I have published this also as a diary; here is an excerpt from the GW speech: 'And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. (Applause.) Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Applause.) A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time. ' The above excerpt, absolutely ignored by the media, both liberal and conservative is not just crucial- it identifies the qualitative change in the way fascism is encroaching. Increase of the miliary ( note the Applause) and the formation of the 'Volunteer Civilian Core' means only one thing- STORMTROOPERS, BUSH SS!. By the reaction of the media we can absolutely see that it was all predefined and THAT EXACT EXCERPT IS THE ACTUAL PRIMARY MESSAGE OF THAT SPEECH! My dear progressive folks on the site. I am using an opportunity to say this again, although I had said it before many times and in vain: you are not in charge of your own lives. GW had declared it to you, to all of us accompanied by the applause on all sides of the aisle. It was a test. And Congress failed once again. Fascism does not hide anymore. It marches with a smirk. We all are targets. GW has a gun. You better believe it.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 2:37:53 PM

  (0+)

The first thing that came to my mind upon hearing this innocuous appearing suggestion was the return of the SA, colloqually known as the Brownshirts. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it!

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 6:52:13 AM

  (0+)

To those who check under the bed at night, then proclaim that the idea of a civilian assistance program for the miltiary is a new idea by Bush, I suggest that you check your history books. The US has had a continuous civilian assistance corps to the military since about 1930, taking various names but always remaining in place. This is nothing new, and it is nothing ominous. In times of war, during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the War on Terrorism, we have ramped up these programs, and the program has been ramped up since very shortly after 9/11. Do you see "Storm Troopers" in the streets? Of course not. Here's a novel idea -- how about we let the politicians we elected do their jobs? How about we let our professional military do their jobs? If you don't like the way they are doing their jobs, then vote for someone else in 2008. Spending your time hysterically screaming "the sky is falling" isn't going to accomplish anything.

by Rev. Jim Sutter (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:58:24 PM

  (0+)

I wonder how the military is being allowed to do its job when every general that speaks the truth of the Iraqi situation is discharged or 'retires early". By the by revjim, the way a real democracy works is that folks are allowed opinions, those opinions are discussed and not silenced, you might understand. The place you have come to is one in which political discussion is the very purpose. If you choose not to discuss politics perhaps you are in the wrong place?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 5:26:50 PM

  (0+)

But the link to write my representatives isn't working for me. I hope it is getting so many hits that it is slow to load, and I'll try again in a little while. Of course I let my representatives (two Democratic Senators and a Democratic Representative) know every day that I want them to end the war and impeach Bush, but so far they don't seem to be listening to me, so it never hurts to keep repeating the message. Who knows, maybe one day they'll have an epiphany and stop enabling the Bush agenda that they are supposed to be opposing. Being a natural cynic myself, I suspect that they will not even consider taking action until it gets to the point where every single letter, fax, email, and phone call their offices receive, says, "Impeach Bush and Cheney and stop the war!" and every time they appear in public, everyone they meet says, "Impeach Bush and Cheney and stop the war." They also need to hear the same message from their family members. In the case of one of my Democratic Senators, Diane Feinstein, whose husband is a defense contractor, that isn't going to happen. When Diane goes home hubby is more likely to say, "Keep that war going, sweetheart, you're going a great job -- Cheney just gave me another no-bid contract for Iraq today." My Representative, Susan Davis, also seems to be in the pocket of the military-industrial complex. My other Senator, Barbara Boxer, has always shown signs of not really wanting to be on the dark side, but I don't know if it is sincere or just an act. Anyway, one chance out of three is better than no chance at all. --Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 2:47:30 PM

  (0+)

The page loads, but it does not have the message in red at the top, nor does it allow you to select your reps. Best to just keep on phoning, emailing, etc., and tell them that "sense of Congress" is an oxymoron -- if Congress had any sense they have ended the war and impeached Bush & Cheney a long time ago. --Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 7:43:02 PM

  (0+)

Can I suggest that you peruse Feinstein's voting record over her career, you might be pleasantly surprised.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 6:53:35 AM

  (0+)

You were right Rob in one of your recent articles. Bush did change, from one pair of crappy pair of underware to another pair of crappy underware.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 8:55:53 PM

  (0+)

Congress has no authority to forbid the president from sending more troops to Iraq. Congress has no authority to order generals to not follow orders from the President, and Congress has no authority to give orders to generals. Our Constitution makes it very clear that only the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (military law) makes it a criminal offense from any military personnel to not follow the orders of "lawful command authority" (in this context meaning the President). There is no requirement in the UCMJ to require orders of the Congress. As to the troop escalation in Iraq: The President already has the specific authority, under the two Congressional Resolutons to use military force in Iraq and the 2001 Congressional Resolution to use military force in the war on terror, to send as many troops as he deems necessary. The President already has the budget for this approved by Congress (and they cannot "unapprove" it) as part of the FY 2007 budget. The worst Congress can do is cut back the budget for FY 2008, which they won't do because it's an election year. No member of Congress who wants to be re-elected will vote for any "cut and run" resolutions about Iraq. As to Iran, the President can act for a limited time under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, or he can seek Congressional approval. With the UN very concerned about Iran, and the vast majority of Congress also very concerned about Iran, if it comes down to it, I don't see any hesitancy from either organization in authorizing military action, (noting that we do not need UN approval.) However, I do not see it coming to that point at this time or in the near future, unless the nutcase in Iran decides to pop a nuke somewhere, in which case the US will have to wait its turn in a long line of countries that will militarily respond to Iran.

by Rev. Jim Sutter (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:51:46 PM

  (0+)

The "resolution" to use force in Iraq expires you might understand. It also was empowered when Bush wrote a letter to the congress saying he had intelligence that incontrovertably showed Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA. This is known, in most circles, as a lie. The Congress holds the purse strings needed to wage war, this is called a separation of powers, and can, under its constitutional right and duty, refuse to further finance this awful war for profit. Whether they will depends, I believe, on just how fast the coming investigations show the seamy, unethical and criminal side of the Bush administration. When that stuff hits the fan I believe the war is financially starved out of existance, at least I hope so. As to your silliness about the "nutcase" in Iran, every single credible intelligence agency in the known world states that Iran is about twelve years away from any hope of having any such nuclear device, and most say he isnt pursuing such a weapon.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 5:35:11 PM

  (0+)