Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Bush Administration is no barrier to the burgeoning movement for impeachment. In fact, George Bush and Dick Cheney should probably be made honorary members of the various coalitions seeking to remove them from office. Not a day goes by when the President and Vice President do not take actions that strengthen the case for impeachment -- actions that, on Cheney's part, have already inspired ten US House members to endorse articles detailing his high crimes and misdemeanors.
Many more House Democrats would sign on for impeachment if the leadership of their caucus was not pressuring them to back off.
Thus, the greatest barrier to the movement to hold the president and vice president to account is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California.
Before last year's election, Pelosi announced that impeachment was "off the table." It is probably good that she did not try to nullify another section of the Constitution -- say, the part about freedom of speech. But Pelosi did serious damage to the system of checks and balances when she declared that her House would not use the tool created by the founders to assure that the legislative branch could keep errant executives in line.
No one really expected Pelosi to lead the charge for impeachment.
As the office holder who follows Cheney in the line of succession to the presidency, the Speaker ought not be the primary proponent of the removal of those ahead of her in the Oval Office queue.
But the solemn oath she swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States should have precluded her from cherry picking the sections to which she chose to "bear true faith and allegiance."
More importantly, it should have precluded the Speaker from muscling members of her caucus to eschew talk of impeachment.
Unfortunately, Pelosi has misread her moment in history.
Even more unfortunately, she refuses to acknowledge her error.
Enter Cindy Sheehan, the "Peace Mom" who two summers ago gained the attention and sympathy of the world when she demanded that Bush explain why he sent her son to die in an unwise and unnecessary war.
Sheehan, whose advocacy for impeachment is every bit as ardent as her advocacy for bringing the troops home from Iraq, has never cut Bush any slack.
And Sheehan's not cutting Pelosi any either.
Earlier this year, Sheehan's frustration with Pelosi's failure to take the steps necessary to restrict funding for continuation of the war caused the tireless activist to step back from the forefront of the peace movement. But Sheehan's back as of July 10, leading a caravan and march from Texas to Washington to to demand the ouster of Bush and Cheney.
And when she arrives in Washington July 23, Sheehan she will issue the ultimate challenge to Pelosi.
If the Speaker has not put impeachment back on the table, Sheehan promises to announce that she will mount an independent campaign against Pelosi in November, 2008.
"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," says Sheehan, who is furious with Pelosi and her caucus for not doing more to end the war and hold Bush to account.
That betrayal is felt particularly in Pelosi's San Francisco district, where voters have overwhelmingly endorsed referendums calling for an end to the war and for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Now, members of Code Pink--Women for Peace and other groups are camping out in front of Pelosi's home to protest her failure to represent their views and values.
Sheehan, a Californian, sums up homestate sentiments regarding Pelosi when the activist says: "She let the people down who worked hard to put Democrats back in power, who we thought were our hope for change."
The depth of the frustration in San Francisco with the Speaker's leadership -- or the lack thereof -- is what makes Sheehan suggest that, "I would give (Pelosi) a run for her money."
Certainly, Sheehan's notoriety would make the race a more serious one than the easy runs Pelosi has enjoyed since she won her House seat in a 1987 special election.
Could a Sheehan challenge actually upset Pelosi? That's a long shot -- and Sheehan, who is far more savvy about politics than her critics recognize, knows this.
But she also knows that politicians are most likely to respond to political pressure. So Cindy Sheehan is turning up the heat on Pelosi with a political threat that George Bush -- after his long and bitter experience of tangling with the "Peace Mom" -- would undoubtedly advise the Speaker to treat with a good measure of seriousness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."(07/02/07)
Week 229 07/01/07 27
Week 227 06/24/07 15
Week 226 06/17/07 36
Week 225 06/10/07 22
Week 224 06/03/07 19
Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny." (05/29/07, 7:56 PM ET)
Week 223 05/27/07 30
"It could be a bloody -- it could be a very difficult August," Bush said.(05/24/07 7:17PM EDT)
Week 222 05/20/07 34
Week 221 05/13/07 29
Week 220 05/06/07 25
Week 219 04/29/07 21
Week 218 04/22/07 25
Week 217 04/15/07 19
Week 216 04/08/07 23
Week 215 04/01/07 33
Week 213 03/25/07 11
Week 212 03/18/07 14
Week 211 03/11/07 30
Week 210 03/04/07 15
Week 209 02/25/07 19
Week 208 02/18/07 18
Week 207 02/11/07 16
Week 206 02/04/07 24
Week 205 01/28/07 23
Week 204 01/21/07 21
"It may be summer, late summer before the people of Baghdad can feel safe in their neighborhoods," Casey said. ( 01/19/07, 6:33 PM ET)
Week 203 01/14/07 39
Bush wants troop surge to fix 'mistake' (01/11/07)
Week 202 01/07/07 9
Week 201 12/31/06 9
Saddam Hussein Long Dropped Hung (12/30/06)
Week 200 12/24/06 28
"I haven't heard the word 'broken', but I've heard the word, 'stressed.'"(12/19/06)
Week 199 12/17/06 21
"I'm Sleeping A Lot Better Than People Would Assume..." (12/14/06)
Week 198 12/10/06 20
'Iraq Study Group's 79' (12/6/06)
Week 197 12/03/06 34
Week 196 11/26/06 16
Week 195 11/19/06 13
Week 194 11/12/06 16
Week 193 11/05/06 15
Week 192 10/29/06 20
Week 191 10/22/06 17
Week 190 10/15/06 30
Week 189 10/08/06 23
Week 188 10/01/06 30
Week 187 09/24/06 15
Week 186 09/17/06 17
Week 185 09/10/06 14
Week 184 09/03/06 23
Week 183 08/27/06 22
Week 182 08/20/06 15
Week 181 08/13/06 7
Week 180 08/06/06 13
Week 179 07/30/06 12
Week 178 07/23/06 13
Week 177 07/16/06 14
Week 176 07/09/06 8
Week 175 07/02/06 6
Week 174 06/25/06 14
Week 173 06/18/06 16
Week 172 06/11/06 8
Week 171 06/04/06 20
Week 170 05/28/06 10
Week 169 05/21/06 13
Week 168 05/14/06 16
Week 167 05/07/06 15
Week 166 04/30/06 19
Week 165 04/23/06 17
Week 164 04/16/06 11
Week 163 04/09/06 21
Week 162 04/02/06 23
Week 161 03/26/06 10
Week 160 03/19/06 4
'ISG/Baker-Hamilton Commission (3/15/06)
Week 159 03/12/06 10
Week 158 03/05/06 7
Week 157 02/26/06 9
Week 156 02/19/06 16
Week 155 02/12/06 10
Week 154 02/05/06 13
Week 153 01/29/06 11
Week 152 01/22/06 14
Week 151 01/15/06 11
Week 150 01/08/06 6
Week 149 01/01/06 31
Week 148 12/25/05 15
Week 147 12/18/05 10
Week 146 12/11/05 14
Week 145 12/04/05 14
Week 144 11/27/05 21
Week 143 11/20/05 13
Week 142 11/13/05 28
Week 141 11/06/05 18
Week 140 10/30/05 29
Week 139 10/23/05 19
Week 138 10/16/05 23
Week 137 10/09/05 22
Week 136 10/02/05 19
Week 135 09/25/05 18
Week 134 09/18/05 15
Week 133 09/11/05 9
Week 132 09/04/05 7
Week 131 08/28/05 10
Week 130 08/21/05 14
Week 129 08/14/05 14
Week 128 08/07/05 15
Week 127 07/31/05 36
Week 126 07/24/05 23
Week 125 07/17/05 9
Week 124 07/10/05 12
Week 123 07/03/05 9
Week 122 06/26/05 8
Week 121 06/19/05 14
Week 120 06/12/05 21
Week 119 06/05/05 30
Week 118 05/29/05 13
Week 117 05/22/05 28
Week 116 05/15/05 8
Week 115 05/08/05 24
Week 114 05/01/05 12
Week 112 04/24/05 16
Week 111 04/17/05 13
Week 110 04/10/05 10
Week 109 04/03/05 10
Week 108 03/27/05 9
Week 107 03/20/05 7
Week 106 03/13/05 6
Week 105 03/06/05 5
Week 104 02/27/05 14
Week 103 02/20/05 18
Week 102 02/13/05 20
Week 101 02/06/05 8
Iraqi Free Elections (1/31/05)
Week 100 01/30/05 15
Week 99 01/23/05 61
Week 98 01/16/05 9
Week 97 01/09/05 12
Week 96 01/02/05 17
Week 95 12/26/04 11
Week 94 12/19/04 21
Week 93: 12/12/04 14
Week 92: 12/05/04 14
Week 91: 11/28/04 27
Week 90: 11/21/04 17
Week 89: 11/14/04 34
Week 88: 11/07/04 67
Week 87: 10/31/04 7
Week 86: 10/24/04 16
Week 85: 10/17/04 3
Week 84: 10/10/04 31
Week 83: 10/03/04 10
Week 82: 09/26/04 12
Week 81: 09/19/04 16
Week 80: 09/12/04 22
Week 79: 09/05/04 26
Week 78: 08/29/04 8
Week 77: 08/22/04 14
Week 76: 08/15/04 23
Week 75: 08/07/04 9
Week 74: 08/01/04 18
Week 73: 07/25/04 5
Week 72: 07/18/04 11
Week 71: 07/11/04 12
Week 70: 07/05/04 20
Handover (6/29/04)
Week 69: 06/27/04 11
Week 68: 06/20/04 13
Week 67: 06/13/04 8
Week 66: 06/06/04 6
Week 65: 05/30/04 17
Week 64: 05/23/04 16
Week 63: 05/16/04 14
Week 62: 05/09/04 14
Week 61: 05/02/04 25
Week 60: 04/25/04 28
Week 59: 04/18/04 12
Week 58: 04/11/04 30
Week 57: 04/04/04 66
Week 56: 03/28/04 12
Week 55: 03/21/04 10
Week 54: 03/14/04 17
Week 53: 03/07/04 14
Week 52: 02/29/04 2
Week 51: 02/22/04 2
Week 50: 02/15/04 6
Week 49: 02/07/04 8
Week 48: 02/01/04 4
Week 47: 01/25/04 15
Week 46: 01/18/04 10
Week 45: 01/11/04 6
Week 44: 01/04/04 11
Week 43: 12/28/03 9
Week 42: 12/21/03 12
Week 41: 12/14/03 7
Week 40: 12/07/03 12
Capture of Saddam (12/13/03)
Week 39: 11/30/03 5
Week 38: 11/23/03 10
Week 37: 11/16/03 10
Week 36: 11/09/03 26
Week 35: 11/02/03 34
Week 34: 10/26/03 13
Week 33: 10/19/03 9
Week 32: 10/12/03 12
Week 31: 10/05/03 6
Week 30: 09/28/03 10
Week 29: 09/21/03 5
Week 28: 09/14/03 11
Week 27: 09/07/03 6
Week 26: 08/31/03 5
Week 25: 08/24/03 8
Week 24: 08/17/03 8
Week 23: 08/10/03 7
Week 21: 08/03/03 11
Week 20: 07/27/03 7
Week 19: 07/20/03 16
Week 18: 07/13/03 9
Week 17: 07/06/03 12
Week 16: 06/29/03 5
Week 15: 06/22/03 11
Week 14: 06/15/03 8
Week 13: 06/08/03 4
Week 12: 06/01/03 7
Week 11: 05/25/03 13
Week 10: 05/18/03 9
Week 9: 05/11/03 6
Week 8: 05/04/03 7
"Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03)
Week 7: 04/27/03 3
Week 6: 04/20/03 7
Week 5: 04/13/03 9
Week 4: 04/06/03 21
Week 3: 03/30/03 41
Week 2: 03/23/03 51
Week 1: 03/20/03 9
Total_____ 3606 dead
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 03:05am
It has to come from the bottom up. Pelosi has pretty much stated that they, the house, needs to build a record:
"Speaker Pelosi: ... The American people really don't even know the half of it, but we are trying to build the record, and that's what we have to do. You know, they've been going for six – almost seven – six and a half years, with no oversight. Just absolutely zero accountability, no oversight. And when people talk about this Congress, they have to recognize the big distinction between this Congress and previous Congress' in terms of shining the light of oversight and accountability on this administration. So when people see what is happening in terms of… What we said last year during the campaign – for the whole of 2006 what we said "Corruption, Cronyism and Incompetence". And that's some of this unint… Corruption. It's not just the corruption; this personal aggrandizement that were guilty of, it was the corruption in terms of the governmental process. And they… it's stunning. It really is stunning. And on many of these things, you have to build a record so that the public sees what it is. And I think that some of our people, Mr. Waxman in particular because he has the committee – The Government Reform and Oversight Committee – has done a spectacular job and I think you might share that assessment of what he has done.
Now you see the administration asserting executive privilege. So the press asked me this morning, "Does this mean you're going to hold them in contempt next?" I said "No, we're gonna let the process work out" because you have to build the record. You have to build the record. "
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/04/2289/
And the record very well may be what Conyers, Waxman, and Leahy are doing with oversight in order to present to we the people all the corruption hsuB/cHeney have been/are up to. It's at a tipping point for sure.
Between the polls, letters, phone calls, coming elections, anger, Sheehan, I think impeachment is possible and very probable. But pressure has to continue to increase at an ever more intense rate so congress will know we mean serious business like now.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 03:40am
Doesn't California allow for recall elections? Against members of the federal legislature? After all, Ahnuld got elected to the California governorship by way of recall. Surely, Sheehan may run now instead of waiting until next year?
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 07/09/2007 @ 07:34am
Not a chance. It may not hurt to get some air time to put pressure on Nancy "Status Quo" Pelosi, but that is all. I doubt it will have any effect on Nancy's fund raising from corporate California,
Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2007 @ 08:28am
"Could a Sheehan challenge actually upset Pelosi? That's a longshot"
So....is there ANY point to this article, then?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2007 @ 09:01am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/09/2007 @ 03:05am
Important, to be sure, but easily linked to.
(Please.)
Posted by drhammer at 07/09/2007 @ 09:11am
Amazing.
I thought that by now the trolls would be convulsing all over the site.
Posted by drhammer at 07/09/2007 @ 09:12am
It is not a longshot. It is a sure thing. Nichols clings to his conventions.
My mother always said Pelosi is "just a girl" and does as a girl is told in her feminine place. Sheehan will blow her out of the water.
Posted by Lil at 07/09/2007 @ 09:53am
Posted by DRHAMMER 07/09/2007 @ 09:11am
Sometimes I do.
I've made quite a few visual and editorial changes to the info as a related comment to this blog that would otherwise be lost with a simply a cite.
Otherwise why would you yourself not just post a site and forget about writing anything at all.
Thus you are presented with my opinion about the information and the severity/intensity of the situation in an expanded visual statement such as it is.
I apologize if pressing your scroll key ups your breathing thus expanding your carbon footprint here.
I never meant to be 'easy' per the circumstances, just so you know.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 09:57am
I say this: every day that Pelosi and the Dems fail to begin impeachment proceedings against this catastrophe of a President/VP is another crime against this country.
Posted by BlueSpark at 07/09/2007 @ 10:20am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/09/2007 @ 09:57am
Bravo, Captain Snippy, on your innovative "visual and editorial changes", but if we haven't gotten the point by now, repackaging the casualty timeline into a Rese-like epic is not likely to further the cause.
Posted by drhammer at 07/09/2007 @ 10:29am
Posted by DRHAMMER 07/09/2007 @ 10:29am
I disagree, because everything since Week 202 (1/07/07) or Week 203....are casualties under a Democratic Congress that has failed to get serious about ending this stupid war.
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2007 @ 10:44am
ARCHANGEL After all, Ahnuld got elected to the California governorship by way of recall. Surely, Sheehan may run now instead of waiting until next year?
The gubernatorial recall involved a state office, not a federal one. There are serious constitutional issues with the idea of a recall of a federal elected official. Terms are set by the Constitution and one could easily argue that an attempt to do a recall would be a tacit amendment of that. The analogous case would be SCOTUS's striking down of state laws establishing term limits for Congressmen.
Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2007 @ 10:49am
Posted by BLUESPARK 07/09/2007 @ 10:20am
I say this: every day that Pelosi and the Dems fail to begin impeachment proceedings against this catastrophe of a President/VP is another crime against this country.
Totally agree. With only 14 percent approval, Congress can only dream of attaining the approval ratings of President Bush. If Nancy Pelosi can't force a retreat and defeat, the left needs to find someone who will.
Posted by pontificus at 07/09/2007 @ 11:10am
Ponti-Bush never had and still does not have a plan for victory making your comment about defeat silly.You can't lose that which you never tried to win.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/09/2007 @ 11:13am
"I disagree, because everything since Week 202 (1/07/07) or Week 203....are casualties under a Democratic Congress that has failed to get serious about ending this stupid war."
Posted by MASK 07/09/2007 @ 10:44am
You make a fair point in highlighting the Democrats' lack of progress on that most important subject, but HSUBFOOLS fails to juxtapose the change in majority on his lengthy timeline.
Despite his volume, even he fails to make your point.
Posted by drhammer at 07/09/2007 @ 11:18am
Guess Ms. Sheehan tires of being the Forgotten One....after fawned over by BlogoNuts for years! Good for her to get back in the `Game' now that she has no husband left to share her `retirement'!
Posted by Happy at 07/09/2007 @ 11:19am
Ohhhh, Pontificus. I see you found your way home, or did some nice man read your tags and call mommy to pick you up?
Regardless, still waiting for some answers. It's been 5 days now since I asked you to come up with the names of the dems involved in the "democratic witch hunt" of the convicted felon, liar Scooter Libby.Still nothing. And these:
PONTIFICUS:
1: Who are the dems of the dem witch hunt, still unanswered after 3 (now 5) days.
2: The CIA said she was covert, she served outside the country within five years, the JD says she was covert.
What have I made up? You are the one living the fantasy. Do you have anything, anything, to back up your claims. Other than toeseningss ideas.
3: How would Saddam have acquired uranium from Niger if the French said no? Would he have done this years after having asked and been rebuffed? How?
Fact: Plame was covert
Fact: Saddam did not acquire uranium from Niger, nor could he.
Please show me my fantasy. Yours is evident.
Posted by CRABWALK 07/07/2007 @ 08:30am
Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2007 @ 11:28am
Not a day goes by when the President and Vice President do not take actions that strengthen the case for impeachment -- actions that, on Cheney's part, have already inspired ten US House members to endorse articles detailing his high crimes and misdemeanors.
Hey little Johnny the liar Nichols, perhaps you can give us the daily actions for just the past week that have "strengthened the case for impeachment"? or is lying and hyperbole more your strong suit?
Posted by antiliberal at 07/09/2007 @ 11:56am
Posted by HAPPY 07/09/2007 @ 11:19am
how many kids do you have fighting in Iraq? How many have been killed?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2007 @ 11:57am
Posted by ANTIWOMENS VOTINGRIGHTS 07/09/2007 @ 11:56am
How about refusing a congressional subpoena ?
"I'm a uniter, not a divider"- Chimpy McFlightsuit before he was crowned King.
or is lying and hyperbole more your strong suit?
Sounds like your upset someone else may have started to use the tactics of ChimpCo.
"The aluminum tubes could only be used for rockets". "Saddam has 20,000 litres of anthrax. "
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2007 @ 12:02pm
I notice all the usual crowd of anti-American haters, the ones who want to see America overrun by terrorism, the ones that want to see the middle east become the center of WWIII, are freely expressing their usual self-loathing.
Winning last November was supposedly going to end the Iraq war, reverse the "tax cuts for the rich", see the impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, and who ever else the anti-American left could think of, reverse global warming, and end world poverty.
If the hatred of America by the left as demonstrated on the Nation website wasn't so dangerous, it would be laughable. Unfortunately, thinking Americans do not have the luxury to laugh at the threat posed by liberalism to end our Constitutional Republic.
Hence Cindy Sheehan, the epitomy of "I hate America" liberalism is now being lauded by many leftists for her proposed challenge ot run against a leftist like Pelosi.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/09/2007 @ 12:03pm
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
No hyperbole there, I tell ya!!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2007 @ 12:04pm
Who hates America?
Chimpy.
No regard for trial by jury. No regard for judges. No regard for lawful phone tapping. No regard for international treaties signed by congress. No regard for a 3 branch guvt. No regard for the lives of our soldiers, their well being if they return or their mental state.
sounds like you too, ANTI-CHILDLABORLAWS.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2007 @ 12:07pm
I bet ANTI-CLEANAIR will be so proud when the American Taliban finally gain control and public stonings of people like Phred Thompson are enshrined into law.
Got that old Time Religion, got that Old Time Religion....
Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2007 @ 12:09pm
This is going to get very intersting.
Mr. Nichols you know all too well that Cindy Sheehan is no threat to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She may have a few grassroots orgs following her, but Pelosi has the money. Career politicians play fast and dirty on Capital Hill. The dems will take her out before Sheehan can get her name on the ballotbox. (figuratively, of course...)
Posted by ACook at 07/09/2007 @ 12:21pm
Crab,
You seem to have it entirely backward.
It is the libs who want to imprison or stone conservatives.
It is the libs who want to put Americans into bondage by controlling their lives and depriving them of the freedom of choice in schools, taxes, healthcare, religion, type of vehicle they drive, and relinquishing sovereignty over to world bodies like the UN, International Criminal Court, Kyoto, etc.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/09/2007 @ 12:25pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/09/2007 @ 11:24am
Sorry, FRANK, I'm not at your beckon call...getting some lunch.
Answer?...by doing what John Edwards suggested. Sending the SAME bill back to Bush, veto after veto if needed, until you get what we got this week...guys like Lugar, Voinovich, and Olympia Snowe ready to vote for a veto over-ride.
They didn't....they "postponed" it until September with their surrender last month...which means that every GI that dies between then and September has their blood on the Democrats' hands.
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2007 @ 12:29pm
I notice all the usual crowd of anti-American haters, the ones who want to see America overrun by terrorism, the ones that want to see the middle east become the center of WWIII, are freely expressing their usual self-loathing.
Please provide one shred of evidence to back up these idiotic claims. Bush's foreign policies have led to Iraq's being led by a government more prone than Saddam to support terrorism, have led to America's being less safe, have weakened the very liberties we are supposed to be fighting for in the first place, have led to an even more unstable Middle East (from the perspective of American interests), all the while ignoring or diverting resources from addressing the very real threats posed by Iran and Korea (not to mention Pakistan). Now, explain to me why it is that the people who OPPOSED these policies are the ones who hate America rather than the ones who supported the policies.
This may make your head explode, but I believe both that Bush has been a disaster for this country and that it would be very bad for us to be overrun by terrorists (not that that is possible).
Totally agree. With only 14 percent approval, Congress can only dream of attaining the approval ratings of President Bush.
That number would go UP if impeachment were to begin.
Posted by BlueSpark at 07/09/2007 @ 12:30pm
Posted by ACOOK 07/09/2007 @ 12:21pm
This is a "non-article", ACOOK. Mr Nichols puts a LOT of caveats into this article ("longshot") to make sure he doesn't actually come off endorsing this silliness.
It's simply "red meat" to the base, to keep them fired up. Nobody sane would risk more than $1 that Cindy Sheehan will get within 20% of Pelosi in the 2008 election.
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2007 @ 12:32pm
Posted by MASK 07/09/2007 @ 12:32pm
Perhaps Mr. Nichols should have written how insane Ms. Sheehan is for even suggesting she could take on Nancy Pelosi. I would almost compare Ms. Sheehan's comments to Jesse Jackson running for President, again. (hehe)
Posted by ACook at 07/09/2007 @ 12:37pm
ACook-It was insane for Reagan,Jesse the body Ventura,Arnold and quite a few others to enter politics.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/09/2007 @ 12:55pm
"Could a Sheehan challenge actually upset Pelosi? That's a longshot"
So....is there ANY point to this article, then?
Pelosi can be beaten if she continues to foot drag. Her district in SF "overwhelmingly" supports impeachment of Bush and Cheney and getting out of Iraq now, so unless she makes "substantial headway" on these issues by the end of the year, she may well face a credible anti-war candidate that can beat her.
SF voters are not stupid. So despite Pelosi's fundraising advantage, her re-election prospects rest on her ability to deliver on the issues her voters care about most.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2007 @ 1:14pm
"I disagree, because everything since Week 202 (1/07/07) or Week 203....are casualties under a Democratic Congress that has failed to get serious about ending this stupid war."
Posted by MASK 07/09/2007 @ 10:44am
You make a fair point in highlighting the Democrats' lack of progress on that most important subject, but HSUBFOOLS fails to juxtapose the change in majority on his lengthy timeline.
Despite his volume, even he fails to make your point.
Posted by DRHAMMER 07/09/2007 @ 11:18am
DRHER, apart from the obvious hypocritical stance of complaining about the length and then complaining about the lacking... I did not put in a plug about the previous totally corrupt 6 years of a repub congress, (that totally balances with the 6 months of dem leadership in your mind and Maskerina's), nor a plug for the '04 stolen election, Nor the lying into the Iraq war, nor the secret energy deals and no bid contracts, nor torture and mercs, nor illegal wire tapping, nor try to make our DoJ into a GOP gestapo, nor a lot of other repub shit as well, but please if you wish to add to my long list amist the body count of our fallen troops that will go on for several hundred pages please feel free to do so at the risk of carpal tunnel syndroming your scrolling finger... However except for a few memorable events closely related to Iraq, I do put the blame for this fiasco squarely on the one responsible, where the buck stops-- the resider in chief, hsuB.
Or is your argument here that hsuB/cHeney have nothing to do with the Iraq occupation?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 1:30pm
Money doesn't always translate into higher poll numbers. Clinton's are ahead of Obama but Obama out raised her. Al Gore isn't even campaigning nor fund raising and in some state polls he's ahead or even with Clinton and Obama! So much for the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy poopooer's arguments, all pretty limp, fluff-- try harder.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 1:37pm
Pelosi vs Sheehan?
I can only imagine how long the laughter will last...this would be worth paying to watch...entertainment like this can't be purchased at any price..if I were AQ I'd fund the shit out of Sheehan.
RUN Sheehan RUN..and bring ALGORE with you...PLEASE!!!!!
Posted by john maasch at 07/09/2007 @ 1:42pm
Poor JoMa, so full of self-loathing, that like his creature hsuB, yells out in his insanity-- "BRING IT ON".
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 2:04pm
Maasch-Sheehan has expressed strong desire to take out AQ so why would they fund her?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/09/2007 @ 2:06pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/09/2007 @ 12:55pm |
I'M, how much would you bet that Cindy Sheehan would get within 20%tiles of Nancy Pelosi in the 2008 elections.
(Please don't go the dodgey route of "I'm not a betting man" for once)
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2007 @ 2:08pm
Mask-I've never said I wasn't a betting man.Used to play poker a great deal.I doubt that she has much chance,but unlike ACook I am aware that crazier things have happened in politics and wouldn't view it as insane.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/09/2007 @ 2:14pm
Sheenan v. Emmanuel?
I think Sheenan has picked the wrong candidate to run against, and really should be running against Rahm Emmanuel in Illinois.
Here is why:
How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress Election 2006: The Fix is Already In
By JOHN WALSH
"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"
Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."
"Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.
In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Dem candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly small.) The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some reflection although the Dem establishment would dearly like us to forget them.
The first case is the Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which has elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004 Christine Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar (1), ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44% against the hideous Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in 2006.
Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq (2). Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Dem heavyweights Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a victory by a measly four percentage points. According to a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not the smashing success that Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied at 41% of the vote with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the same percentage that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004! Recently (9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly Saturday radio address. AP, in its story on the exchange where Duckworth was supposed to differ with W on Iraq, concluded thus: "She offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."
But in one case, and sadly in only one of the 22 districts, which Emanuel selected for intervention, he did not prevail; but that is also instructive. The second case study is CA's 11th CD Dem primary where Emanuel poured in money, much of it apparently coming from his own district in Illinois, to bankroll Steve Filson, essentially a political unknown, who opposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But in this primary battle the grass roots prevailed and the strongly antiwar candidate, Jerry McNemey, who supports the Murtha bill for immediate withdrawal, defeated Emanuel's minion, Filson. It is noteworthy that McNemey, strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost. Now in the general election McNemey is pulling ahead of his pro-war Republican opponent by 48 to 46% in the most recent poll even though his opponent has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000! McNemey has raised a total of only $452,000 to his opponent's $2.5 million. Some cash from Rahm would ensure McNemey's victory it would appear, but it is not forthcoming. It seems that Rahm Emanuel is stanching the influx of money in this very competitive race.
Meanwhile, even though Duckworth has been the recipient of Rahm's largesse, to the tune of $1.8 million, the same amount as her Republican opponent, her campaign has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you toe the line for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from heaven and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you are anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet. Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick candidates based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did he pick them for their ability to win. In Duckworth's case she damned near lost despite the cash infusion, and McNirney did win despite the money that Emanuel funneled to his opponent. Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.
Rahm Emanuel's Stable.
To win the House, the Dems must win 15 seats from the Republicans. Here are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents, according to The Hill (4/27/06): Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) defeated in primary by Jerry McNirney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa Hafen (NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).
If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:
U.S, must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).
More troops should be deployed in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);
Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than the candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This means that the candidate does not offer a timetable or other withdrawal plan and amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush without a plan offered by the candidate. (6): Francine Busby (CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry Mitchell (AZ).
Biden's 3-state solution. (1): Phyllis Busansky (FL).
No position. (1): Chris Murphy (CT).
Not for immediate withdrawal (3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Dem primary. See above.); Ron Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);
Withdrawal in 2006. (1): Peter Welch (VT). (In VT, you could probably not get elected dog catcher without calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Still it is a bit mysterious why Rahm is backing Welch who for that reason probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. Perhaps something "worse" like a Green is waiting in the wings.)
So only one of Rahm's candidates is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. And it is notweworthy that Rahm found prowar candidates in both red states and blue, like CT and CA. Check out these candidates for yourself. If you live in their districts, pressure them to change their positions and do so publicly with letters to the editor, withholding of funds and most importantly support for third party antiwar candidates where they are to be found no matter how slight the establishment media regards their prospects. Ask what UFPJ, The Nation and other branches of the peace and justice complex are doing to expose Emanuel's candidates.
The question arises. Who is Congressman Rahm Emanuel? From what does he derive his power? What are his thoughts on the future for the Dems? And where is The Nation in all this. More on that coming shortly.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2007 @ 2:24pm
Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats The Book of Rahm
By JOHN WALSH
Last week in CounterPunch (1), I wrote that the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Congressman Rahm Emanuel, had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections.
In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be committed to pursuing the war on Iraq--despite the fact that the Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by large margins. (I hasten to add that this state of affairs can be reversed even after the sham election between the two War Parties.)
What are Emanuel's views on war and peace? Emanuel has just supplied the answer in the form of a scrawny book co-authored with Bruce Reed, modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America. The authors obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled "A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy. Here is the book's summary paragraph with my comments in parentheses:
"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror" ("War on Terror," as George Soros points out, is a false metaphor used by those who would drag us into military adventures not in our interest or that of humanity.)
"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. (He begins by playing on fear.) America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. (Messianic imperialism.) We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. (An even bigger military for the world's most powerful armed forces, a very militaristic view of the way to handle the conflicts among nations. What uses does Emanuel have in mind for those troops?) We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. (More material incentives to induce the financially strapped to sign up as cannon fodder.) Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. (A new domestic spying operation is an obvious threat to our civil liberties; MI5 holds secret files on one in 160 adults in Britain along with files on 53,000 organizations.)
There it is straight from the horse's mouth.(2)
How does Emanuel, the man who has screened and chosen the 2006 Democratic candidates for Congress, feel specifically about the war on Iraq, the number one issue on voters' minds. Emanuel and Reed do not so much as mention Iraq in their book except in terms of the "war on terror." Nor does Emanuel mention Iraq on his web site as among the important issues facing us, quite amazing omission and one shared by Chuck Schumer who is his equivalent of the Senate side, chairing the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). However a very recent profile in Fortune (9/25/2006), "Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician," by Washington Bureau chief Nina Easton notes: "On Iraq, Emanuel has steered clear of the withdraw-now crowd, preferring to criticize Bush for military failures since the 2003 invasion. 'The war never had to turn out this way,' he told me at one of his campaign stops. In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press's Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-'knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction'-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn't take office until after the vote.) 'I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, okay?' he added."(3)
When Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a position." That was November, 2005. In June, 2006, it was obviously time, and Emanuel finally revealed his policy in a statement on the floor of the House during debate over Iraq, thus: "The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. We cannot achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and watch, stand pat, stay put, status quo and that is the Republican policy. Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy." The refrain is familiar; more troops are the means and victory in Iraq is the goal.
The war on Iraq benefited Israel by laying waste a country seen to be one of its major adversaries. Emanuel's commitment to Israel (4) and his Congressional service to it are not in doubt. The most recent evidence was his attack on the U.S. puppet Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki, because Maliki had labeled Israel's attack on Lebanon as an act of "aggression." Emanuel called on Maliki to cancel his address to Congress; and he was joined by his close friend and DSCC counterpart, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who asked; "Which side is he (Maliki) on when it comes to the war on terror?" In terms of retired Senator Fritz Holling's statement that Congress is Israeli occupied territory, Rahm Emanuel must be considered one of the occupying troops. And he certainly is a major cog in the Israel Lobby as defined by Mearsheimer and Walt. Nor is the idea that the Lobby exists and has tremendous influence on Middle East policy any longer a taboo in the minds of the general populace. According to a poll just carried out by Zogby International for CNI (5), 39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." A similar number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this position. Some 20% of the public were not sure.
But in some respects, Emanuel is a mysterious fellow, as evidenced by his biography, which is readily available on Wikipedia and in the piece in Fortune (3). But there are a few things missing or not fully explained. First, as is often pointed out, Emanuel's physician father was an Israeli émigré; but, according to Leon Hadar, he also worked during the 1940s with the notorious Irgun, which was labeled as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.(6) Perhaps Rahm's current interest in terrorism was first kindled at his father's Irgun knee.
Second, during the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, "rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel." (Wikipedia, New Republic). This is peculiar on two counts. Here the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, but Emanuel, a U.S. citizen, volunteers not for his country, but for Israel. Moreover, here is a well-connected Illinois political figure with a father who had been in the Irgun, but he is assigned to "rust-proof brakes" on "an army base." Maybe.
Third, immediately upon his return from his desert sojourn, Emanuel at once became a major figure in the Clinton campaign "who wowed the team from the start, opening a spigot on needed campaign funds."(3) How did he do that after being isolated overseas, and with no experience in national politics? Fourth, after leaving the Clinton White House, he decided that he needed some accumulated wealth and "security" if he were to stay in politics. So he went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and Wall Street financier.
According to Easton, "Over a 2 1/2-year period he helped broker deals-often using political connections-for Wasserstein Perella. According to congressional financial disclosures, he earned more than $18 million during that period. His deals included Unicom's merger with Peco Energy and venture fund GTCR Golder Rauner's purchase of SBC subsidiary SecurityLink. But friends say his compensation also benefited from two sales of the Wasserstein firm itself, first to Dresdner Bank and then to Allianz AG." Again for a newcomer to haul in $18 million in two years is almost miraculous. How did he do it? Next Emanuel won a seat in Congress in 2002, and by 2006 he was chair of the DCCC. Another near miraculous rise.
But Emanuel and his fellow hawks may yet fail to get their way. Major figures among the rulers of U.S. empire, and their well-compensated advisors, from James Baker to Jimmy Carter to Zbigniew Brzezinski to Mearsheimer and Walt, see disaster looming unless the neocons of both War Parties with their dual loyalties to the U.S. and Israel are brought to heel. Second and more important, the people are fed up with the war on Iraq and wary of other wars the hawks like Emanuel have planned for us. The politicians who win office, whether Rove's Republicans or Emanuel's Democrats, will have to deal with this rising tide of anger or risk losing their sinecures. That risk is offset by the machinations of Emanuel and others to guarantee that there is no genuine opposition party or movement. And that lack of a real opposition is a problem we must solve.
John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com.
(1) http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh10142006.html
(2) Emanuel and Reed also refer approvingly to Peter Beinart, the neocon warrior theoretician for the Democrats, warehoused at Marty Peretz's The New Republic, thus: "In his recent book, The Good Fight, Peter Beinart, explains why a tough new national security policy is as essential to the future of of progressive politics as a united front against totalitarianism and communism was to the New Deal and the Great Society." (This chapter of The Plan is titled: "Who Sunk My Battleship." Needless to say, the battleship in question is not the USS Liberty.) Emanuel and Reed also like Anne-Marie Slaughter's proposal for "a new division of labor in which the United Nations takes on economic and social assistance and an expanded (!) NATO takes over the burden of collective security." In other words the UN can do the charity work while the US-dominated NATO is policeman to the world. Quite a vision. And their call for more troops is shared by the Republican neocons, with William Kristol's Weekly Standard calling for 250,000 more for the army this past week.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2007 @ 2:27pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/09/2007 @ 1:30pm
I critiqued the length of your post. I also expressed the opinion that if we hadn't gotten the point by now, that a Rese-length epic post would be unlikely to make any difference.
Mask disagreed, based on the fact that "...everything since Week 202 (1/07/07) or Week 203....are casualties under a Democratic Congress that has failed to get serious about ending this stupid war."
I was not complaining about "the lacking". I was pointing out the fact that the scenario he cited for disagreeing with me was not a component of your post; he therefore created somewhat of a disconnect in the process.
I own my original comment. I stand by it, and I'm comfortable with the notion that you don't agree.
But the hypocrisy comment fails to hold water. Try reading a little more closely.
Posted by drhammer at 07/09/2007 @ 2:32pm
And, by the way, HSUB, just so you don't think I have it in for you, I think Metteya could have summarized and linked as well.
Posted by drhammer at 07/09/2007 @ 2:37pm
Sorry, DrHammer, but there appears to be a limit on the URL length for links on The Nation boards, so the only way to view some stories is by posting them.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2007 @ 2:51pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/09/2007 @ 2:51pm
Fair point. Check out tinyurl.com. It's a pretty cool utility.
Posted by drhammer at 07/09/2007 @ 2:56pm
I was not complaining about "the lacking". I was pointing out the fact that the scenario he cited for disagreeing with me was not a component of your post; he therefore created somewhat of a disconnect in the process.
I own my original comment. I stand by it, and I'm comfortable with the notion that you don't agree.
But the hypocrisy comment fails to hold water. Try reading a little more closely.
Posted by DRHAMMER 07/09/2007 @ 2:32pm
Er, well if you had said 'Maskerina' was 'disconnected' before, but you didn't-- you blamed me, you should read your own words more closely:
HSUBFOOLS fails to juxtapose the change in majority on his lengthy timeline.
Posted by DRHAMMER 07/09/2007 @ 11:18am
VS.
Important, to be sure, but easily linked to.
(Please.)
Posted by DRHAMMER 07/09/2007 @ 09:11am
Perhaps, next time I should just ask you to make up your mind-- want more or less info?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 2:56pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/09/2007 @ 2:14pm
Okay then...how much would you bet on this "crazier things have happened" scenario?
Pelosi is Speaker of the US House. Any ideas on when the last Speaker of the House was defeated for their seat (not losing the majority, but actually losing their own Congressional seat)?
Tom Foley, lost to Nethercutt in the 1994 Republican sweep. Now, there are some analogies (Foley opposed term limits and sued against his OWN STATE to get them overthrown)...but it was also a title wave of discontent with the Democratic Congress (House Post Office, House Bank, etc).
Now, for Pelosi to lose the Bay Area, Sheehan would obviously have to run as an independent. The local party isn't going to cut out Pelosi as a candidate and Pelosi wouldn't lose a primary fight with Sheehan. Second, the few Repubs in the 8th Congressional would have to throw their 10-12% weight behind Sheehan...not likely. And Pelosi would have to be polling in her district in the low 50s, or more likely high 40s, for it to even be taken seriously....she's not.
To lose their Speaker would be a DEVASTAING P.R. disaster for the Democrats, so if Sheehan pulled within 20%, they'd DUMP money from the DCCC (Dem Congressional Campaign Committee) into it and bury Ms Sheehan in an avalanche of money. Even the fight would be embaressing, and would effect other Democratic races across the country....AS WELL AS the Presidential race.
Can you imagine Hillary having to come to San Francisco to campaign for Pelosi to "save her" from Sheehan?
If this was serious, Ms Sheehan's "advisors" would be getting calls right now from the DNC, Howard Dean, and a host of others telling them "You back this play of Cindy's...and you'll be cut out of ANY serious policy decisions and can hang out with the Greens and Naderites for the rest of your lives"...and for serious career politicos...that's career suicide.
Personally, I would set up a PayPal account with a solid $1000 in it and take on all comers....that Cindy Sheehan doesn't poll higher than 20% against Pelosi's 65% (with a small "undecided" contingent) by August 2008. I'd put up another $100 that Sheehan backs down regardless in the next 6 months.
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2007 @ 3:05pm
That wonderful patriot Sheehan in her own words:
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, becuase the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse
Sheehan continued, "9/11 was Pearl Harbor for the neo-conservatives' agenda" and declared the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system." Then she raged:
We have no Constitution. We're the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!
While one might dismiss some of Sheehan's hyperbole due to grief over her son's death,
a little research about Casey Sheehan revealed that contrary to being tricked by military recruiters, Casey Sheehan had re-enlisted in the U.S. Army voluntarily when he was 24-years-old, after serving his first hitch successfully. Casey Sheehan was in fact a hero who received a Bronze Star. He was attached as a mechanic to the artillery division of the 1st U.S. Cavalry in Iraq. When a convoy of soldiers from Casey's unit was attacked in Sadr City by insurgents, Casey volunteered to join a rapid rescue force to get them out. His commanding sergeant told him he did not have to go into combat, because he was a mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was quoted telling his officer, "I go where my chief goes." He was tragically killed during the rescue attempt. The source for this story? Cindy Sheehan herself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460787/posts
Cindy Sheehan followed this act. Wearing a sweatshirt advertising the website for United for Peace and Justice, Sheehan was interviewed outside just before the meeting by an ABC-TV news reporter. Sheehan said then that military recruiters should not be allowed on college campuses, maintaining they trick naïve 18-year-olds with offers of money and scholarships. Tragically, Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey who was in the Army and was killed two weeks after arriving in Iraq. She claimed he was promised a job as a chaplain's assistant although once in the service was placed in a combat role and killed, certainly a moving story – one she exploits to promote venomous anti-Americanism. "George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son," she said tearing up a bit. "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for."
Sheehan said she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch, the lawyer who defended an innocent Black man accused of rape in the book and film "To Kill A Mockingbird."
"They're not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror," she said. "The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush." She claimed "it costs $66,000 to recruit one soldier, not including training, and $49,000 a year to house a prisoner, yet only $6,000 per year is spent to educate a child in California. (Recruiting costs are actually $15,000 per soldier, the cost of housing a prisoner in California for one year is $26,000.)
We have no Constitution. We're the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1462795/posts
Posted by antiliberal at 07/09/2007 @ 3:18pm
Mask-On this I wouldn't bet more than the change in my pocket,but I usually lost when betting except for poker.For some reason I could win at that,but had a horrible history on my other bets.Still,you are probably correct in that she would have little chance.I think the real politicians would eat her alive.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/09/2007 @ 3:19pm
Could Pelosi's strategy be to keep Duhbya twisting in the wind long enough for him to become even more unpopular? It could be brilliant, providing that it's coupled with her scheduling the impeachment proceedings to coincide with next year's election campaigns. If Cindy Sheehan pushes Pelosi in that direction and to that end, Sheehan's efforts would be valuable beyond measure.
That it would mean impeaching Duhbya with only a few months left in his term would be lost in the significance of the trial and the allegations brought to the fore. It would have the added effect of tearing apart Duhbya's party, lest they all be tarred with the same brush.
With any luck, it would also force various groups (and their members) to re-examine their priorities. That could lead to a realignment of political alliances in the United States. If the electorate is as inherently progressive as reported by Rick Perlstein (July 9, 2007), Kevin Phillips's predictions in The Politics of Rich and Poor could finally become reality.
Duhbya would no doubt claim that such manuevers signal a new low in United States political history (he should nevertheless appreciate the artistry), but they would certainly be in keeping with what he, Cheney, Rove, et al., have done first in Texas in the 1990s and carried over nationally beginning with the 2000 elections. In that context, there's no doubt that Duhbya and his co-conspiritors, having been finally and collectively brought to justice, richly deserve whatever they get.
Posted by Star Strider at 07/09/2007 @ 3:23pm
"Could a Sheehan challenge actually upset Pelosi? That's a longshot"
So....is there ANY point to this article, then?
Posted by MASK 07/09/2007 @ 09:01am
MASK, ***READ***, GEEZ...
Nichols SAYS that Sheehan's idea is to put PRESSURE on Pelosi not necessarily to unseat her. And, yes, even if Sheehan did get elected it would be too late to impeach Bush/Cheney anyway (always assuming of course that they haven't assumed dictatorial powers by then, in which case the whole thing is moot).
READ
Posted by w_m_bear at 07/09/2007 @ 3:33pm
I'd bet if I thought it would even get that far as the odds look good that impeachment is snow balling and our troops will be redeployed elsewhere in the region and not being ducks in a barrel. 2-3 months, more or less. The military already has plans for doing so. hsuB's advisors are trying to figure out lauguage that isn't too embarrassing. Don't think that's going to spare hsuB from impeachment though.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 3:34pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 07/09/2007 @ 3:33pm
BEAR....READ...between the lines.
Pelosi would be under NO "pressure" from a Cindy Sheehan run for exactly the reasons I (and John Nichols if you look closely) laid out....she might embaress Pelosi a bit (if she gets over 5% in the polls), but that's it.
Pelosi merely "rides out" the 2008 Election (even if Sheehan gets 20%)...gets to become Speaker again...and by Inauguration Day 2009, nobody remembers.
So...where's the "pressure"? Pressure means "threat" (in this case) and there's no threat from Cindy Sheehan.
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2007 @ 3:49pm
Speaking of betting...and now HSUB's fave subject, impeachment...try out this poll question again--
"How many of you would bet your child's college tuition fund...or your retirement fund...on Pelosi and the Democratic House issueing bills of impeachment?"
show of textual "hands"?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2007 @ 3:53pm
Personally, I would set up a PayPal account with a solid $1000 in it and take on all comers....that Cindy Sheehan doesn't poll higher than 20% against Pelosi's 65% (with a small "undecided" contingent) by August 2008. I'd put up another $100 that Sheehan backs down regardless in the next 6 months.
Mask,
There are "plenty" of people with lots of money who have "always" been against this war that would gladly bankroll Sheenan if "Pelosi continues to listen to AIPAC rather than the voters of SF" (this would be a great campaign slogan!).
The conservative Jewish community in SF (almost non-existent) is nowhere near as strong as it is in NYC, so if Sheenan gets bankrolled, all bets are off!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2007 @ 4:08pm
Maskerina, the threat sometimes is in the mere acknowledgement of ones faults or in hsuB/cHeney's case-- the light of day shining on their criminal/impeachable activities they need to keep secret-- ipso facto Palosi's inactivity to deal with not shining the light of day on hsuB/cHeney's impeachment per the will of the people.
Ergo your repetitive poopooing of all subjects leading to the eventual impeachment of your true loves hsuB/cHeney. Ok your schizo love/hate (mostly love though) protective relationship per your new con support, service to dic'tator philosophy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 4:11pm
I still believe Sheenan would be more effective in the cause that she is running for if she ran against Rahm Emmanuel.
If she beat Emmanuel that would send shock waves through AIPAC since it would be clear to them that they can't buy every election!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2007 @ 4:14pm
Well, what if Pelosi does the 180 and Emmanuel doesn't... Would it not stand to reason Sheehan can then take on the next target. We're talking just 3 months and we know where the wind blows. Gots to stay flexible.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2007 @ 4:34pm
Maasch-Sheehan has expressed strong desire to take out AQ so why would they fund her?
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/09/2007 @ 2:06pm
like she could..
She is actually one of the best weapons they could have here, except the dem party these days.
Posted by john maasch at 07/09/2007 @ 5:23pm
Maasch-In what way is Sheehan a good weapon for AQ?Be specific.Your claim,by itself,doesn't mean much.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/09/2007 @ 5:50pm
Is she a good weapon because she is against the war in Iraq that AQ wanted? Is she a good weapon because she wants to end the ill fated war in Iraq and concentrate on AQ?
Or is this another fantasy created in the minds of the sheeple by the hyperbolic ChimpCo?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/09/2007 @ 5:59pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/09/2007 @ 4:11pm
HSUB, given your belief in almost anything....why no abject belief in Sheehan DEFEATING Pelosi in 2008?
I heard Cindy on Air America. She gave Pelosi until JULY 23rd...not Halloween...but in TWO WEEKS. If no impeachement by the time she finishs her walk to D.C., she says she's going to run against the Speaker.
Now, does Pelosi think that Sheehan will TRULY challenge her? If she does, then she's got TWO WEEKS to change her mind.
If she doesn't consider Sheehan a threat...we'll know in 2 weeks.
BTW, how much you think will be done on impeachment between the end of this month and Labor Day?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2007 @ 8:25pm
"To lose their Speaker would be a DEVASTAING P.R. disaster for the Democrats, so if Sheehan pulled within 20%, they'd DUMP money from the DCCC (Dem Congressional Campaign Committee) into it and bury Ms Sheehan in an avalanche of money. Even the fight would be embaressing, and would effect other Democratic races across the country....AS WELL AS the Presidential race."
If being in the majority is important as the Democrats say it is, then they will dump that money into close races against Republicans, and not worry about losing a seat to someone on the left. Even if it is bad P.R. I think that they would rather look bad and win than look good and lose.
"If this was serious, Ms Sheehan's "advisors" would be getting calls right now from the DNC, Howard Dean, and a host of others telling them "You back this play of Cindy's...and you'll be cut out of ANY serious policy decisions and can hang out with the Greens and Naderites for the rest of your lives"...and for serious career politicos...that's career suicide."
That's not a credible threat, as the Democrats already ignore Cindy Sheehan and her friends. That's like telling a prisoner who's getting life without parole that he will have more time tacked onto his sentence.
Posted by green2006 at 07/09/2007 @ 9:46pm
So....is there ANY point to this article, then?
Posted by MASK 07/09/2007 @ 09:01am
hey bubble butt, how's the tits swinging today? You asked a wonderful question. But to further focus, is there really any point to anything if you're for it and against it at the same time?
and lucky for us, you're really the only one here that can answer this question
Posted by Will C. at 07/09/2007 @ 10:49pm
"Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03)
Week 7: 04/27/03 3
Week 6: 04/20/03 7
Week 5: 04/13/03 9
Week 4: 04/06/03 21
Week 3: 03/30/03 41
Week 2: 03/23/03 51
Week 1: 03/20/03 9
Total_____ 3606 dead
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/09/2007
HSUB, I got into this game a little late, but I liked your post. This kills me off. Bushco has been asking the public to be patient with this war and keeps asking for 2 months here, 6 months there etc. I just heard Patreus or however his name is spelled saying that it's probably going to take a good 10 years for the dust to really settle in Iraq. If this is indeed the case, September is out of the question as far as pulling our troops in the current status we are in. So, my question for the pro Bush people is this. Which country are you more interested in the welfare of, the U.S. or Iraq? If we continue to funnel a good portion of our money towards Iraq, we are neglecting Americans. Personally, I could give a rats ass about Iraq. We shouldn't have invaded it in the first place, but I don't want to see our tax dollars paying a bunch of corrupt lazy ass Shiite leaders piss away our money, soldiers, and national wealth. If America chooses to piss it's wealth away, the least it could do, is piss it away on it's own people, not a bunch of idiots fighting over which sect of the Muslim faith they wish to follow.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2007 @ 07:58am
Wolf, the dispute between Sunnites and Shiites in Iraq is not a religious dispute, though it is played out along those lines. it is about power and revenge.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/10/2007 @ 08:58am
Wolf, the dispute between Sunnites and Shiites in Iraq is not a religious dispute, though it is played out along those lines. it is about power and revenge.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF
JOHANNESROLF, I know. I would go further to say that the dispute is not only about power and revenge, but to also add that this dispute is over which group will control the countries oil fields which I guess tranlates back to your power arguement. But, to me, the question still remains. The oil belongs to Iraq, so why are we, the U.S. taxpayer, responsible to protect either group of idiots in Iraq fighting over control and power of their country? Like I said, the billions we've thrown into the endless pit of the Iraq war could have been used for programs to help out Americans. As much as this war has cost us, we could have solved and paid for a better healthcare program in the U.S. So, we have nothing to show for all of the money we've sunk into Iraq with the exception of a puppet government that can't wipe it's own ass. This should outrage any conservative out there. Money thrown away is a cardinal sin to these people, or at least that's what conservatives usually preach.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2007 @ 09:42am
Posted by WILL C. 07/09/2007 @ 10:49pm
WILL, always willing to answer ANY question...unlike you, who can't answer the simplest question...like "How you KNOW I'm a woman, from text printed on a blog?" because we both know what answering that honestly would mean, and both are nasty for your rep here!
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 09:45am
BTW, glad to see ZERO is back....anybody not on his massive Ignore List, try to get him to explain how the guys who killed Daniel Pearl were "supposed" terrorists and how it's okay to kill "unrepetent right-wingers"...
BLOG | Posted 06/25/2007 @ 2:23pm Comments for "Dying For Press Freedom" by Lakshmi Chaudhry
But, that would require more than cheerleading for a rich white man from the WSJ, who was killed by "terrorists". Such a film, covering the Palestine Hotel, would have to cause us to ask about how it is that we are no different than Pearl's killers.
Posted by ZERO 06/25/2007 @ 4:04pm
Why, with all of this to work with, did Hollywood choose to cover unrepentant right-wing Daniel Pearl?
Posted by ZERO 06/25/2007 @ 4:14pm
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 09:46am
I liked your appropriately lengthy initial war death-time line too, Hsub, and like most here too, I'm appalled at the Dems for lending credence to the segregationist Wallace's line that "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the dems and the repubes. Ironic, eh, that Mercury dimes were still available in the early seventies when he made that statement, and those were the type Rockerfeller dispensed to the waifs who congregated near for the expected tokenism.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/10/2007 @ 10:09am
ANTILIBERAL,
Was there a point to your huge post on Sheehan? Do you think that what you set out merely speaks for itself? I don't see it. I don't see a single thing in your post--other than your name--that should make me suppose that I am to think a single negative thought about Sheehan. Please explain.
Oh my, she was wearing a sweatshirt advertising the website for United for Peace and Justice. The horror!
Posted by BlueSpark at 07/10/2007 @ 2:12pm
I'm sorry, but Cindy Sheehan's 15 minutes are up. She did wonderful things for the peace movement and for Democrats, but now that we are 6 months away from the Presidential election process starting anew, what good will impeachment do but make Democrats look bad? Let the GOP continue to be weighted down by this pathetic excuse for a President and let's use their demise, poor decisions and illegal action to our advantage in 2008.
Posted by TVasbyHottman at 07/10/2007 @ 6:05pm
HSUB, given your belief in almost anything....why no abject belief in Sheehan DEFEATING Pelosi in 2008?
Posted by MASK 07/09/2007 @ 8:25pm
Well think of it this way:
You start saving for this really neat car, (whatever that means to you), but after just 3-4 months a rich uncle dies and you inherit his really neat car that's even better than the one you were saving for. So do you keep saving for the one you initially were saving for or do you move on to the next priority on your long list?
Come election time, Sheehan won't have the issues she has now with Pelosi. She very well may have them with someone else though and I'd help her with that one.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/10/2007 @ 7:49pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/10/2007 @ 07:58am
Yeah, I'll keep updating it until it doesn't fit on one page. It's my hope is it's done way before that happens.
However heard a commentater in Iraq a couple of days ago say that with all the construction going into the enormous permanent bases in the green zone, that the big plan looks like we're meant not to ever leave...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/10/2007 @ 7:57pm
JR, I am working on a commission for a member of the Yellin family. If you don't know who Samuel Yellin was, google him. It is akin to an architect getting a call from a Wright asking him to do some architectural work. (better, though, Yellin wasn't a deadbeat and his stuff is built to last). I have been giddy all day!!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2007 @ 12:02pm