Taking Responsibility

Jim sends this awesome rant:

When someone says: “It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.” I wonder what is meant by “taking responsibility”. Where is the downside? Talk, especially from our politicians, is cheap. For a politician, “taking responsibility” is a duck tossing water on its back. It should be more like falling on one’s sword. I was buying John Edwards tale until I got to the ‘taking responsibility” point, followed by “We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. Why is the word “honorably” used? This is not an honorable war; “taking responsibility” would mean saying to the American people that we should not expect an honorable outcome. “Taking responsibility” would be telling those grieving parents that their children have died for nothing. “Taking responsibility” would be to apologize to the world and to Iraqi people for starting this damn war. Apologize for the loss of life; apologize for the destruction of Iraq and its infrastructure. “Taking responsibility” would be the President and Vice President submitting their resignation and those of their cabinets and call for a special election. Apologize for this failure in leadership, this failure to do Their Job. Apologize to the World for the cowboy foreign policy that bypassed all conventional norms. “Taking responsibility” would be admitting to that the American system failed to protect the well-being of the World’s people and surrender control of the U.S. Armed forces to the United Nations.
But, I expect nothing from this bastard President.

Torture Primer

I missed this the first time around. Maybe you did too:

slate.msn.com/id/ 2119122/sidebar/2119631/

Ted Rall w/Ruben Bolling on Air America

Fellow cartoonist Ruben Bolling, creator of “Tom the Dancing Bug,” will join me tomorrow as we discuss the week in media coverage on the Laura Flanders Show on Air America Sunday/tomorrow night. Air time is 7:30 PM East Coast time; check local listings for airtimes near you. Among the subjects we’ll be talking about will be the Tribune Company’s apparent policy of eliminating its staff editorial cartoonists. Mike Ramirez has been laid off by the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune has decided not to replace Jeff MacNelly (who died a few years ago), and now both KAL of the Baltimore Sun and Bob Englehardt of the Hartford Courant have been given buyout offers with no indication as to whether they’ll ultimately be allowed to remain on staff. Staff editorial cartoonist positions have been vanishing for years, but Tribune’s policy would represent the mass elimination of some of the nation’s most prominent cartoonists as well as a stark display of the power and impact of corporate consolidation of the media industry.

Tomorrow on the Ted Rall Show

My radio show’s second edition airs tomorrow on San Francisco’s 106.9 Free FM from 11 am to 2 pm. Livestreaming and podcasting are in the works and may even be available within a week or two, but for now only residents of th Bay Area will be able to listen to tomorrow’s highlights:

Should San Francisco and other big cities try to become more child-friendly?

Why the bursting of the housing bubble doesn’t mean who can buy your first home

Who was Bob Woodward’s source? and Why Scooter is still in deep doo-doo

Double jeopardy in the Robert Blake case

The Vatican opposes “intelligent design”

1 pm Guest: Harmon Leon, prankster/comedian/genius author of “Republican Like Me”

Livestream Broadcasts of the new Ted Rall Show

Non-San Franciscans are asking if and when they’ll be able to listen to my new radio show, which debuts this Sunday from 11 am to 2 pm West Coast time on KIFR 106.9 Free FM in the Bay Area, on the Internet. The answer to if is yes, the answer to when is probably within two or three weeks. Watch this space for information, updates and links. It’s a new station and they’re still figuring out the tech stuff.

In other news, there’ll be even more of me on the airwaves after January 1st! As usual, all the info goes on the .

Radio, Radio

The inaugural airing of the new Ted Rall Show is scheduled for Sunday, November 13.

The show, which will air Sundays from 11 am to 2 pm, will be aired on San Francisco’s brand-new 106.9 Free FM. Topics will include politics, relationships, pop culture and anything interesting. If you live in the SF Bay Area, please listen in and call when the spirit moves you. Plans are afoot for live-streaming and/or downloadable Podcasts as well for people who live elsewhere.

I can’t wait for the 13th!

November 13

The Ted Rall Show returns to the airwaves! Watch this space for details.

The Libby Indictment

It’s all good, obviously. My full reaction will come in next week’s column, but suffice it to say that–from the standpoint of those of us who want to see the Bushies fall and fall hard–a drip drip of indictment and scandal is better news than a bunch of indictments–Rove and Cheney, not to mention Bush–all at once. It took the American people many, many months to fall in love with George W. Bush. It will take at least as long to convince them that their affection was misplaced.

Shoutout to Joseph V.

Thanks for your check for the TR Subscription Service. You forgot to attach your email address, so please contact me with your full name and address so I know it’s you. I’m at chet@rall.com

Thanks,
Ted

Impeachment Column Mail Call

Zephyr asks:

You wrote, “More than a year after the Supreme Court decided in Rasul v. Bush that the nearly 600 Muslim men and young boys being held incommunicado at Guantánamo Bay were entitled to have their cases heard by U.S. courts, they remain in cold storage–no lawyers, no court dates. The Bush Administration simply ignored the ruling.”

Is there an agency of the government whose function it is to enforce Supreme Court decisions?

Strictly speaking, the US Department of Justice is charged with that function. On a practical level, however, it is directly overseen by and the Attorney General receives orders from the White House. When there’s a clash between the executive and legislative branches of this sort, therefore, the Supreme Court’s decisions can–as in Rasul–simply be ignored.

Steve writes:

I couldn’t agree less on the utility of the Constitution to deal with Bush and his acolytes. For one thing, the Constitution gives the president no immunity to the criminal laws. One courageous prosecutor has the means under the Constitution to bring down an entire government. That none is doing so is simply a tribute to the boldness and criminal expertise of our governors.
The Nixon case is unfortunate because Nixon stayed out of jail while his aides did time. It set a pretty bad precedent, but at least we removed Nixon from office. The Clinton case is even worse because it set a precedent that lying is not a serious enough offense to warrant removal from office. Bush is taking liberal advantage of the Clinton doctrine.
Despite all this, Bush could be called to answer in criminal court, especially if his aides begin to sense that they’re in jeopardy. Ultimately, a criminal complaint would force him out of office. The Constitution has what it takes to remove him, if the personnel responsible for enforcement haven’t yet manifested the fortitude to act.

And we may have that prosecutor in the form of Mr. Fitzgerald. I hope that he requests an extension of his mandate so he can pursue criminal charges, up to and including treason, against both former Texas Governor Bush and Mr. Cheney. Still, this hardly seems like a system that has worked very well so far. Furthermore, there are no criminal statutes against lying to the people–a crime that ought to be punished by removal from office.

Richard writes:

Ted,Thanks for your article.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the substance of your piece but haven’t you overlooked those having face the voters and run for reelection in 2006? Standing behind an increasing unpopular president will prove a political liability for many. I think the Harriet Miers “revolt” in Republican ranks may provide further evidence of this possibility even though those on that side feel she is too “liberal.” In order for Clinton to be impeached several Democrats were forced to go against party and back the inquiry, such as Dianne Feinstein. For this I hold out hope. And realistically, a reawakened Republican party and congress will have to occur even with a democrat president in order to set right the nation. The sooner the better.

One can hope. This would be an excellent example of the system working as it should or, in the words of one unaware pundit a few months ago, pandering to the voters–which is, of course, what elected officials are supposed to do every day, not just during election years. Still, many–too many–officials might be able to distance themselves from Bush without going so far as to vote for his removal from the office his lies and thievery have repeatedly dishonored.
Getting Clinton’s jizz out of the Oval Office was one thing, but how long will it take to mop up the blood of 160,000 dead?

Lee writes from Canada:

Thanks for “Why Bush is Unimpeachable”, which I saw on Common Dreams.
The US Constitution is pretty much a dead letter these days, and it’s not just because of Bush.
The power of Congress to declare war became a dead letter when LBJ used the Tonkin Gulf Resolution to ramp up a huge war involving millions of Americans. Since then, every president has felt free to send US troops hither and yon without worrying about Congress, especially if he can get some US troops killed. Once that happens, Congress and most other Americans want to “stay the course” and avoid “talking about the past” – until several years of failure cause “malaise” to show up in the polls.
Impeachment? It’s either an impossibility (Johnson, 1867) or a sick game (Clinton, 1998). The president has become a king, with all the sacredness of royalty and all the political power of a prime minister. I’m Canadian. I don’t even remember the name of Prime Minister Paul Martin’s wife. But Laura Bush is America’s queen, with a major role in selling her husband’s policies. Republic? – fuhgeddaboutit. You’ve got an elective, but not a constitutional monarchy.
Too many people look for similarities between today’s America and Nazi Germany. The real similarity is with Fascist Italy: the constitutional forms were hollow but continued a ghostly existence; the dictatorship developed over several years, and the nature of the regime was vicious and contemptible, not overpoweringly evil.
Eventually it took a disastrous defeat in WWII to rouse the king to fire Mussolini and arrest him. What will it take to rouse Congress to revive the Republic and get rid of the contemptible regime that has spat on the constitution and perverted the Republic while saluting the flag that “stands for” it?

Very articulate. That’s what learning to write outside of the American educational system will do.