A forgotten classic from Atlanta Sept. 22, 2002. Jay Bookman, AJC

[madfloridian]

Anyone else here remember this powerful article? From 2002? Anyone? Do any of you wonder why I hate being called out on being against this war? And wondering if it will continue? It is rainy and gloomy here in our area of Florida today. I want to have hope, and I guess I do at times. Just don't say they were fooled about this war.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm
SNIP..."The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran...."END SNIP

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Thanks!

[klook]

2. Jay Bookman is a great writer

I remember this article well, because it's when I first became aware of Jay Bookman. "Wow!" I thought. "This is getting published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution??!"

Jay also hosted an on-line chat about the impending Iraq war shortly after that piece came out, and did a great job responding thoughtfully to readers (many of whom were Bush-huggers) and remaining cool-headed throughout.

Progressives (and other folks with common sense) knew from the git-go that the Bush wehrmacht is not about protecting Americans or bringing freedom to the Iraqi people, but about taking an important piece of property on the big Risk board (except that Bush's team thinks they're playing Parcheesi) and making the world safe for Halliburton, Koch, et al.

But the So-Called Libaral Media parrot the Bush talking points so often, that it was a refreshing shock to see a piece like the one Bookman wrote, and from the middle of one of the reddest (necked) Red States, to boot.

Here's an excerpt from a new piece by Bookman, published yesterday:

Every politician has -- or should have -- a line that he or she will not cross just to gain political advantage. Even for the most ambitious and ruthless, there should be some things that are off-limits, some steps that aren't worth taking because the potential damage to the nation outweighs any political gain.

But like many Americans, I have a sneaking suspicion that the line has shifted considerably. In fact, after last week's events in the U.S. House of Representatives, you have to wonder if it still exists at all for some people.

Frustrated by the Senate's failure to produce even a majority of votes in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, House leaders decided to take a more controversial approach. Citing an obscure and largely untested provision of the U.S. Constitution, the House voted 233-194 to bar the Supreme Court from considering the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law dealing with gay marriage.

That is a power grab of breathtaking consequence. If Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that certain issues are off-limits, it would give legislators a free hand to do whatever they wished, without worrying about whether it violated the Constitution. The whole idea of a separation of powers could be rendered null and void if that happened.

And unfortunately, it could. <snip>

more: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/index.html
(Note: You'll have to create an account to read archived articles.)

[madfloridian]

3. That is absolutely terrifying.

I knew they passed the DOMA with Democratic help, but did the Supreme Court part actually come into play already? Where have I been? I did not see that part. It could affect all areas.

[klook]

4. Yes it is -- we must get busy

The so-called "Marriage Protection Act," which would trash separation of powers and prohibit the Supreme Court from considering cases involving same-sex marriage, passed the House but is expected to crash in burn in the Senate, just like DOMA did.

This passage from the Religious Right web site lifeway.com sums up what they're trying to do:

The Marriage Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler, R.-Ind., seeks to take advantage of a section of the U.S. Constitution rarely used. His bill rests on a specific interpretation of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part: "he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Section 1 states that Congress "ordain(s)" and "establish(es)" the lower courts.

This is becoming one of the biggest reasons why we have to re-defeat Bush in November.