BushCo's House of Scandal

April 30, 2007 by susan
Delay House of Scandal

Scandal A state of affairs regarded as wrong or reprehensible and causing general public outrage or anger.

by susan
Last week, the boys at the Powerlineblog.com (remember, we're just a little ole clothesline) took on Eleanor Clift of Newsweek for saying that the Bush administration is rife with scandal. Actually, the Power boys intone, "The truth is that the Bush administration has been extraordinarily scandal-free."
The Clothesline rarely takes on such deluded claims, but, fueled by an overdose of coffee and a quick perusal of the morning news, I can't resist. Rage on.

Stating the obvious, for six years this administration has had the Republican congress doing its bidding, thus every scalawag within the Beltway and without got a free pass. Now the subpoenas are lining up like jets over O'Hare because the second half of that definition of scandal, the public outrage and anger, finally became manifest in the 2006 elections.

Then, there are scandals -- and there are scandals; there's private immorality and public immorality. I am less concerned about the sexcapades of our top echelon of idiots than I am with the scandal of lying to a nation to coax them into a war that should never have been, the scandal of the lives and treasure and honor lost in that war; the scandal of turning our backs on Darfur and Afghanistan while screwing up on a colossal scale in Iraq; the scandal of incompetency; the scandal of failure to rebuild anything as promised, whether it's New Orleans after Katrina or Iraq after our invasion; the scandal of an Attorney General, who is either lying or has severe amnesia, remaining at the head of the Justice Department; the scandal of a president who listens to the Amnesiac General's testimony and says he's impressed; the scandal of Karl Rove putting his party's best interest above his country's best interest at every turn; the scandal of Dick Cheney's failure to have an ounce of human decency in his thrombotic arteries; the scandal of the media, particularly the vaunted NYTimes and WaPost, giving credence to con-men like Ahmed Chalabi and selling this war to the American people; the scandal of tax cuts and off-shore havens for the uber rich as the middle class sinks into debt and despair; the scandal of putting the regulatory agencies charged with protecting our air and water and natural resources into the hands of private profiteers; the scandal of health care becoming a luxury that many can no longer afford; the scandal of insisting that assault weapons be readily available to even the most disturbed and deranged among us; the scandal of borrowing from China and India to pay the way for this profligate regime while dumping the monstrous debt onto our children; the scandal of turning a blind eye on the constitution and allowing "detaineees" to rot or be tortured in Gitmo and other rendition centers around the world; the scandal of destroying America's credibility and moral authority, our greatest weapon, while over-extending our military in Iraq and leaving us more vulnerable and unable to respond to crises elsewhere; the scandal of ignoring the precepts of our forefathers and squandering the efforts of every subsequent generation to make this a nation that stood for goodness and generosity, a nation that led by example and coaxed with diplomacy, and, only as a last resort, defended its allies with the best military forces ever known.
To name a few.

The scandals of Tom deLay and Duke Cunningham and Scooter Libby and Jack Abramoff or Randall Tobias and Mark Foley don't even come close. They sullied the halls of congress and destroyed their reputations, but the scandal known as BushCo has brought down the entire nation, and they're not done yet.

Posted in


Perhansa (not verified) | April 30, 2007 - 6:40pm

The Powerline boys write: "The truth is that the Bush administration has been extraordinarily scandal-free. Not a single instance of corruption has been unearthed." phtptppthphew...sorry, that was milk coming out my nose as I choked laughing. Now I see...the strategy is to act outrageuosly, then, with a straight face, lie outrageously, and hope people are so amazedly dumbstruck and milk-up-the-nose stunned that they simply harumph, choke and say: "whatever." ("Whatever," the favorite phrase of a nihilistic society.) What can be proclaimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Fortunately, Susan has done an outstanding job beginning the tally of scandalous behavior of Bush-Lo (as in low-down). Whatever these guys at Snotline.com are smokin' it must be some bad funny weed. Did they dig up in a ditch? The the party of MORAL SUPERIORITY and SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS and FASTIDIOUS VALUES? This is the worst case of "situational unethical ethics" I've seen since the 60's. If you aren't thrown in jail for it, it ain't wrong, huh? Aren't these guys lawyers?

Maybe scandal is a bad choice of terms--it does seem a bit anticeptic (and soft) to me, how about: Reprehesive-incompetent-sins of ommission and commission and blasphemous lying about it? How about unfathomably-sanctimonious-hubristic-immoral-transgressions against Constitution and Country? How about "cheap grace"? How about treason? How about EVIL? Mr. President, how about renaming your adminstration the "Praxis of Evil"? Sorry, a week in the UK made me ornery and these people are making me sick. Where are the Deitrich Bonhoeffer's of the day? Bill Moyers I guess might fit that category...

When I was a young kid in north Minneapolis we lived in a somewhat rough neighborhood and one day some older kids stopped by our garage and lingered around the entrance talking to me. I had a suspicious feeling in my gut; they tried to act nice and friendly but I had this feeling they weren't. After they left I discovered they'd stolen the lock to the garage door. I took off running after them and confronted them a couple blocks away and demanded it back. They, of course lied straight out with a mock innocence. I stepped up to the biggest kid chest to chest and informed him I wasn't going back home without it so they might want to think about it again. He made some sarcastic commnet and smuggly laughed and started to walk away. I grabbed his arm and stepped in front of him again and said, "This is the last time I ask, then I'll start checking people for it with you first." When he saw I wasn't buying his racket and that I would fight him and his friends if that's what it took, he decided to hand it over and walk away. Of course at the time I was ready to piss my pants and I would likely have gotten the snot beat out of me, but I learned that most trouble makers are arrogant bullies and they count on the fear of others as their weapon. It's time to step up to the bullies and bushwackers running this country into the ground. Call Bush's bluff. If he vetos. Make the restrictions tighter and send it back again. Attach the latest reports from Iraq to the next spending bill complete with documentation of long stringo f failures and broken promises along with the ongoing violence, death, destruction, incompetence, financial fraud, etc. And tell him--no deadlines, no benchmarks, no adult supervision--no money. It's time for a showdown, let's see who blinks. Are the American people pissed off enough to send this silver-spooned-village-idiot and his smug lot of crooks packing?


Anonymous (not verified) | April 30, 2007 - 8:23pm

This seems to be a blog to display how creative of writers you can be-facts seem to be a major problem for you folks though. You are not entitled to your own set. I would recommend that you keep trying .

Just wondering? Why does the Star Tribune choose not to run your "stories"?


susan | April 30, 2007 - 10:22pm

Well, most of America, and the world, is with us. (And your sentences are so dis, um, jointed.) The Strib is not running my op-eds because I haven't submitted any. People on your (apparent) side of things, seem to think I'm on the Strib's payroll, but I'm not. They pay me by the piece. If I send them nothing, they don't have anything of mine to run. Simple as that. Why I'm not sending them anything is a whole other story.


Poet (not verified) | May 1, 2007 - 7:10am

Beyond the implicit insult of anonymous' post the short little burst of rudeness shows just how limited his comprehension is. Nobody truly knows all or even a majority of the "facts" about anything. So we all construct our own version of reality based on our own experience of the world. What you accuse those at clothesline of doing is nothuing more than a mirror of your own delusion.

However, since "fact" is tyhe altar at which you choose to worship, let me refresh your fading memory about somwe facts that nobody (even Fuehrer Bush) disputes.

1. We are going into the fifth year of a war that we started suppossedly because:

Iraq was an iminent threat to the rest of the world because

They had weapons of mass destruction ready to deploy because

They were intimately connected to Al Quaeda who would happily be their means of such deployment and slaughter untold numbers of our citizens..

2. Less than 3 months after the invasion of Iraq President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed "mission accomplished".
3. As a result of the war more Americans died than were killed by Al Quaeda inspired attacks of 9/11/01. Iraqi deaths are in the hundreds of thousands according to statistically valid studies and rigorously peer reviewed and published in scholarly journals (as opposed to supermarket tabloids).

4. Today nobody from the military to the diplomats, to the politicians can even fathom when this disaster might end or what "victory" would look like.

These facts speak of scandal of monstrous proportions since all the reasons for starting this war were false, its evaluation of its conduct were (and are) false, its destruction is greater than the event that supposedly triggered it, and nobody can define for the record what our purpose is for being there.


paul w. miller (not verified) | May 1, 2007 - 7:54am

"4. Today nobody from the military to the diplomats, to the politicians can even fathom when this disaster might end or what "victory" would look like."

Many months ago the onion ran the headline. "U. S. finishishes a close second in Iraq". Today we aren't even a close second. Anyone hanging onto the illusion of possible "victory" in this murderous fiasco is seriously deluded. If you have been lied to 1,000 times in a row wouldn't you figure out that statement 1001 is a lie?


Perhansa (not verified) | May 1, 2007 - 7:55am

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, whether "fact" is indeed a fact and "reality" is real. If BIll Clinton gets a blow job and he was distracted talking on the phone, did he have any fun? If he really wasn't into it, was it really infidelity? I'd ask our anti-blogger whether by creative writing s/he means artistic or loose with the "facts" as in "the Bush administration is scandal free"?

The British journal New Scientist had an article in the April 24th issue regarding the 600,000 Iraqi deaths reported by the Center for Refugee & DIsaster Response. AS Poet said, the more transparent and peer reviewed the data and the process, the more accurate that number looks. Why hasn't there been any followup stories in the "liberal" MSM? Let's see, before the war the death toll from the sanctions on Iraq have been estimated between 350, 000-500,000, so we're at or near a milllion deaths in Iraq. We've got more than a million who have fled the country. And this war game was originally called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Depends on what you mean by "freedom". Let's use our friends reasoning--freedom can mean whatever you want it to mean, like free to choose how you die--whether by disease, unsafe water, starvation, disease, lack of medical facilities, IED, suicide bomber, at a checkpoint, in a dark alley, with holes drilled in your head, in some prison? We keep asking: Where's the outrage? Do you think the insurgency might be partially the "outrage" we all keep wondering about? Sorry playing with the facts again, another g**damn America-hater here. It's all Al-Qaeda and "dead enders". Wait, I thought we virtually destoyed AQ? Didn't we disable them--wasn't that one of our great successes?

Would our friend like to offer some fact-based defense of the "incompetence" and "failures" of his/her administration of choice? Would they like to "enlighten" us on the virtues and gleaming successes of this bunch of neo-conmen and conwomen?Condi's star seems to have fallen a bit don;t you think? Maybe we just don't have the facts. Maybe you could tell us how Wolfie has turned the World Bank into a vision of excellence. Explain to us boneheads how the new mythic warrior-savior General Petraeus is going to pull a pretty white rabbit out of this this hell-hole in Iraq on the quick and dirty. You want burden of proof--let's see some. Iraq a success? Let's hear it...New Orleans a marvel of efficiency and superior strategy and execution, let's hear it...immigration reform? Medicare? Social Security? A shining emblem of efficiency and decency in the Justince department, let's hear why...a beacon of diplomacy and global partnerships...name a few...who are we on better terms with now than six years ago? Let's hear how the military has been strengthened and is now a far superior fighting machine than it was five years ago...got some "facts" for us? You're the ones with approval ratings in the high 20's to low 30's. The shareholders aren't very happy--want to pick up the burden of proof?

Then again, truth is relative if your a solipsist or a nihilist isn't it? Oh, maybe they mean us...


Anonymous (not verified) | May 1, 2007 - 9:22am

Shazam, Susan, you got it right again!


susan | May 1, 2007 - 1:41pm

Why thanks everyone, for the rousing defense. Shazzam indeed.