There are two critical things that will happen within the next year that will decide the fate of this country. One is the 2008 election. I believe the current Republicans have slipped over the edge. They are authoritarians with serious fascist tendencies.
I was a Republican my whole life until the Bush administration and I was called fascist countless times, so I don't use the word lightly. Even Sandra Day O'Connor, the former Supreme Court Justice that put Bush into office warned about the beginnings of dictatorship in this country.
Republican nominees like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are constantly justifying and excusing torture, spying on innocent Americans, bombing countries that are absolutely no threat to us and running roughshod over the United States constitution. None of these are conservative principles. The Republican Party has become radicalized.Mike Huckabee is an evangelical Christian who doesn't believe in evolution, a position I find laughable and embarrassing, but I think he might be the most sane among them (Ron Paul is roughly right about foreign policy, but he is a different kind of radical in domestic policy). That's how bad the Republican Party has become.
If one of these guys wins next year, I really don't know what terrible direction this great country is going to spin off into. Luckily, they don't have a very good chance of winning. Every poll indicates the country gets it. They are sick of these radicals and want some sanity back in the country. But don't put it past a Democrat to blow this one. If ever a party was built to lose, it's the current Democratic Party built on weakness and capitulation. So, this election will be pivotal.
The second moment -- or non-moment -- that is absolutely critical is whether George W. Bush orders an attack against Iran. The results of this order would be catastrophic. Iran would retaliate all over the world, but mainly against our troops in Iraq (with their Shiite brethren in Iraq). Even more importantly, we would inflame the whole Muslim world. We would create this absurd world war against Islam that the idiot neo-conservatives are dreaming about. Let alone what it would do to oil prices and the world economy.
The same incompetent fools who gave us the Iraq War are now claim attacking Iran would be easy (apparently, according to these nuts the Iranian people would welcome an attack on their country). I don't think they even believe that. They're doing the same thing they did before the Iraq War -- try to imply that the war will be easy so that we are more likely to enter it. These band of merry fools are led by Dick Cheney.
ABC News is reporting today that giant bunker-buster bombs have been included in the latest Pentagon request as urgent needs in the battlefield. As the ABC story explains, the only place where we can use a Stealth bomber to drop these massive bunker-busters are ... Iran.
But luckily, there appears to be another side in this fight within the administration. And it is led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. These men appear to be arguing for sanity. Adm. Mullen warned this weak that attacking Iran would lead to risks that are "very, very high." He made it clear that it would in fact be a last resort, as opposed to the fake last resort that Cheney can't wait to fast forward to.
I know that even that kind of language is silly. Last resort to what? Do we have to strike before Iran takes over Cleveland? The whole thing is ridiculous. But Adm. Mullen was giving clear signals through his choice of words. And the signal was that he did not want to attack Iran on his watch.
They are also joined by the head of Central Command, Admiral Fallon, in their opposition to attacks against Iran. Apparently, Admiral Fallon has indicated that he would resign before giving such an order.
The head of Central Command, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Defense Secretary make for powerful allies. But never, ever underestimate the power of Dick Cheney. The force is strong with that one. Cheney has never really lost a bureaucratic war within the "Bush" administration. He has lost some battles, like the peace deal we made with North Korea (he was, of course, against it; it had the word "peace" in it). But Cheney always win the big ones.
So, I really don't think it's overstating it to say that the future of this Bush administration, this country and even the world turns on this internal administration battle. Unfortunately, the man who will decide who wins this battle is -- George W. Bush. The single most incompetent, unwise, and thoughtless leader this country has ever seen. The battlefield is his tiny mind. Who will gain control of it? Which way will "The Decider" go?
There's your great suspense for the next 15 months. Will Bush pull the trigger and start an even more colossal and disastrous war or will Gates and Mullen walk him back from the edge?
I don't know which way it's going to go. I wait nervously as the clock winds down. I have never wanted 15 months to go by quicker. Will we able to make it out of this administration in one piece? Will we be able to contain the damage done so far? Or will Bush open Pandora's box? Stay tuned.
Watch The Young Turks Here
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
The Great War Within the Bush Administration
Posted Oct 25th 2007 4:28PM by Cenk Uygur
Filed under: Middle East, George Bush, Young Turks, Dick Cheney
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- Hereafter on Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- 'News Watchers' Give Clinton Highest Marks in Obama's Administration
- Americans in a Grouchy Mood About Obama and Congress
- Marijuana Legalization Could End Up On California Ballot
- Spokesman: Sen. Chuck Schumer Regrets Insulting Flight Attendant
- The Dude's a Woman!
- Public Has Mixed Views on Obama As Year Draws to a Close
- Republican Slows Health Bill Progress to a Crawl
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 8)
46. Paul, I don't know what science you ever learned, but it is obviously not anything in any school I've ever been in. Science isn't about belief. Science is about what is, whether we want to 'believe' it or not. In other words, it doesn't matter if not a sigle person on Earth believes it, it is. Your own words prove you know nothing of science and you certainly are in no position to lecture anyone on being indoctrinated.
William St.Romain at 12:37PM on Oct 26th 2007
47. Here we go again....
Look Lord St. Romain...from Wikipedia, "Philosophy of science...
Science draws logical conclusions about the way the world works and the way in which scientific theory relates to the world. Science draws upon evidence from experimentation, logical deduction, and rational thought in order to examine the world. In making observations of the nature of individuals and their surroundings, science seeks to explain the concepts that are entwined with everyday lives. Science in general is neither "natural" in its approach nor moral in its purpose. It's simply science: the application of a logic (often in form of mathematics) to a set of objects or situations. In a fundamental sense science is just a logic.
Limitations of science-
Many people consider science to be the most powerful human system ever devised for the discovery of truth. Certainly, science has been extremely successful, in the sense that scientific theories underly the operation of all of modern technology. For example, humans could not have devised computers, aviation, telecommunications, civil engineering, or Western medicine without the guidance of science, because all of these fields depend deeply on the basic and particular properties of the physical universe for their operation.
However, there are limitations to what any truth-finding method based on objective replication of experiments can discover. Some fields, such as economics, ecology, or social science can be very hard to experiment with. Even more problematic is the study of human consciousness, which is by nature subjective, yet undeniably "real" in some sense. The human race does not at this time possess reliable techniques to study these and other subjects; better methods of truth-determination for these difficult areas are (or should be) an ongoing project of epistemology, the study of knowledge.
This is why science, though extremely powerful, cannot by itself give rise to a truly complete or balanced worldview. Just as those who do not understand or do not trust science cut themselves off from what may be the largest and most accurate body of knowledge and technique that humankind has ever accumulated, anyone who studies only scientific fields denies a huge amount of knowledge, both currently known and potentially knowable.
Furthermore - "Issues of ethics, such as bioethics and scientific misconduct, are not generally considered part of philosophy of science." And there's more....open some more books...ok?
Your sir are a 'one-eyed flying purple people eater'....there's more to reality than what science can answer...The END
Paul Thompson at 12:50PM on Oct 26th 2007
48. Cenk-Get the words out of your mouth. You have no problem blasting someone, even lies are not forbidden. But you are very evasive abut Ron Paul. Tell everyone the major point you do nt like about him is he is PRO LIFE. Though if you said that, you would lose half of your readers in protest, which would not be to hard to count on ones fingers
Now, and this is funny, your next story will be a critical analyis of the Democrat Party and its Nominees.
robert okane at 1:01PM on Oct 26th 2007
49. Mel, I can't believe you are still falling for that, "weapons of mass destruction," B.S. The same B.S. you've been buying from the repugnicans all along. Won't you "conservatives" EVER learn?
I was going to say the only thing dumber I've read in these comments is "the democrats will get rid of talk radio."
But then the Christians (also conservatives) came along to tell us what they think their inviisble alpha-male in the sky wants.
Captain Negative at 1:20PM on Oct 26th 2007
50. Read what Ron Paul writes, and listen to what he says. He is the Constitutionalist we need elected to the Presidency in 2008. That's my conclusion.
Whether you agree with me on Ron Paul or not, do your own research and think for yourself -- this is no time to toe a party line, or to parrot what others are saying, or to give up in advance because a particular candidate is not among the perceived "chosen." WE CHOOSE when we vote, in primaries and general elections.
LMT at 1:36PM on Oct 26th 2007
51. Captain Negative: So you think Iran is lying. Convenient to believe anyone who says something you wish wasn't true is lying.
Mel at 1:45PM on Oct 26th 2007
52. 'Lord Paul', the philosophy of science is not 'science.' Science is the method by which the natural world is studied and observed, by means of experiments and observation, to aquire the knowledge of the natural laws of the universe. The whole underpining of science is that all laws are knowable, not necessarily known. Your 'not knowable' is the same as 'man was not meant to fly.' Don't throw defenitions at me. You religio types are real fast to throw around definitions when it suits you and ignore them when they contradict you. I read plenty of books, thank you. Just not the kind you read. Incidentally, I don't believe in 'purple people eaters,' 'flying spagetti monsters,' 'big foot,' 'the lock ness monster,' or any other fantasy beasts you care to name.
William St.Romain at 1:49PM on Oct 26th 2007
53. Evolution is not a theory-- it is pretty much fact.
Translation: Pretty much a fact ... means it's a theory.
Darwin said his theory depended on irreducible complexity. Meaning that all life is one building block on another. He said that should this not prove true then his theory would colllapse.
Take the single cell that was the fist lifeform on this planet. Take a good look at it ... it has a motor. A tail made of three or four parts that give the cell mobility. Any of the four parts by themselves do absoultely nothing. Only when all the parts work together to they have any purpose. This is a clear example that irreducable complexity doesn't work. What function did any of the parts of the motor have before all the parts became a motor ... answer none. According to Darwin, each part must have a purpose onto itself. Clearly in the example I gave the theory doesn't work.
I see design in the motor of the single cell. I see design in nature ... meaning I see design in everything. Clearly, with all this design ... there must be a designer.
Thomas J Gassett at 1:53PM on Oct 26th 2007
54. What's your point? That what you don't believe in isn't real...for everyone? Your understanding of reality and the 'state' method of inquiry is the only valid way that humans can define themselves, their purpose and meaning?
I'm not going to argue with an some know-it-all 'egg-head'...I just want my right to believe as I choose...ok...without you cramming your belief of what is permissible on myself, my family and my country!
Paul Thompson at 1:58PM on Oct 26th 2007
55. Cenk Uygur
If Iran becomes a nuclear threat and uses a weapon in the next 5 years and we had the capability to take him out now, Bush will be blamed forever. Bush is the only person willing to stand up to this c**k sucker in Iran. 'Evita' Clinton will do nothing if she is elected Queen of Amerika. It's now or never. We either take this little scumbag out now or we watch the entire middle east go down the drain due to this little Hitler. My son is a Marine. I do not want to see another war and I certainly do not want to see him harmed, but we fighting for our freedom. Iran wants the US and Israel annihilated. This isn't about stupid idealogical difference, this about our right to exist. Iran believes we shouldn't exist. Iran needs to be stopped now before it's too late.
Vitriolic Conservative at 2:01PM on Oct 26th 2007
56. And it is pretty obvious that you don't read the books I read....maybe you should....you see, I believe in the transcendent....again...my experience, my witness....my right....get it, Mr. Egghead???
Paul Thompson at 2:06PM on Oct 26th 2007
57. 49. Mel, I can't believe you are still falling for that, "weapons of mass destruction," B.S. The same B.S. you've been buying from the repugnicans all along. Won't you "conservatives" EVER learn.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your revisionist history leaves me unmoved.
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
Clearly, if WMD in Iraq was a lie ... it was a democrat lie told when Bush was the govenor of Texas.
Only a partisan clown would miss the fact that every intelligence service on the plaent thought Saddam had the weapons. Even his own generals thought he had the weapons. Why? Because Saddam wanted the Kurds and the Iranians to fear those weapons ... and they did.
Thomas J Gassett at 2:09PM on Oct 26th 2007
58. Wow, what a broad blog. I hope we have a leader who finishes what they start. Not a damn thing bush has started is going to be finished by him. Would his legacy be remembered and revered even though he has left a mess n the Middle East, larger than when he stepped in? Would he ahve a satisfactory grade as President though Osama Bin Laden is still at large? I don't think so. My vote would go to the one that I think would be best qualified to finish what Bush has brought this country into. But if he decides to go into Iran, I fear that the "weapon of mass distruction" they were crying about back in 2003 would indeed be found in Iraq; and it will be us.
David McCool at 2:24PM on Oct 26th 2007
59. Steve #5, you are absolutely correct. There already is a country in the middle east that has nuclear weapons. That country is Israel and they have had them since the 1970's. Iran wants a nuclear weapon because Israel already has them. That's usually the way it works. Pakistan wanted a nuclear weapon because their enemy and next door neighbor India already had one. A nuclear Iran is a threat to world peace but so is a nuclear Israel. It is the height of hypricosy for the United States, a country that has more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world to decry Iran's nuclear ambitions while saying absolutely nothing about Israel's nuclear capabilities. The neoconservatives in the Bush administration who have been advocating war with Iran are those who want the United States to do Israel's bidding. If we want genuine peace in the middle east we should dispense with the cowboy diplomacy and start acting as honest brokers in the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
randy at 2:30PM on Oct 26th 2007
60. Everyone! Please!
Is it any wonder we tear ourselves apart as a nation when we can't even keep focused on the subject for ten postings!? These are all valid subjects for debate but they are distracting from the main topic at hand: What to do about Bush and Cheney? There is nothing more that the powers that be would like than for us to go off on tangent after tangent so long as said tangents are not associated with Bush and his shameful execution of office.
Now. The reasons for impeachment are numerous, from War Fraud in the persecution of the Iraq war, to corruption in the no bid rewards of reconstruction funds, to violations of the 4th, 6th, and 8th Amendments in regards to American "Enemy combatants". Ask yourself this... would you want Clinton impeached if he arrested a republican, held them indefinitely without legal council, without citing specific charges, sent them to another country to be tortured, all because Clinton said it was necessary? With Articles of impeachment filed Bush and Cheney will have to swear under oath what they knew and didn't know, what they did and did not do, and can issue far more powerful sopenas to aquire more evidence. Bush will retain legal council, which is more than he allowed Padilla, and a federal prosecutor can try to prove his guilt.
And as I said before, this will allow the republicans to prove that they are not blind supporters or complicit in his abuses of office and set a precident for all presidents to follow... like Hillery.
Somber at 2:30PM on Oct 26th 2007