[WCUSP] The Imperial Presidency

[yvonne simmons]

> Subject: The Imperial Presidency
> 

---------------------------------
Over any fairly lengthy period of time,
successfulimperialism requires that a domestic
republic or a domestic democracychange into a domestic
tyranny.  – Chalmers Johnson
  
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe
absurdities has the powerto make you commit
injustices."   --Voltaire
  

---------------------------------
What you see is what you get:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/23/4758/

 Published onTuesday, October 23, 2007 by
CommonDreams.orgThe Imperial Presidencyby Ralph Nader


Mired in the disastrous Iraqquagmire, opposed by a
majority of Americans, George W. Bush has reached new
depths of reckless, belligerent bellowing. At a recent
newsconference, he volunteered that he told our allies
that if they’re“interested in avoiding World War III,”
Iran must be prevented fromboth developing a nuclear
weapon or having “the knowledge necessary tomake a
nuclear weapon.”

To what level of political insanity has this
Washington Caesardescended? Only two countries can
start World War III-Russia and theUnited States. Is
Bush saying that if Russia, presently opposed
tomilitary action against Iran, persists with its
position, Bush may riskWorld War III? If not, why is
this law-breaking warmonger, looking foranother war
for American GIs to fight, while his military-age
daughtersbask in the celebrity lime light?

Why is he using such catastrophic language?

Surely he does not think Iran could start World War
III. His ownintelligence agencies say that, even
assuming that the internationalinspectors are wrong
and Iran is moving toward developing the“knowledge” of
such weapons, it can’t build its first such
weaponbefore 3 to 5 years at the earliest.

Why would a regime ruling an impoverished country risk
suicide,surrounded as it is by countries armed to the
nuclear teeth, such asIsrael and the United States?
This nation of nearly 80 million peoplehardly needs to
be reminded that the U.S. overthrew its popular
premierin 1953, installing for the next 27 years the
brutal regime of the Shah.

They recall that President Reagan and his Vice
President, GeorgeHerbert Walker Bush urged, funded and
equipped Saddam Hussein in hisinvasion of Iran-a
nation that has not invaded any country in over
250years-which took around 700,000 Iranian lives.

Moreover, the undeniable historical record shows that
U.S. companiesreceived licenses from the Department of
Commerce, under Reagan, toship Saddam the raw
materials necessary to make chemical and
biologicalweapons. Saddam used such lethal chemical
weapons, with the toleranceof Reagan and Rumsfeld, on
Iranians to devastating effect in terms oflives lost.

Then George W. Bush labels Iran a member of the “axis
of evil” alongwith Iraq, ignoring a serious proposal
by Iran in 2003 fornegotiations, and shows what his
language means by invading Iraq.

The authoritarian Iranian government is frightened
enough to hurlsome defiant rhetoric back at Washington
and widen its perimeterdefense. Seymour Hersh, the
topflight investigative reporter for theNew Yorker
magazine has written numerous articles on how the
crowdingof Iran, including infiltrating its interior,
has become an obsessionof the messianic militarist in
the White House.

The Pentagon is more cautious, worrying about our
already drainedArmy and the absence of any military
strategy and readiness for manyconsequences that would
follow Bush’s “bombs away” mentality.

Then there is the matter of the Democrats in Congress.
After theircostly fumble on Iraq, the opposition Party
should make it veryconstitutionally clear, as
recommended by former New York Governor,Mario Cuomo in
a recent op-ed, that there can be no funded attacks
onany country without a Congressional declaration of
war, as explicitlyrequired by the framers of our
Constitution.

But the Democrats are too busy surrendering to other
Bush demands,whether unconstitutional, above the law
or just plain marinated incorporate greed. Some of
this obeisance was all too clear in theDemocrats
questioning of Bush’s nominee for Attorney General,
MichaelB. Mukasey.

After the two days of hearings, no Democrat has yet
announced a voteagainst Mukasey, even after he evaded
questions on torture and arguedfor the inherent power
of the President to act contrary to the laws ofthe
land if he unilaterally believes he has the inherent
constitutionalauthority to do so.

This position aligns Mukasey with the imperial views
of Bush,Cheney, Ashcroft and Gonzales on the “unitary
Executive.” In short,reminiscent of the divine right
of Kings, the forthcoming AttorneyGeneral believes
Bush can say that ‘he is the law’ regardless
ofCongress and the judiciary.

After two recent lead editorials demonstrating its
specificexasperation over the Democrats’ kowtowing to
the White House, the NewYork Times added a third on
October 20, 2007 titled “With DemocratsLike These
”
The editorial recounted the ways Democrats, especially
inthe Senate, have caved on critical constitutional
and statutorysafeguards regarding the Bush-Cheney
policies and practices of spyingon Americans without
judicial approval and accountability.

Accusing the Democrats of “the politics of fear,” the
Timesconcluded: “It was bad enough having a one-party
government when theRepublicans controlled the White
House and both houses of Congress. Butthe Democrats
took over, and still the one-party system continues.”

There is more grist coming for the Times’ editorial
mill. Last week,the first African-American chair of
the powerful House Ways and MeansCommittee, Charles
Rangel (D-NY), declared that Treasury Secretary,Henry
Paulson, Jr., fresh from Wall Street, had persuaded
him, during adecade of increasing record profits, to
lower the porous corporateincome tax rate from 35% to
25%.

“We can live with that,” Chairman Rangel declared.

Would the working families in his District, who would
be paying ahigher tax rate on their modest income,
agree?

Ralph Naderis a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author.
His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com