Revising History in the Real World

So far, every single word that has come out of the mouth of the Liar in Chief has been the opposite of what it means in the "real world".
Prove me wrong!
Isn't 'everything turned upside down' a Sign of the Beast?

At the Smaller Meeting, someone asked me if I thought -really, truly- if the Bushies would "let 9-11 happen", even though the PNAC crowd are on record as saying all they needed was another Pearl Harbor to put their policies into effect.

They call it creative destruction, and they make quite a nice profit on it. War is great for business.
After all, three thousand Americans is nothing in terms of the humans we have slaughtered in other countries. A human sacrifice is a human sacrifice. After a while all that matters is the profit.

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors." -"senior official" of the Bush White House quoted by Bob Woodward

We should pay attention, because they’re REALLY NOT kidding
posted by Jonathan Schwarz
April 20, 2006

John “Crusher” Yoo has written a new book called The Powers of War and Peace. And according to a review in the Nation, it has some big news: everything you know about American history is wrong!

You may remember from 10th grade the argument in 1787 between the federalists and anti-federalists over the ratification of the Constitution. The anti-federalists main worry was the Constitution as written would centralize too much power in the national government, particularly the executive branch. In fact, they said, we’d end up with a tyranny again, just after we’d fought a revolution to escape a king.
Meanwhile, the federalists argued the Constitution had checks and balances that would prevent this.
Of course, the Constitution was ratified, leading to much rejoicing and eventually several segments of Schoolhouse Rock.
But in history class they always tell you the anti-federalists were wrong: we didn’t end up with a tyranny. The Constitution prevents the executive branch from doing anything it wants. For instance, only Congress has the power to declare war.

But John Yoo has some surprising news: the anti-federalists were right! The Constitution does give the president, particularly in matters of war and peace, exactly the same powers of the British king circa 1787! The only difference is, Yoo thinks this is a good thing.
Think I’m exaggerating? Well, check out Yoo’s website, which has an article he wrote that’s incorporated into the book:
"…[The anti-federalist] Cato correctly concluded that in the realm of practical politics, the President’s authority under the Constitution did not differ in important measure from that of the King."

Ha ha ha! The joke’s on you, American history!
The best part is, Yoo is associated with the Federalist Society, the notorious conservative legal organization. I guess one of the main tenets of the Federalist Society is that the anti-federalists were right all along.

SPECIAL NIXON BONUS: Here’s what James St. Clair, Nixon’s counsel, said in the famous 1974 case U.S. v. Nixon about executive privilege:
The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.

NOTES TO SELF: We Michiganians should recall that fat bastard Spence Abraham was one of the founders of the Federalist Society back in his college days. Apparently (I read it somewhere) it was an inside joke to call themselves Federalists. Membership in the Federalist Society was one of the Waving RED FLAGS that should have told our Democratic Senators to NOT! confirm Bush's Supreme Court nominees, Robertson and Alito. But the "innocents" confirmed them anyway, playing their rubber stamp walk-on roles as required in our soap opera government, the spineless useful idiots. gggrrrrr.
Do you know what Spence Abraham and John Engler are doing now? Right there on Google.

Federalists believe Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and racial segregation laws are not. Environmentalists should know that Federalist Society Tim LeHaye's dominionist theology is Federalist Society.

Eat your spinach, google Federalist Society. Read who belongs. Federalist Society crapola is Bush's domestic and economic policy. And then go do the Hoover Institution (think tank of warmongers Condoleeza Rice, George Schultz, Thomas Sowell)for our international policy.

The GOP Jesus cartoon above is from one of the best lefty humor sites on the net: Jesus' General

WARNING! Do not read the rest of this post if you have a weak stomach!
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
By Philip Watts
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm
01/08/06

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles. This came out in response to a question in a December 1st, (2005) debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."

This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world:
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us

Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."

What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?

This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?

It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.
Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too…I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."

If open promotion of unmitigated executive power, including the right to order the torture of innocent children, isn’t sufficient basis for drawing such a "moral equivalence," then I don’t know what is.
What would be irresponsible is to sit by and allow the Bush regime to radically remake society in a fascist way, with repercussions for generations to come. We must act now because the future is in the balance. The world cannot wait. ...
Philip Watts
Information Clearing House

May their God forgive anyone who voted for these sick puppies.