MyDD :: The F-word

The F-word

by Chris Bowers, Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:47:50 PM EST

The same administration that distributed fake news releases to promote its Medicare legislation, which were cited by the GAO as illegal propaganda;

The same administration that distributed fake news reports to promote its drug policy, which were cited by the GAO as illegal propaganda;

The same administration that paid a public relations firm to promote its education law with fake news reports, and to rank newspapers on their coverage of said education law;

The same administration that paid Armstrong Williams to promote its education law (a payment he never disclosed);

The same administration that paid a National Review columnist to promote its marriage legislation (a payment she never disclosed);

The same administration that paid another columnist to promote that same marriage legislation (again, a payment he never disclosed);

The same administration that is forcing the Social Security administration to promote its own destruction;

The same administration that allowed a potential male prostitute with no journalistic experience to get White House press credentials using a fake name, from a fake news source, so he could ask fake ideological slanted questions; (link)

The same administration then gave said reporter access to the classified documents that led to the outing of a CIA operative who was married to a critic of the administration (link);

The same administration that engaged in all of these acts of propaganda and intimidation of critics is now threatening stations if they run a MoveOn ad that opposes their plan to destroy Social Security.

Oh yeah--and they are creating do-not-admit lists for public events based on perceived political views.

Oh yeah--and their allies are calling us traitorous for suggesting troop withdrawal.

Oh yeah--and they think reporters should not be allowed to use anything except administration talking points.

Oh yeah--and their allies want to destroy a children's cartoon for supposedly being too pro-gay.

Oh yeah--and they want to regulate what can be taught in colleges and universities on ideological grounds.

And they support torture polices.

And they support internment of minorities.

And they support pre-emptive war.

There is a crisis in this country, but it is not Social Security. The coming and current crisis is expressed best in perhaps the most unexpected of all places, The American Conservative:

[T]he very fact that the f-word can be seriously raised in an American context is evidence enough that we have moved into a new period. The invasion of Iraq has put the possibility of the end to American democracy on the table and has empowered groups on the Right that would acquiesce to and in some cases welcome the suppression of core American freedoms. That would be the titanic irony of course, the mother of them all--that a war initiated under the pretense of spreading democracy would lead to its destruction in one of its very birthplaces. But as historians know, history is full of ironies.

I am sure I left out a bunch of stuff, so feel free to list it in the comments. A new storm is rising. These are dangerous times for our country.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Permalink :: 55 Comments :: Post a Comment

add to this the fact that Bush administration... (3.00 / 1)

took us to war under false pretenses, thereby increasing the long term threat of Anti-US terrorism and weakening our long term influence/interests. Excellent summary.

by lookinforward on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:26:19 PM EST

Chris... (3.00 / 1)

This is an extreamly powerful list.

Great job!!!!!

This is the kind of material that makes GOP types stop supporting Bush.

by donkeykong on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:31:13 PM EST

Except, there's at least one error (none / 0)

Not dealing with the other items, the bit about Maggie Gallagher is contradicted by, among other things, the NYT retracting their editorial in which they said she was paid to promote Bush's agenda.

by TheLonewackoBlog on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Except, there's at least one error (3.00 / 1)

Painting a picture is about the broad strokes. If you lose a pixel or two thats not a problem.

Bush and his team have brought many changes to the USA .

Pre-Emptive war
Failure to understand Genevia conventions protect our guys better if we follow them.
Willingness to trade freedom for safety.
Willingness to cheat while talking about values
Blaming ineptness on the competent.
Willingness to lie while accusing others deseption.

Chris nailed it.

by donkeykong on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too bad... (3.00 / 2)

Too bad that we couldn't have run a candidate last time who wasn't afraid to call this administration what it really is- a revolutionairy power bent on destroying many of the key pillars that have held up this society.

For example, why wouldn't Kerry say that Bush would lead us to war with Iran, when it was obvious that this would be their next step? When I was at shows working with Music for America I would talk to kids and try to get them to care about the election. The one thing that always seemed to break through the apathetic responses of "I just don't care about the election" was when I asked them "So you don't care if the next country we invade is Iran?" Some might snicker at me and laugh "no" but many others listened to what I had to say about the radical nature of the Bush Administration, how this was unlike any administration the US had ever seen, and would at least think about what a revolutionairy, worl conquest loving, power would mean for all of us.

Our leaders in the Democratic party were way too cautious in the last election, and now, unfortunately, we all must pay the terrible price of four more years of Neocon rule.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:36:08 PM EST

Re: Too bad... (none / 0)

Kerry was a dull, wealthy, northeastern, economic moderate/social liberal. He could not connect with average Americans like Clinton could.

Bush had the good fortune of running agaist Gore and Kerry in that neither could call Bush out on being born with a silver spoon (or foot) in his mouth.

Edwards was a good VP choice, but he could not counteract Kerry's image. Nor do I believe did he press the message of economic populism that got him elected from a very conservative NC. (Edwards is surprisingly economically liberal. He is also quite good friends with Dennis Kucinich - they told their supporters to support each other in Iowa if the one was considered "not viable")

Bush was so popular in mid-2003 that all the best Democrats stayed away. To be honest, it is only due to the remarkable efforts of the Democratic grassroots and Bush's incompetence that Kerry was able to get 48%.

by wayward on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:38:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's so true... (3.00 / 2)

There is something about the neo-con and really the hard-core conservatives in general that leans in a very fascist direction. They really aren’t about “freedom and liberty” no matter how many times they will say it because in the end they are about enforcing a strict moral code that they believe is necessary for the good of all, and hence are pursuing that and that only. Freedom and liberty is a cover, much in the same way all those fascist and totalitarian communists’ regimes love to name their countries with “republic” and/or “democracy” in their name even though they have nothing of the sort.

"Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil."... Plato

by Spartacus on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:39:52 PM EST

Re: It's so true... (3.00 / 1)

Other than guns and pure unrestrained capitalism (as they understand it), what liberties do neo-cons stand for. I seriously can not think of a single one. As Bill Hicks would say, "You are free to do as we tell you".

by OxBuzzard on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nice... (3.00 / 1)

or it would be if it didn't mirror exactly the depression that I am feeling today.

by DjW on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:52:15 PM EST

I see (3.00 / 1)

Shades of another Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) speech.

by NvDem on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 01:53:50 PM EST

Excellent (3.00 / 1)

This is the stuff that fuels my nightmares. I served as a medic in the Army in the 80's and used to think I would be proud if my sons felt the same urge to do something for the country. Now, in the era of perpetual warfare, ("I'm a wartime president-I make decisions with war on my mind")I would dissuade my sons from possibly taking a bullet just to fatten up Cheney's pension and the Carlyle group.
In Missouri, the "li'l governor", with his vast 33 years of life experience threw thousands of people off Medicaid and vowed there would be no increase in taxes on his watch. He closed a rehab center for the mentally ill and is going to throw many of those folks right out onto the street. Missouri ranks near the bottom in academic achievement as well as in taxes collected. The Bush pattern of cutting taxes to make it appear as if social programs are the reason for the deficit is also at work in Missouri.

by OxBuzzard on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:06:17 PM EST

Fantastic List Chris. (3.00 / 2)

I am going to link it to my diary on Kos, if you don't mind.

by Delaware Dem on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:07:19 PM EST

Re: Fantastic List Chris. (3.00 / 3)

I certainly do not mind. Your diary was half of the idea for this post.

by Chris Bowers on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Law suits (3.00 / 2)

One of the core Republican "values" is that the ability to use money in advertising is freedom of speech. Of course, like so many other things, that only runs one way. I suggested earlier on Daily Kos that we borrow another tactic from the right and the corporates to achieve our goals: the SLAP (selective law suit against participation). Let's sue the guys on the FCC personally, also the RNC and whoever else comes to mind. Throw in the stations. That ought to instill a lirrle backbone and fairnes.

Don Wildmon has no problem getting his message out to limit freesom of speech. The UCC and MoveON ought to get a fair shot as well. If truth is a standard, we could go after any one connected with the swift boat liars. Yhey knew this was false 30 years ago (hey, Nixon wouldn't use it).

Sure, let's go with the truth but let's not hedge on tactics. They have no scruples in fighting for falsehood and dictatorship. Let us throw the kitchen sink at em. Or as Harry Truman would say, give em hell.

by David Kowalski on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:10:28 PM EST

Don't forget the "press minders" (3.00 / 2)

at inauguration events to make sure that reporters don't talk to the wrong people and that if they do, those people don't say the wrong things.

I'm leaning rather toward the "S" word: Stalinism. Of course, I believe that almost all totalitarian governments look pretty much alike, and have pretty much the same goals.

by paperwight on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:13:01 PM EST

Feb. 2003... (3.00 / 3)

while visiting my parents for the weekend my father and I had several talks about the times we live in and the times he has lived through. Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist or paranoid or something I kept a couple thoughts to myself but father, a soldier during WWII, starting and raising a family during the McCarthy era, having fought the Civil Rights battles of the early sixties, said to me that for the first time in his life he was afraid of fascism in America.

It was that moment that I stopped thinking of it as paranoia or tin foil hat territory and finalized my decision to get involved.

And neither of us knew anything about all of this at the time.

These are serious, serious times folks. It cannot be stressed enough. If you love your country and the values it was founded on, if your ancestors fought in the Revolution or were immigrants (of any time) coming to America to find that dream... they you (and me) have an obligation and a responsibility to right these wrongs, defeat this enemy within and set this country back on the track of democracy and freedom. They have made a mockery of both words.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:41:20 PM EST

Send copies to every Democrat (3.00 / 4)

Shouldn't Democrats be able to be as critical of Bush and Congress as The American Conservative? When are we going to start hearing this from a few Democrats?

We can snivel all we want to all over the web. Until a chorus of voices rises from the Democratic party the media is not going to cover this. Chris Matthews is going to poo poo this story every bit as much as Joe Scarborough. I'm tuning in to Scarborough tonight for the first time in months to see if Pat Buchanan has any comment on this article.

All that is required for evil to triumph is silence.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:41:59 PM EST

Kudos, Great list (3.00 / 1)

Direct and to the point. Puts the issues together to develop that all important theme. I hope you don't mind if I print up a copy and post it on the wall at Democratic Headquarters locally. I would like to change the title to 'Why We Fight' though, if it's ok with you.

by NvDem on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 03:42:55 PM EST

State Sponsored Religion (3.00 / 2)

Let me add to the chorus of congratulations by saying great post!

Another un-American activity they are engaged in is to support rolling back the Separation of Church and State. They endorse Christianity as a state religion by sending large amounts of tax dollars to religious organizations sympathetic to their cause.

by Curt Matlock on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:00:24 PM EST

Re: State Sponsored Religion (3.00 / 1)

It is not state supported religion they want, it is state subordinated religion.

They are not "endorsing Christianity", they are buying off the Churches. Churches are the conscience of the nation, yet Churches are run by men and men are hesitant to bite the hand that feeds them.

Remember, the Separation of Church and State is not to protect the State from the Church, it is to protect the Church from the State.

by wayward on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 09:26:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And they want to wrap their rule in Religion (none / 0)

too.

There was a hip-hop/industrial band from the 90's named Consolidated and they had a song and album about this very phenomena that we are seeing in action by BushCo today: Friendly Fascism

by LionelEHutz on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:16:07 PM EST

Oh - Yeah, and the Democrats have enabled (3.00 / 1)

every single aspect of the Bush agenda.

Oh - yeah and the corporate mass media continues to ignore the organized, orchestrated right wing propaganda onslaught and treats each of these incidents as nothing more than mere back and forth partisanship.

Oh - Yeah and the Bush administration lied about 9/11 with complicity of Democratic office holders

Oh - Yeah and they stole the 2004 presidential election by denying democratic constituents their right to vote, and by vote changing and vote tampering in Ohio and Florida

Oh - Yeah and the mass media is nothing more than a biased propaganda outlet for corporate interests who back the Bush administration

Oh -Yeah and the Democratic Party by its many forms of acquiescence is one of the supporting pillars of GOP rule

Oh - Yeah and too many Americans are all too willing to go along with the destruction of their democracy and with the conversion to fascism so long as they themselves do not believe their personal interests are threatened.

by leschwartz on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 04:36:34 PM EST

Re: Oh - Yeah, and the Democrats have enabled (none / 0)

Hard, bitter pill to swallow, but I can not disagree. I kick myself every day for not doing all I could to oppose Bush in 2000. If the charge was complacency, then I would have plead guilty.

NEVER AGAIN!!!!(sorry to shout)

by OxBuzzard on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You should add to that (none / 0)

It's even to the point that conspiracy theories formerly rejected are starting to earn credence with me now. The latest on the FAA warnings about Al Qaida make me wonder if they projected a smaller suicide attack and wanted it to happen to justify the neocon plans to reshape foreign policy. (Remember, R. Clarke & others said the Iraq plans were underway in Bush's first month in office).

I don't know that the failure to strengthen air security qualifies as fascism, but it certainly created a national mood that has granted fascism plenty of room to take root and flourish.

by Kevin Hayden on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:04:47 PM EST

A typical unbiased coporate mass media report: (none / 0)

As Sam Seeder of Majority Report AirAmerica puts it;

A typical Coporate Media report:

"The consensus among well reputed sicentist continues to add mass to the Bush administration statements that the world is indeed flat. While Democrats in an increasing show of partisanship continue to support the discredited notion that the earth is some kind of upside down miss - shapen pear-like globe."

"These wacky liberal left wing moon-beam Democrats!

"Next, and I think you know this, they will be repeating the now completely discretided notion that the polar ice caps are melting and that the ozone layer continues to grow in an attempt to block the absolutely necessary developemnt of Alaskan oil fields."

"Where will all this discredited liberal left wing Democrat wackyness end - in complete and actionable Anti-American disloyalty?

"Next, and you know its coming the Democrats will be saying that job exports do not help the American economy, or that the Bush administration lied about its many and changing justifications for invaiding Iraq, or that the the medicare drug benefit was somehow misreprented to congress and to the American people, or that 9/11 was an inside job, ... or that the Bush policy was to approve of the use of torture, or that Bush himself was a-wol from duty."

---------

And the really devastingly bad aspect of our situation is that so many people, inlcuding people who write into these boards, believe that next time it will be different and the next election will be covered fairly by the mass media if we only complain loudly enough or if we just continue to point out the mechanisms and instances of propaganda we are all aware of now.

by leschwartz on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:07:06 PM EST

One more example for you, Chris (none / 0)

The Republican-sponsored bill to exempt the Secretary of Homeland Security from any law he wants exemption from. How charming is that?

by southpaw chris on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 06:28:23 PM EST

Add this (none / 0)

From
:

Oh jumping jeebus. Check out the White House presidential history page. They've taken to calling Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams "Republicans" because, you know, they were members of the Democratic-Republican party, so therefore they're Republicans.

I do need a drink.

Even the RNC is more honest than the White House:

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Even though they were considered a "third party" because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

Is our children learning?

changing History, eliminating our past.

by Pounder on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:28:59 PM EST

Presidential Override (none / 0)

More specifically on the torture topic is the unconstitutional assertion of a "commander-in-chief override" held by the president in wartime. Senator Kennedy spoke to this new presidential power in a letter released during the Gonzales confirmation.

The Bybee Memorandum's provisions on Executive Power are also wholly inconsistent with the separation of powers in the Constitution.

Article II, Section 3 directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Yet the Bybee Memorandum states that the federal Anti-Torture Statute would be unconstitutional if it "interferes with the President's direction of such core war matters as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants."

<..cut..> Mr. Gonzales refused to say whether this statement remains "good law" for the Bush Administration. He would say only that the President "has not exercised his Commander-in-Chief override; he has not determined that torture is, in fact, necessary to protect the national security of this country."

<..cut..> To this day, we still do not know whether the President believes he has the power as Commander-in-Chief to authorize torture.

There is no such thing as a "Commander-in-Chief override." It's certainly not in my copy of the Constitution. It appears to be something that Mr. Gonzales and his colleagues have invented.

Congress has repeatedly passed laws and ratified treaties prohibiting torture and mistreatment of detainees, and the President does not have the power to violate them.

by Curt Matlock on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:34:34 PM EST

We need you!!! (none / 0)

Chris

We need democratic leaders like you. People who are bold enough to tell truth. You should run for Congress.

by SRconbio on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 01:01:55 AM EST

Another one to add (none / 0)

The same administration that rewrites history when its original rationale for war proves false, and succeeds to the point that even in this post, a reference to Iraq as "a war initiated under the pretense of spreading democracy" (from the American Conservative blockquote) doesn't get noticed.

by sweet fortune on Sat Feb 12, 2005 at 06:29:48 PM EST