Is Bush really willing to leave office?

[SMM]

First of all, before answering this, I want to share some background information.

By Walt Greenwald
How a good vs. evil mentality destroyed the Bush presidency.

Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency," which will be published June 26. To read Greenwald's response to letters about this excerpt, visit his blog.

One of the principal dangers of vesting power in a leader who is convinced of his own righteousness -- who believes that, by virtue of his ascension to political power, he has been called to a crusade against Evil -- is that the moral imperative driving the mission will justify any and all means used to achieve it. Those who have become convinced that they are waging an epic and all-consuming existential war against Evil cannot, by the very premises of their belief system, accept any limitations -- moral, pragmatic, or otherwise -- on the methods adopted to triumph in this battle.

Efforts to impose limits on waging war against Evil will themselves be seen as impediments to Good, if not as an attempt to aid and abet Evil. In a Manichean worldview, there is no imperative that can compete with the mission of defeating Evil. The primacy of that mandate is unchallengeable. Hence, there are no valid reasons for declaring off-limits any weapons that can be deployed in service of the war against Evil.


Equally operative in the Manichean worldview is the principle that those who are warriors for a universal Good cannot recognize that the particular means they employ in service of their mission may be immoral or even misguided. The very fact that the instruments they embrace are employed in service of their Manichean mission renders any such objections incoherent. How can an act undertaken in order to strengthen the side of Good, and to weaken the forces of Evil, ever be anything other than Good in itself? Thus, any act undertaken by a warrior of Good in service of the war against Evil is inherently moral for that reason alone.

It is from these premises that the most amoral or even most reprehensible outcomes can be -- and often are -- produced by political movements and political leaders grounded in universal moral certainties. Intoxicated by his own righteousness and therefore immune from doubt, the Manichean warrior becomes capable of acts of moral monstrousness that would be unthinkable in the absence of such unquestionable moral conviction. One who believes himself to be leading a supreme war against Evil on behalf of Good will be incapable of understanding any claims that he himself is acting immorally.

These principles illuminate a central, and tragic, paradox at the heart of the Bush presidency. The president who vowed to lead America in a moral crusade to win hearts and minds around the world has so inflamed anti-American sentiment that America's moral standing in the world is at an all-time low. The president who vowed to defend the Good in the world from the forces of Evil has caused the United States to be held in deep contempt by large segments of virtually every country on every continent of the world, including large portions of nations with which the U.S. has historically been allied. The president who vowed to undertake a war in defense of American values and freedoms has presided over such radical departures from the defining values and liberties of this country that many Americans find their country and its government unrecognizable. And the president who vowed to lead the war for freedom and democracy has made torture, rendition, abductions, lawless detentions of even our own citizens, secret "black site" prisons, Abu Ghraib dog leashes, and orange Guantánamo jumpsuits the strange, new symbols of America around the world.

In sum, the great and tragic irony of the Bush presidency is that its morally convicted foundations have yielded some of the most morally grotesque acts and radical departures from American values in our country's history. The president who insists that he is driven by a clear and compelling moral framework, in which the forces of Good and Evil battle toward a decisive resolution, has done more than almost any American in history to make the world question on which side of that battle this country is fighting. The more convinced President Bush and his followers become of the unchallengeable righteousness of their cause, the fewer limits they recognize. And America's moral standing in the world, and our national character, continue to erode to previously unthinkable depths.


The Tools of the "Good"

In November 2006, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, that vested in the president the power to order individuals (including legal residents of the United States) to be detained and imprisoned indefinitely without having been charged with any crimes or provided with a forum to prove their innocence. In reality, all of the powers granted by the Congress with that legislation were already being exercised by the Bush administration in the absence of legal authority. Ever since 9/11, and without any Congressional authorization, the president has asserted the power to imprison anyone without being charged with a crime and even with no ability to contact the outside world. And he has so imprisoned even U.S. citizens, including José Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi.

The power to order people detained and imprisoned based solely on accusation is one of the most extraordinary and tyrannical powers any political leader can hold. One of the core rights established against the British king by the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century was that the king could not order subjects imprisoned except upon a finding of guilt arrived at in accordance with legal process. The Military Commissions Act thus literally vested in President Bush -- and in subsequent U.S. presidents -- a power no British king has possessed since 1244. The founders of the United States thoroughly objected to such tyrannical power. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1789 letter to Thomas Paine, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Beyond indefinite detentions, the Bush presidency has ushered in a host of practices that Americans have generally found to be unconscionable and that violate virtually every principle America has long endorsed. From admitted presidential lawbreaking, to the use of torture (or "rendering" our detainees to other countries for torture, including detainees we later admit were wholly innocent), to enlisting the resources of our foreign intelligence agencies (the NSA and CIA) to spy inside the U.S. and collect and maintain all sorts of personal data about American citizens, the Bush administration has seized and exercised powers that have long been anathema to what "America" has meant at its core.

The president has been able to engage in this conduct because the country collectively accepted the dualistic framework with which he views the world, whereby the goal of "protecting" ourselves from the "forces of Evil" outweighs every other consideration and justifies every means employed in service of this battle. When President Bush acts in the name of fighting The Terrorists, with the goal of battling Evil, what he does is by definition justifiable and Good because he is doing it.

This absolutist Manichean mind-set venerates physical safety above all else. When President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law in October 2006, he dismissed objections to its Draconian and tyrannical provisions with one very simple and straightforward argument (emphasis added):

Over the past few months the debate over this bill has been heated, and the questions raised can seem complex. Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat? Every member of Congress who voted for this bill has helped our nation rise to the task that history has given us.

That paragraph summarizes the Bush movement. Because the threat posed by The Evil Terrorists is so grave, maximizing protections against it is the paramount, overriding goal. No other value competes with that objective, nor can any other value limit our efforts to protect ourselves against The Terrorists.

That is the essence of virtually every argument Bush supporters make regarding terrorism. No matter what objection is raised to the never-ending expansions of executive power, no matter what competing values are touted (due process, the rule of law, the principles our country embodies, how we are perceived around the world), the response will always be that The Terrorists are waging war against us and our overarching priority -- one that overrides all others -- is to protect ourselves, to triumph over Evil. By definition, then, there can never be any good reason to oppose vesting powers in the government to protect us from The Terrorists because that goal outweighs all others.

But our entire system of government, from its inception, has been based upon a very different calculus -- that is, that many things matter besides merely protecting ourselves against threats, and consequently, we are willing to accept risks, even potentially fatal ones, in order to secure those other values. From its founding, America has rejected the worldview of prioritizing physical safety above all else, as such a mentality leads to an impoverished and empty civic life. The premise of America is and always has been that imposing limitations on government power is necessary to secure liberty and avoid tyranny even if it means accepting an increased risk of death as a result. That is the foundational American value.

It is this courageous demand for core liberties even if such liberties provide less than maximum protection from physical risks that has made America bold, brave, and free. Societies driven exclusively or primarily by a fear of avoiding Evil, minimizing risks, and seeking above all else that our government "protects" us are not free. That is a path that inevitably leads to authoritarianism -- an increasingly strong and empowered leader in whom the citizens vest ever-increasing faith and power in exchange for promises of safety. That is most assuredly not the historical ethos of the United States.

The Bill of Rights contains numerous limitations on government power, and many of them render us more vulnerable to threats. If there is a serial killer on the loose in a community, the police would be able to find and apprehend him much more easily if they could simply invade and search everyone's homes at will and without warning. Nonetheless, the Fourth Amendment expressly prohibits the police from undertaking such searches. It requires both probable cause and a judicial warrant before police may do so, even though such limitations on state power will enable dangerous killers to elude capture.

Imagine George Bush present during pre-founding debates over the Constitution. Is there any doubt that he or Dick Cheney or Alberto Gonzales would have argued in opposition to proposed Fourth Amendment restrictions on police powers by stressing that violent criminals can kill our children, that we must do everything to protect ourselves against Evil, and that those who favor search warrant requirements for the police are "pro-murderer"? And surely the Constitutional Convention would have been subjected to this argument: "If you're not doing anything wrong in your home, what do you have to hide from the police?"

Our country is centrally based upon the principle that we are willing to assume risks in order to limit government power. Numerous other amendments in the Bill of Rights are grounded in that same principle. And, of course, that is the central belief that drove the founders to risk death by waging war against the most powerful empire on earth. Objectives other than physical protection matter greatly. We have never been a country that ignores other objectives and asks only, as the president put it, did "Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

The president's mind-set is utterly contrary to core American principles. Historically, the worst mistakes America has made -- those instances in which it has departed most radically from its ideals -- happened not when Americans failed to take seriously enough some Evil lurking in the world, but, to the contrary, they occurred when our government leaders exaggerated the threat of Evil and accordingly induced overreactions among citizens.

Historians will almost certainly ask about the Bush presidency: Did America adhere to its values and principles when defending itself against the threat posed by terrorism, or did it succumb to fear, overreaction, and violate its core beliefs in pursuit of illusions of maximum protection? As history professor Joseph Ellis wrote in 2006 in the New York Times:

My second question is this: What does history tell us about our earlier responses to traumatic events?
My list of precedents for the Patriot Act and government wiretapping of American citizens would include the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which allowed the federal government to close newspapers and deport foreigners during the "quasi-war" with France; the denial of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which permitted the pre-emptive arrest of suspected Southern sympathizers; the Red Scare of 1919, which emboldened the attorney general to round up leftist critics in the wake of the Russian Revolution; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, which was justified on the grounds that their ancestry made them potential threats to national security; the McCarthy scare of the early 1950's, which used cold war anxieties to pursue a witch hunt against putative Communists in government, universities and the film industry.

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. ...

But it defies reason and experience to make Sept. 11 the defining influence on our foreign and domestic policy. History suggests that we have faced greater challenges and triumphed, and that overreaction is a greater danger than complacency [emphasis added].

PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS AT LINKED SIGHT. I actually exceeded the 20K limit.




Reprinted by permission of Glenn Greenwald/Crown Publishers. All rights reserved.

Bush and the zealots around him, are committed to their holy crusade. As Greenwald says, in their war against evil, their actions and power know no bounds. It is them against the world, and dissenters are (at best) delusional, but if persistent, seditious.

Bush has assumed Imperial powers, never thought imaginable. That in itself would have been a conspiracy theory, a few years ago. Most Americans do not realize the full extent of those powers, or that many were gained through deceit and coercion. Gongalez is under investigation for backdating meeting notes, concerning reauthorizing the expired wiretapping legislation, which was ordered by Bush/Cheney. The notes alleged they had approval of eight high-ranking Congressional leaders. Four have flatly denied this. (It turns out Bush never actually stopped the program and was doing it without authorization).

Another thing most Americans do not realize, many of these 'new powers' have been used, or tested. We only have to go back about a month, to Minneapolis-St. Paul and the RNC. Innocent Americans were arrested in their homes (many times not even charged). There was not crime committed by anyone). What little justification given was, they were possible future suspects for rioting at the convention, which had not even taken place. This was followed up by hundreds of peaceful protestors, and even innocent bystanders and reporters. What little rioting that did take place, were done by federal provocateurs. They were minor, but that is mainly what the MSM focused on. They portray it as widespread. However, I studied it, as did others with good video equipment. The MSM was showing the same event, but from many different angles, so it appeared to be much greater than it actually was. Yet, we had a fairly lengthy thread here, with many thinking the protestors got what they deserved. Test of new powers - test passed.

Greenwald's excerpt is pretty much to the point, and there is not point is me restating it. However, I have had a nagging feeling, almost the entire length of Bush's second term. "Will these guys really be willing to walk away from all this power they have built up"? It is not something enjoyable to dwell on, but every so often, something happens, which once again triggers this thought.

In the early 70's, Nixon commissioned a study for the Rand Corporation. He wanted to know, if in a time of crisis, the President could cancel the election, or stop the ascension of a newly elected President. He also wanted to know, what level of emergency it would take for the public to approve the decision. I have never been able to find any results from this, so perhaps they were never made public. It was one of those 'flash in the pan' stories, of which there was a steady stream at that time. Cheney was on staff at the WH then, and was already an advocate for the 'Imperial Presidency'. Fortunately, he was a small voice back then. While I have no proof, I would be shocked if this study information has not been carefully looked at by the WH.

I was feeling a little better about things, until the report came out, we bring a full combat brigade home, to provide support for protests and rioting. It makes zero sense, unless someone is anticipating a great deal of civil unrest. Afterall, the commanders in Afghanistan have been begging for reinforcements, yet it is deemed by the WH to be more urgent they are operational here. This has been un-constitutional until just recently. I was not even aware the Constitution had been amended thusly. I usually do not miss things like this, so I am very curious exactly when, and how this took place. I have a hard time imagining soldiers firing on their fellow citizens.

Whatever the WH is up to, I do not think it will happen before the election, or at least that is what I keep telling myself. If McCain is elected, the continuation of the neocon agenda will continue. The right-wing power machine will stay in business and Dub can go home. Of course, we are totally screwed.

If Obama wins, all bets are off. Even Congress is not safe. Do you recall Hitler 'locking down' the German parliament, when they began to questions what he was doing? Just because it has not happened here ... yet, does not make it farfetched. Just look at the new 'firsts' this administration has given us. And, that is only the ones we know about.

I do not know what they have planned. I do not have a crystal ball, or insider information. But, it is not difficult to see many possible scenarios they could do. Right now, our best weapon is vigilance.

[ucfgrad93]

Good Lord, the paranoia just doesn't stop.

You are absolutely right. The army in the streets, martial law, suspension of the Constitution, aliens land, end of the world cause the Mayan calendar stops at 2012, etc. etc. ad nausem.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes, SMM. Clearly without you and others here, I would be blinded. Gotta go, I hear helicopters over my house now. If you don't hear from me in 20 minutes, it means I'm dead and will be served up as the main course at the next White House dinner. Keep up the good fight! Power to the people!

[Counterfit]

I think he's dumb, but he's not that dumb. Public support would be close to nil, and most, if not all, of the military would remember that they're sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.

[rdowns]

THis is taking the Bush bashing just a wee bit over the line.

[brad.c]

Hey, I was surprised he was re-elected and re-inaugurated in 2004. Guess we'll see if this happens on the next inaugural day.

[leekohler]

SMM- this is a bit much. I don't let anyone else get away with editorial posts, I won't let you off the hook either. Sorry.

[MacNut]

Honestly I think Bush wanted to leave 2 years ago. I don't think he cares and would just rather be on his ranch doing mindless things where he doesn't have to make hard decisions. I think Cheney is the one they will have to drag out kicking and screaming.

I really think deep down Bush is a good guy that got caught up with the wrong crowd.

[Peace]

If Bush doesn't leave office there will be a revolution and it will be televised.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by Peace

If Bush doesn't leave office there will be a revolution and it will be televised.

Do you honestly think Bush wants to stay. I'm sure his bags are packed right now.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by MacNut

Do you honestly think Bush wants to stay. I'm sure his bags are packed right now.

Yes I do honestly think Bush wants to stay. As long as he can make money off the people.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by Peace

Yes I do honestly think Bush wants to stay. As long as he can make money off the people.

He can go into the stock market and make more. If you think Bush is only there to make money than you haven't looked at every other politician in office. Id be happy to revolt against every elected official.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by MacNut

He can go into the stock market and make more. If you think Bush is only there to make money than you haven't looked at every other politician in office. Id be happy to revolt against every elected official.

I seriously doubt he could make more money in the failing stock market. He could and has been making more in stolen revenues from Iraq over tha past 6 years. Probably close to hundreds of billions.

[Peace]

The only conspiracy I believe in is one that nobody thinks about.

Bush knew Bin Laden was going to do it and did nothing to stop it so he could instill the fear government in order to invade Iraq and steal their money.

[mactastic]

My feeling is that Bush is all too eager to leave office. I'm guessing he's more than a little tired of dealing with all the negative press; plus being president is "hard work".

I think he'll be more than happy to ditch the fake ranch and move back to Dallas where there's not so much dust, hit the speaking circuit (although he'll likely have to avoid certain countries in the future), and spend time fishing and watching baseball.

Oh, and 9/11 was caused by planes hijacked by terrorists flying into buildings. Anyone suggesting otherwise is laboring under the false impression that while the Bush administration failed miserably in so many endeavors, it was able to perpetrate the largest conspiracy in history without a single hitch.

[MacNut]

How can you cheat the constitution. The rules were in place for 200 years.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by PowerFullMac

There was a building that was hit by a military fighter plane in the fog that, although is smaller than a commercial jet, is much faster, and the building burned longer and DIDNT COLLAPSE!

fighter vs commercial airliner. Which one creates a bigger hole?

It's a fairly simple concept. The fighter jet created a small hole compared to the ones in the WTC. There was enough structural support left from the fighter jet impact for the weight to be transfered to the remaining support beams and keep the building standing. Now the WTC had little structural support left in the hole so the weight of the top of the building was too much for the remaining steel beams which was also further weakened by the fire.

PS: Also look at what duke pointed out.

[aethelbert]

I thinks that Georgie is gearing up to spend a relaxing end of his life in Crawford with a good supply of beer and take an eternal break from the media. This is just a bit over the line, me thinks.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by quagmire

fighter vs commercial airliner. Which one creates a bigger hole?

It's a fairly simple concept. The fighter jet created a small hole compared to the ones in the WTC. There was enough structural support left from the fighter jet impact for the weight to be transfered to the remaining support beams and keep the building standing. Now the WTC had little structural support left in the hole so the weight of the top of the building was too much for the remaining steel beams which was also further weakened by the fire....

The size of the plane is but one aspect. You'd also have to consider the mass and the difference in fuel supply.

Do you know when a "fighter jet" hit a building? The last crash I can recall is the small plane that crashed in New York, and that was something like a Cessna.

[iJohnHenry]

A B-52 bomber hit the Empire State Building, high up.

But, it was made of sterner stuff.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by hulugu

The size of the plane is but one aspect. You'd also have to consider the mass and the difference in fuel supply.

Do you know when a "fighter jet" hit a building? The last crash I can recall is the small plane that crashed in New York, and that was something like a Cessna.

No, I don't, but that wasn't my point. Point is a fighter jets hole and damage will be far less then a 767's and the remaining supports would be far more then what was left of the WTC's structure. So the load could be easier to disperse then what the remaining( and weakened) supports in the WTC. Before a mod came through with a post sweep, a poster stated a fighter flew into a building and the building didn't collapse. Was just countering his post. And oops I assumed he meant fighter jet. Even a WWII fighter wouldn't do enough damage( hell probably be less damage then a jet) to make a building collapse.

Originally Posted by iJohnHenry

A B-52 bomber hit the Empire State Building, high up.

But, it was made of sterner stuff.

Didn't know the B-52 was flying back in the 40's. The article agrees by saying it was a B-25.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by quagmire

...Didn't know the B-52 was flying back in the 40's. The article agrees by saying it was a B-25.

Aw. You beat me to it.


I had to go look it up, but the B-25 really is small plane compared to the B-52.
For some reason I was thinking of the B-29.

[SMM]

I knew before I ever started writing this, it was not going to be attracting a great deal of agreement. However, how something is going to be received, should not be what makes you decide whether, or not, to openly and honestly speak your thoughts. With that being said, I am not surprised (or even disappointed, by the response.

Notwithstanding the possible need to defend the factual component, I agreed (with myself) upfront, not to try and argue the the opinions and conjecture. As Lee pointed out, this is more editorial oriented. The main reason I wrote it was to get a few people thinking about why a combat brigade is being brought home for active deployment. Until there is a satisfactory answer to that question, I will continue to weigh possible clues, and hope get an answer.

Anyone believing there is a point in speculation, where a possibility is too far-fetched, again I will remind them of the track record of this administration and the republican power machine.

Finally, there will be zero solace in saying, "I told you so", should these events actually occur. I would much rather be wrong 100 times out out of 100. In early 2002, when the administration began trying to link SH and Iraq to 9/11, I did not believe it for an instant. When they began to push for invasion, it reeked of Vietnam. I was in the ear of anyone who would stand still for > 10 seconds. I became very frustrated by inability to raise questions in people's minds, including my own family. After the fiasco unraveled, some people said, "You were right". However, there was no temptation to feel smug about it. When it really mattered, I was unable to convince anyone to even question what we were about to do. Pretty hard to be smug about that.

[Counterfit]

Originally Posted by SMM

The main reason I wrote it was to get a few people thinking about why a combat brigade is being brought home for active deployment. Until there is a satisfactory answer to that question, I will continue to weigh possible clues, and hope get an answer.

To supplement the National Guard. That's why.

[ghall]

Why wouldn't he want to leave, McCain will carry on is reign of incompetence.

[zap2]

Haha, never would happen.


He couldn't control the rest of the government, nor the people. His approval rating is far to low to try this.



Also, I don't believe he is this evil, and I don't think he really wants to. Nothing he has done shows to me he wants to hold on to power for a long period of time.