" -- GWB) His book does brighten the light others have been trying to shine on the administration. So, it took him a few years to come around. Even Major General Smedley Butler did not realize he had been someone's thug all those years until after he retired from 34 years in the Marine Corps. SM is a quick study by comparison. We should be at least a little thankful that we are now getting something from him.
While we are talking about standards for government employees, what about military personnel? Shouldn't some kind of due diligence be done on the organization your considering joining before signing up. Especially, when the job description involves blow up things and killing people. Oh, God! Sacrilege! Hold military personnel responsible for their action? Any administration wouldn't have given a second thought about trying the stuff Bush has done, if we didn't have the the flag waving crap "patriotism" and idolization of the military we have in this country. Someone mentioned something about Scott helping the families of dead soldiers killed in the war with the proceeds from his book. It certainly would seem appropriate to do something for the Iraqi war victims as well. At least none of them signed up for the ordeal.
"The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/29/vincent-bugliosi/
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
organization (as you claim) he should have to answer for it.
Scott worked for the Bush administration, which not unlike previous administrations, operates in an unconstitutional mode. In the case of the current administrations, steroid usage is strongly indicated. I did not say the organization was unconstitutional. There are plenty of people in the Administration who must be held accountable for their actions. Scott may need to take a number and wait.
Why not start here with this comment to an interview on AntiWar Radio:
http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/05/29/vincent-bugliosi/
# Amy Harlib Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
DON’T WAIT - IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW BEFORE THEIR INSANE, CRIMINAL POLICIES CAUSE WORSE DAMAGE THAN THEY’VE ALREADY DONE!
Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW
Defense of the Constitution Knows No Party
The Bush administration has illegally seized and imprisoned Americans without benefit of their trial by jury, has spied on Americans without warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, has lied America into a disastrous war, and has betrayed an American intelligence officer, who was working on weapons of mass destruction networks, to our enemies (Valerie Plame.)
Impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney are now a distinct possibility, thanks to a recent outpouring of public support for impeachment by Americans across the political spectrum. Your calls and faxes to House Judiciary Committee members are needed to keep up the pressure.
Leave a message for your Congressman, to demand he obey his oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Act now to restore your rights and the rule of law bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers, which brave men have died defending throughout our history.
Call the House Judiciary Committee
202-225-3951
and demand that Impeachment hearings begin ASAP!
*What Happened to Make This All Possible?
On November 6, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought H.Res.799, for the impeachment of Cheney, to the House Floor for debate. It was broadcast on CSPAN. A sudden outpouring of public support for impeachment forced lawmakers to keep the resolution alive. Democrats, most of whom currently resist demands for impeachment, were unwilling to kill the bill with the public watching. Republicans and some Democrats, mindful of impeachment sentiment, voted to debate the bill, but failed. At the end of the day, Americans of both parties had made it clear whose “table” this is, and that they want to see impeachment on it.
For more information go to
NEImpeach.org
ALSO:
WE NEED A NATIONAL FAST FROM CONSUMERISM !! If you want to literally do a FAST from eating- that is your choice- Make sure Congress knows you are also calling for NATIONAL CONSUMER FAST asap - AND A NATIONAL STRIKE !! this is the perfect opportunity to grow the movement !!!!
They dont care if we don’t eat, they care if we dont BUY FOOD, GAS, and products that make these corporations money !!! THEY CARE ABOUT THE STOCK MARKET CRASHING ANOTHER 300 POINTS TODAY !!!
http://www.pledgetoimpeach.org
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
We all owe some sort of debt to society. We all have an obligation to protect society when and where we can. This is the principle of public virtue practiced by our founding fathers. The selfish notion that we owe nothing to society, or to our neighbors, is downright destructive to everything we hold dear--though this concept seems to be growing in popularity among us.
If someone is being robbed, or raped, or murdered, each of us have a MORAL obligation to help, though there is no stupid, legal imperative to do so. To deny this obligation is to deny our own humanity.
In the same fashion, if we are privy to information about an act that is destructive to our nation or society, we are obligated by every principle of moral agency to work to bring it to light. If that is not so, then why are we even here discussing what is being done by those who are working to destroy our nation and our freedom?!
Each of us has a strict obligation to fight that which is destructive to our society and our government, regardless of what the popular rhetoric of our time might say. If we don't, then we implicitly agree to be the instruments of our own downfall and destruction.
> We all owe some sort of debt to society. We all have an obligation to protect society when and where we can.
really?
you would love life in Cuba! they are forced to live for the good of society.
this statement of yours is personally offensive to me. this is the core belief of the socialist system.
you are a socialist. i'd like to see you argue out of this one.
that's as far as i'm going here. i can't read the rest of your comment because it actually makes me physically sick to my stomach. how did a socialist like you end up here?
Define socialism. I'm not sure that we share an understanding of what socialism is. I've already given what I consider to be the definition of socialism: wealth redistribution. Here's the textbook definition: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. What is your take and how does it differ?
To my mind, belonging to, and participating in, a SOCIETY and SOCIALISM are two different things entirely. Here's one textbook definition for "society": a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members. Society is an all encompassing term for the human associations and interactions within a community, where socialism is specifically a bad system of economics.
To participate in society means that you have to give to it in some fashion. Society is not created in some sort of hermetic bubble. Society is a give and take environment where people serve each other, care about each other, and benefit each other. In this way we all owe some sort of debt to society. You keep saying that is socialism, but, I'm sorry, I strongly disagree.