imprisonbush.com

Michael McManus is a self-proclaimed expert on ethics. Why, McManus says that he’s such an expert on how to be ethical that he is qualified to write a column for newspapers entitled Religion and Ethics.

This week, it looks like Michael McManus made the mistake of confusing religion with ethics. It appears that Michael McManus simply believed that as long as he was religious enough, the ethics would follow along, somehow.

Michael McManus had a dirty secret. Michael McManus, while passing himself off as an independent newspaper columnist, was being paid by the Bush Administration to promote partisan Republican policies.

McManus wrote columns in which he promoted a Republican marriage scheme being executed by the Bush Administration. In this Republican marriage scheme, the Bush Administration used taxpayers’ money to hire people to go nag single people to get married. No kidding! The Bush Republicans actually established a special office in which government bureaucrats get to decide when single people ought to get married.

The dirty little secret that McManus never told anyone is that while he wrote his newspaper columns promoting this marriage bureaucracy scheme, he was on the Bush Administration payroll, being sent checks (once again, at taxpayer expense) in compensation for promoting the Republican marriage bureacracy policy.

Michael McManus says that he just forgot to tell his readers that he was being paid to promote the very policies that he claimed to write about as an independent observer. Maybe Michael McManus ought to rename his newspaper column Religion, Ethics, and a Selective Memory.

No, that title still doesn’t work. It’s got the word “ethics” in it. You see, it is universally regarded as unethical by journalists for a newspaper columnist to be paid by the government to promote specific partisan policies. So, how about Michael McManus rename his newspaper column Religion, Lack of Ethics, and a Selective Memory. Oh dear. That wouldn’t sell to the Rabid Religious Right, now would it?

The odd thing is that Michael McManus is strongly connected to Maggie Gallagher, another newspaper columnist who was paid taxpayers’ money by the Bush Administration to promote the Republican’s plans for a governmental marriage bureaucracy. McManus cited Gallagher’s work, and Gallagher edited the writings of McManus, in one great big circle of right-wing reactionary opinion paid for 100% by the Republican-controlled federal bureaucracy.

News of all this money slipped into the back pocket of Republican newspaper columnists comes at the same time that President Bush is informing Americans that there’s just no money left to pay for everyone’s Social Security benefits.

Well, the economics of this pundit payola scheme will have to be analyzed elsewhere. I’ll just conclude with a simple reminder: It is a crime for the President to direct the federal government to pay for propaganda of any kind. On this matter alone, there are strong grounds to impeach and imprison Bush.

The oddest thing has happened in the last few weeks: A leading Democrat has stood up in defense of the law. Uncanny. We’ve gotten so used to Democrats of national standing rolling over in submission to George W. Bush that it is kind of shocking to see what Senator Barbara Boxer has been doing.

It looks like it’s shocked the Republicans too. Every single Republican-owned media outlet has been quick to screech at Senator Boxer, accusing her of being unfair, or being too loud, or being just plain uppity.

What was Barbara Boxer’s offense? When Condoleeza Rice came to the U.S. Senate for confirmation hearings, Barbara Boxer actually asked her difficult questions! Barbara Boxer had the audacity to bring up relevant information!

Yes, these days, hearing the simple truth is a big shock in America. So, when we see the Republicans all across America rushing out to slam Senator Boxer, we can see that Barbara Boxer has done something that makes the people in the Bush White House very afraid.

I’ve got a sneaking suspicion about just what that is: Senator Barbara Boxer dared to accuse the Bush White House of supporting an official policy of torture. It was Senator Boxer who pointed out that Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush himself had sent a letter to Congress demanding that Congress remove language that strengthened the prohibition on torture.

By revealing this letter, Senator Boxer showed that there is a direct link between George W. Bush and the torture of prisoners by agents of the American government in places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

That’s enough material to justify the attention of an independent investigator – if there was an independent investigation of the violation of international and American law by the Bush Administration.

In less than two years, the American voters will have the chance to vote the Republican majority out of Congress, and then there will be no barriers to a full and independent investigation of President Bush. This month, Barbara Boxer laid down a big part of the path that such an investigation could take.

The screeching of Republicans at Barbara Boxer is not just motivated by the GOP’s general antipathy for uppity women, or their attitude that Democrats should be seen but not heard. I suspect that the shrill reaction of the Republican Party to Barbara Boxer is a sign that the Republican loyalists are beginning to circle their wagons around George W. Bush to try to protect him from a criminal prosecution – to begin in January 2007.

Looking even further ahead, Barbara Boxer’s courageous stand for truth and for the rule of law has earned her a strong following in the progressive base of the Democratic Party (the progressive base that ambitious senators like Hillary Clinton are ignoring at their own peril). There is now a movement to draft Barbara Boxer for President in 2008 – a movement that I wholeheartedly endorse.

But, let’s not allow our burning passion for presidential elections blind us to the step that must be taken first. Before Bush can be prosecuted and imprisoned for his crimes, we must end the Republican majority in Congress. That must be done through the congressional elections in November 2006. Kick the Republicans out of office, and we’re one step closer to the prize: Imprisoning Bush!

Maggie Gallagher yesterday confessed that she had received $21,500 from Health and Human Services to promote the Bush administration’s marriage policy. She would have disclosed it earlier, she said, but she “forgot.”

This is exactly like the scandal involving Armstrong Williams, who secretly received $240,000 from the Department of Education to promote Bush’s education policies. In both of these cases, money was secretly given, by separate departments of the Bush administration, to supposedly independent members of the press, in exchange for their support of Bush administration policies in the months leading up to Bush’s re-election.

President Bush claimed the While House did not know this sort of thing was going on. He made it clear to cabinet officials that from now on (now that he’s won the election, that is), there will be no secret deals funneling money to purportedly independent advocates in exchange for their support of administration policies.

The clandestine diversion of federal money to support partisan politics is illegal. And Bush is giving us the same old song and dance. Apparently, the American people are supposed to believe that the White House did not know about a common practice in separate departments across the administration. It’s the same old, tired “a few isolated bad apples” excuse. Well, we’re not having it. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, and it’s getting harder and harder to believe the rot doesn’t go all the way to the top.

Senators Frank Lautenberg and Edward Kennedy are callling for a broad investigation into these and similar abuses. Write or call, and thank them for doing the right thing. Then write or call your senators and ask them to support Lautenberg and Kennedy.

Every once in a while, something I hear about reminds me of something I read in George Orwell’s 1984. More specifically, a lot I’ve seen and heard the last few days smells like duckspeak, doublethink, and newspeak.

Duckspeak:

Duckspeak means, more or less, quacking like a duck. Someone talks and talks and talks, and it means nothing. As we saw in their recent “confirmation” hearings, Rice and Gonzales are masters of the art of duckspeak. Oh, they’re plenty smart, that’s not the problem. In fact, they’re too smart to say anything meaningful.

The strategic reasoning apparently goes as follows: It’s a foregone conclusion that they will eventually be confirmed, but they both have their hands dirty from the last four years of working with Bush (Rice said a number of contradictory things about Iraqi WMD, and Gonzales called the Geneva Conventions against prisoner abuse “quaint”). They have nothing to gain from being forthcoming, whereas there is the potential for serious embarrassment should they say anything substantial. The solution? Hour upon hour of “quack quack quack,” signifying nothing.

Doublethink:

In 1984, it is the patriotic duty of all citizens to develop the capacity for doublethink–the ability to hold two mutually contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time, and simultaneously accept both to be true. Most Americans have fallen into an acceptance of two contradictory ideas about American torture:

1. Torture of detainees by Americans is widespread, approved at the top by Rumsfeld and Gonzales, organized in the middle by military intelligence and the CIA, and carried out on the bottom by enlisted reservists who create the necessary conditions for interrogations. New information backing this view has been continually coming to light since the Abu Ghraib scandal last year, and even before. Just yesterday, new information came to light on the scale of the now-familiar techniques of American torture, “sodomy, electric shocks, cigarette burns, and severe beathings,” etc. being carried out by Americans at an Iraqi prison called Adhamiya Palace (Source: LA Times, 1/25/05).

2. Torture of detainees by Americans is just a case of a very few bad apples in one isolated incident at Abu Ghraib.

If Americans can be cajoled into believing both of these at the same time, Bush gets away with torture and Americans get to feel better about themselves.

Newspeak:

Newspeak is a new language created by the government to control the thoughts of the governed. The reasoning behind it is that, at least in as much as thought is a reflection of language, if you control language, you can control thought. Orwell’s example was the word “freedom.” In the book 1984, the government was cleansing the word “freedom” of all its undesirable connotations. The sense of the word “freedom” in the context of statements like “this dog is free of fleas” was permissible, but any use of the word “freedom” that implied political liberty was forbidden.

President Bush’s inaugural address lasted 21 minutes, and included 49 clean and bright references to “freedom” and “liberty.” He squared his jaw and spoke to the world about a shiny, sparkling freedom, pure and cleansed of meaning. Who’s freedom? From whom? Where? To do what? Never mind. I say “freedom,” your bosom swells with patriotic pride. I ring the bell, you drool.

It’s high time the media elites in the press took a break from spinning new clothes for the political emperors in Washington, and started asking themselves, “Does this pass the 1984 sniff test?”

Earlier this month, a group of one dozen retired generals and admirals sent an open letter to the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, which was about to hold hearings to review the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales to become the new United States Attorney General. (read the entire text of the letter

The retired military commanders were all deeply concerned about memos that Gonzales had written for President Bush. In those memos, Gonzales argued that the Geneva Conventions were “quaint” and “outdated”, and stated that George W. Bush could order torture to take place if he thought it was necessary for the sake of national security.

In their open letter, the generals and admirals strongly suggested that they believe that President Bush has broken the law by purposefully violating the Geneva Conventions and ordering the torture of prisoners. In one passage from the letter, the commanders wrote,

“Repeatedly in our past, the United States has confronted foes that, at the time they emerged, posed threats of a scope or nature unlike any we had previously faced. But we have been far more steadfast in the past in keeping faith with our national commitment to the rule of law.“

The meaning of this statement was confirmed by Brigadier General James Cullen, who explained, “Lawyers support their commanders, and a critical part of this responsibility is to tell commanders, including the Commander in Chief, what the bright line of the law is. In his role as White House Counsel, Mr. Gonzales failed to do this — and it was a critical failing. He paid more credence to his political vetters than to the law – and we have now seen the results: in the form of torture of those held in U.S. custody and in the stain on the reputation of the United States.”

These generals are no amateurs. They’re experts who know very well what the border is between ordinary military activities and war crimes. They’re are clearly suggesting that President Bush and Alberto Gonzales are responsible for war crimes.

It’s a shabby arrangement in America today. Everyone knows that the President of the United States has committed war crimes, but hardly anyone openly talks about it. It’s time to blow the cover on this arrangement, and say it plainly: George W. Bush is a criminal, and he deserves to be put on trial, and locked up in prison.

Yesterday, George W. Bush took time out of his busy schedule of prancing around putting in appearances at parties with fatcat donors to celebrate democracy, and granted a coveted one-on-one interview to us here at Imprisonbush.com. We were a bit surprised, since our organization is dedicated to building support for putting him behind bars. In agreeing to the interview, Bush, emphasized, he wanted to show that he is willing to reach out to all Americans, even those who disagree with him.

Norman: Mr. President, thank you very much for taking time on the day of your inauguration to speak with me.

Bush: Happy to. Inauguration day is a time to reach out to people. It is a wonderful celebration of freedom.

Norman: Yes it is…

Bush: Hey, let me give you a nickname. How ’bout Stormin’ Norman.

Norman: I think that one’s been taken, sir.

Bush: Oh yeah. Hey, are you a Mormon? ‘Cause then I could call you Mormon Norman. Heh heh.

Norman: Actually, I was wondering if you could answer some questions about the policy challenges you will face during the next four years.

Bush: Okay. Go ahead.

Norman: Well, Mr. President, many critics of your policies say our armed forces are over-deployed and over-worked. The National Guard and Reserve Units are stretched to the limit, and stop loss measures have kept tens of thousands of soldiers in the field months after they had been promised they could go home. Yet Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had rejected the possibility of increasing the number of troops in the military. In the face of an ever-growing insurgency, how can we maintain security in Iraq without increasing the number of soldiers in the armed forces?

Bush: As we all know, freedom isn’t free. Sometimes freedom comes at a cost. But when freedom is hard won, it is all the more precious. But whatever the cost, we will persevere in our efforts to uphold freedom around the world.

Norman: In Iraq, given the possibility of violence disrupting the January 30 election, what steps do you plan to take to bolster the perceived legitimacy of the outcome in the eyes of those who may be unable to vote due to the unrest?

Bush: Well, let me just say that, around the world, freedom is on the march. People around the world are hungry for freedom, and freedom is coming. Look, we all know that freedom doesn’t always come easy, but the time to embrace freedom is now. We will persevere in the pursuit of freedom, and freedom will prevail.

Norman: I see. Turning to Iran, officials in your administration maintain that an American military strike on Iran is an option. How do you plan to prevent such a strike from inflaming the majority Shiite population in Iraq, and thus destabilizing the fledgeling Iraqi democracy?

Bush: Make no mistake. The enemies of freedom would like nothing more than to see freedom fail. We must champion the cause of freedom, and help spread freedom around the world. Let freedom reign.

Norman: Right. On the domestic front, you have proposed to reform Social Security by allowing individuals to place money in private accounts. Since this money will not be available to pay benefits to those currently eligible, there will be a shortfall of over a trillion dollars. How do you intend to pay for this plan without raising taxes or increasing the national debt?

Bush: People should have the freedom to determine their own future. Giving people the freedom to make decisions about their lives brings them new freedom. There are challenges ahead, but we must remain resolute in our efforts to bring about freedom. Hey, got to go. Got to get to some more parties.

Norman: Thank you, Mr. President.

Bush: My pleasure.

Today is Inauguration Day, and we’re just loving it. What a beautiful day for America!

George W. Bush took his second set of vows to defend the Constitution, and without an ironic look on anyone’s face, he put his palm on the Bible, looking reassuringly like Dirty Harry from those Clint Eastwood flicks back in the 1980s.

At the Inauguration galas, President Bush looked just swell in his tuxedo, clinking glasses with his political supporters. Oh, and the ball gowns worn by Jenna and Barbara! They took time away from their hard work at… Anyway, they just looked beautiful, didn’t they? I mean just look at this picture of them dancing and…

Oops. Wrong picture.

Now folks, about this American torture thing. Isn’t it just about time we all sat down and took a chill pill? I mean, really. This stuff happens all the time, and it’s no big deal.

At the trial of Charles Graner, defense lawyer Guy Womack remarked that “Cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?” What about dragging prisoners across the floor with a dog leash? “A tether is a valid control to be used in corrections,” said Womack. (Source: UK Times, 1/10/05)

Womack’s comments echo the nuggets of humespun common sense expressed months ago by Donald Rumsfeld. Remarking on the limitation of “stress positions” like forced standing to four hours, Rumsfeld quipped “I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?” (Source: CBS, 6/22/04)

“By golly,” said Rumsfeld, “aren’t we getting our bleeding heart knickers in a twist? I mean, most of the time here at the Pentagon, I’m either naked or just wearing women’s underwear. Is that torture? Heck no! I threaten Richard Perle with vicious dogs on a regular basis. Keeps him in line. No big deal. Look, Paul Wolfowitz hooks electrodes to my penis and threatens to shock me all the time. Do I bitch and moan and say, oh, torture? Sure don’t! Every once in a blue moon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff will even get naked and make a human pyramid. You don’t see them complaining! Geez, you guys, lighten up.”

Folks, it’s just common sense. This isn’t torture. Just harmless stuff people do all the time.