Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhen it comes to the question of impeachment, the difference between Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden and Department of Peace champion Dennis Kucinich is merely a matter of timing.
Biden says that if George Bush attacks Iran without a formal declaration of war by Congress, the president must be impeached.
Kucinich thinks it would be smarter to act before the bombs start flying.
The distinction was illustrated during Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas when Catherine Jackson, the mother of an Iraq War veteran – Marine Christopher Jackson, who told the audience, "Our troops need to come home now" -- expressed her fear that "members of the Bush administration and neoconservative members of Congress are beating the drums of war again."
Ms. Jackson asked what the candidates what they would do to prevent an attack on Iran.
Biden was especially pointed in his response, saying of the president: "If he takes the country to war in [Iran] without a vote of Congress, which will not exist, then he should be impeached."
Later, when Kucinich addressed the issue, he suggested that it was not enough to talk about holding members of the administration to account after the fighting starts. Noting the established high crimes and misdemeanors of Vice President Dick Cheney – the most outspoken champion of picking a fight with Iran –Kucinich told the crowd the president and vice president are already "out of control."
The Ohio congressman, who earlier this month sought to open a House debate on impeaching Cheney for attempting to provoke a war with Iran, among other transgressions, explained that there is an appropriate and immediate answer to the fears expressed by Ms. Jackson.
"It's called ‘impeachment.' You don't wait. You do it now. Impeach them now," Kucinich declared, over the cheers of the audience.
Among those on their feet and applauding was Catherine Jackson.
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
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
~America's reptilian brain 11/16/2007 @ 12:46am
And as the vast majority of Americans indulge in the sleep of TV-induced ignorance:
A report in The Times this week says that the F.B.I. is reaching the same horrifying conclusion as the Iraqi authorities: that the deadly September shooting spree by Blackwater security guards in Baghdad was unjustified and violated the American government's rules for the use of deadly force. The question is, what is the Bush administration going to do about it?
David Johnston and John M. Broder reported on Wednesday that federal investigators found no evidence to support claims by Blackwater officials that Iraqi civilians had fired on the guards. Investigators concluded that 3 of the 17 deaths may have been justified because the guards might have perceived an imminent threat. The other 14 amounted to sheer recklessness, they said.
This is hardly surprising, considering the "spray and pray" tactics favored by many of these contractors. But the incident has fed Iraqis' fury at the American occupation and made it even harder for American officials to insist that Iraq's leaders respect their own citizens and the rule of law.
The mess provides yet another argument for the swift and orderly exit of American troops from Iraq and the even swifter withdrawal of all the private armies Washington employs there......
Contractors have been involved in some of the most shameful incidents in this war, including the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But not one contractor has been prosecuted for crimes against an Iraqi. That shameful record cannot be allowed to stand.
~NY Times op-ed 11/16/07
Yet the record stands with barely a wimper from our "leaders".
Of course, the higher cortical regions of American society are keenly aware of the ongoing cataclysmic passenger-car-buckling train wreck of American democracy. But America's limbic system of fear, hatred and war-mongering has effectively cut the communication lines to the more rational processing centers of the neocortex.
At this precise moment our once great nation is now threatened not by the external enemy of "terrorism", but by that all-to-common primeval sword of Damocles -- our own self-imposed ignorance.
Make no mistake, the Blackwater story is but one sharply peaked signal amongst a bleak and gathering hoard that says our time to react and recover is waning quickly.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/16/2007 @ 01:48am
"MARKCANYON" -
Kucinich introduced House Resolution 333 -
HR 333 [thomas.loc.gov]
on April 24, 2007, for high crimes and misdemeanors Cheney had already committed, mainly lying to invade Iraq.
Read the bill, (link above), and please know your facts before you comment.
Posted by proevo24 at 11/16/2007 @ 02:29am
Geez Canyon, take your meds.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/16/2007 @ 06:48am
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/16/2007 @ 12:46am
Go screw yourself JM. To you maybe getting our soldiers blown up for Bush and Cheney's ego's and the oil and defense industries profits are zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, but to the rest of it, it's not the f*&king trivial.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/16/2007 @ 07:36am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/16/2007 @ 07:36am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/16/2007 @ 06:48am
Well said.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/16/2007 @ 08:07am
Marky, you are a hoot!
We, the many concerned citizens who are not blinded by the right, want Bush and Cheney impeached for violating the laws they swore to uphold. This includes, but is not limited to:
1: Violating FISA laws. Chimpy has admitted in public that he did this.
2: violating treaties we hold with the UN.
3: Violating the Geneva convention, another treaty signed by congress.
4: he has obstructed congress in it's mandated duties to expose wrongdoing by the Executive Branch.
5: He has detained and claimed the authority to detain US citizens indefinitely on his say-so alone based on secret evidence.
6: He has signed laws while declaring his intent to refuse to enforce portions of those laws.
7. He has made Americans less safe by kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing people abroad who he thinks are criminals or terrorists on his say-so alone, a practice that has deterred foreign countries from cooperating with the United States in opposing international terrorism
...For starters.
I guess that kind of stuff makes the war mongers sleepy. If only Chimpy would do something really serious, like hide some travel office papers....
Sigh, the sheep need to be sheared again.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2007 @ 08:10am
Suppose we invaded a country in search of weapons that did not exist, killing close to a million people, causing millions more to flee?
I know, reality is much more difficult than the imaginings of the neo-cons 1% doctrine.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2007 @ 08:13am
Did I leave out
8: His office outed a covert CIA agent whose job it was to find the machete'.
?
Yea! Great POTUS.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2007 @ 08:14am
Bush is definitely POTUS = Pile Of Tremendously Offensive Shite!
Posted by Turk33 at 11/16/2007 @ 08:39am
OOPS, and I previewed it. I need more coffee. Should be Pile Of Tremendously Unfavorable Shite!
Posted by Turk33 at 11/16/2007 @ 08:42am
Mr Nichols you may have just stumbled into "The Deal".
That was struck between Pelosi, Reid,...and Bush.
He can TALK about attacking Iran all he wants. Threaten, placate the "blood n' guts" 29% Crowdd, and give fodder to the 2008 GOP candidates....but he can't actually DO anything about it, or they WILL impeach him.
If he doesn't attack Iran, he (and Cheney) gets to sit in the Viewing Stand and watch Prez-44 get sworn in, shake their hand afterwards...not be back in Crawford.
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2007 @ 09:31am
and who on stage voted to give mr. bush the power to attack iran?
GRRRRRLLLL POWER HERSELF!
yeah women of america, ignore all other factors incliuding her enabling of the war and continued foolish ennabling of more unneeded wars, her support of the sickeningly hypocritically named patriot act...
ignore all and vote hilly because she's a GRRRRLLLL!
grrrrllls gotta stick together no matter what, eh?
a misogynist might disparage womens' emotional frivolity and lack of rational discernment, but i'm not a misogynist.
zero? lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2007 @ 11:06am
oh come on ibble....do you have any evidence that women are doing what you accuse them of doing? there are an awful lot of men supporting hillary.
Posted by loveloki at 11/16/2007 @ 11:12am
are these men emotionally frivolous and lacking in rational abilities? i get a little sick of this old hold out of womens' lack of rational abilities. last time i checked, women were surpassing men in math, science and technology. and i have also noticed that men have lots of emotions too.
Posted by loveloki at 11/16/2007 @ 11:14am
Posted by MASK 11/16/2007 @ 09:31am
and the price of oil goes up and up ...........................
that's the plan.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/16/2007 @ 11:35am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/16/2007 @ 11:35am
Maybe...but why risk a recession that would help the Democrats?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2007 @ 11:48am
MarkCanyon-Your claim that you know why Cheney wanted to attack Saddam is ludicrous.You do not know the guy.No one knows why Bush/Cheney responded to 9/11 by attacking some powerless third world dictator who had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not engaging in acts of aggression and was a threat to Iran and not the US.We cannot run around attacking everyone who might be a threat someday since everyone could be a threat someday..
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/16/2007 @ 12:04pm
Maybe...but why risk a recession that would help the Democrats?
Posted by MASK 11/16/2007 @ 11:48am
it's a fine line.
but every time the rhetoric ratchets up, both the mullahs in tehran and the oilcrats in d.c. make more and more cash.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/16/2007 @ 12:18pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/16/2007 @ 12:18pm
Oil prices go up, they go down. Here's your conspiracy theory....see what they do in August next year!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2007 @ 12:50pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/16/2007 @ 12:04pm
I'M...maybe you don't realize what you're dealing with, with MARKCANYON.
He's said he SUPPORTED....the Holocaust!
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2007 @ 12:55pm
I'M NOBODY
Got Time-Warped to First post....read it
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2007 @ 12:56pm
Posted by MASK 11/16/2007 @ 12:50pm
don't thinks it's a conspiracy.
it's the same game they've been playing for years.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/16/2007 @ 1:05pm
Moreover, suppose the police, informed by various sources that a maniac is decapitating innocent people with a machete, storm his compound. They find a man in the basement amid a pile headless corpses, but without the machete. He threw it into the lake a week earlier. Were the police wrong in having intruded into the private home of a defenseless man, who in the absence of his machete was incapable of harming anyone?
Posted by MARKCANYON 11/16/2007 @ 04:28am | ignore this person
If it was the police who sold the machete to this killer and then assisted in the murdering of such individuals, but from the morally justifiable plateau of self interest, (cynically conflated, naturally, as concern for the national interest), would such accomplices share responsibility during the moment of retribution for such crimes? And suppose it was not a week previous, but a decade or so, in fact, a moment in time when the police saw these very people as incompatible with their own interests and hired out this maniac as their exterminator. Later, when the maniac became unreliable, and requiring his own liquidation, the corpses would provide a lovely pretext for his removal as well as the expropriation of his properties.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/16/2007 @ 2:23pm
are these men emotionally frivolous and lacking in rational abilities? i get a little sick of this old hold out of womens' lack of rational abilities. last time i checked, women were surpassing men in math, science and technology. and i have also noticed that men have lots of emotions too.
Posted by LOVELOKI 11/16/2007 @ 11:14am | ignore this person
Loki,
These are very good points, I'm only sorry it's necessary for you to present them.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/16/2007 @ 2:29pm
What's interesting about MARKMENGELE is....he hates the Arabs as much as he hates Jews!
CANDIDATES SHOULD HAMMER AWAY AT WARS' COSTS....Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 11/13/2007 @ 1:36pm
"The oil of that region is what matters, everything else matters not. That region has been "chaos and catastrophe" i.e., a shithouse, for centuries. It can burn to a crisp, all but the oil, as far as I care." ---Posted by MARKCANYON 11/15/2007 @ 02:37am
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2007 @ 2:30pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 11/16/2007 @ 11:14am |
so go ahead and prove me wrong, love! vote obama! i dare ya!
(lol)
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2007 @ 2:42pm
Cheney sought the invasion because he believed it served HIS interests
Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/16/2007 @ 3:07pm
As a matter of fact, Cheney did lie when he urged ejecting a dangerous tyrant in possession of WMDs to serve his own purposes.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/16/2007 @ 3:07pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/16/2007 @ 07:36am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/16/2007 @ 06:48am
Well said.
Posted by SKELETONMAN 11/16/2007 @ 08:07am
Seconded
Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/16/2007 @ 3:08pm
Posted by MASK 11/16/2007 @ 09:31am
The same old argument: lied us into Iraq, if they're not impeached for that-- why do it for Iran? Or as well, once the bombs are flying and Iran runs the borders full throttle into Iraq with thousands of heavey guns and bombs and hundreds if not thousands of our troops are dying and calling for reinforcements, Russia is going all dark ages on us, not to mention Syria, Turkey, and Pakistan breaking or rather disolving into it and no telling what the Saudi and Oman radicals will feel licensed to do. Yep, that would be the time to impeach el hsuB jefe-- not. It would be telling would it not when the congress seriously start the impeachment procedings of cHeney and the hsuB/cHeney admin just 'have to' attack Iran, just because. Most likely cHeney would retire (like Frita's Frito) and hsuB would pick Lie berman or Guili ani to fill in as VP while hsuB's being readied for a runthrough.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/16/2007 @ 3:53pm
"Maybe...but why risk a recession that would help the Democrats?
Posted by MASK 11/16/2007 @ 11:48am | ignore this person "
MASK, you write that as though you are operating under the belief that they pretty well understand that their actions have collateral consequences. And that for people who called our war in Iraq a "crusade". Do you think that they've really thought that all out.
Posted by brantl at 11/16/2007 @ 4:00pm
And then what, indeed:
WASHINGTON -- Soldiers strained by six years at war are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
While the totals are still far lower than they were during the Vietnam war, when the draft was in effect, they show a steady increase over the past four years and a 42 percent jump since last year.
According to the Army, about nine in every 1,000 soldiers deserted in fiscal year 2007, which ended Sept. 30, compared to nearly seven per 1,000 a year earlier. Overall, 4,698 soldiers deserted this year, compared to 3,301 last year.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/16/2007 @ 4:11pm
thank you oustbush.
Posted by loveloki at 11/16/2007 @ 4:30pm
American Research Group, Inc.
November 13, 2007 - Impeachment
A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.
Question: Which one of these four statements do you agree with about President Bush:
1. President Bush has not abused his powers as president.
2. President Bush has abused his powers as president, but the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment under the Constitution.
3. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached.
4. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.
11/12/07 ___________#1 ____#2 ___#3 ___#4
All voters ___________36% ___9% __21% __34%
Democrats (39%) ____16% ___9% __25% __50%
Republicans (35%) ___64% ___6% __12% __18%
Independents (26%)__29% __11% __26% __34%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of registered voters nationwide November 9-12, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.
A total of 70% of American voters say that Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers as vice president. Of the 70%, 26% (18% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 13% (9% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 61% (43% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.
American Research Group, Inc.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/16/2007 @ 5:08pm
MARKCANYON, you are a shining example of a conservative in America, circa 2007: foul-mouthed and resorting to name-calling because you can't argue the facts honestly and/or you are ignorant of historical facts. First, it's Tonkin not Tonking gulf; secondly you attribute motives to Kennedy and Johnson no historian of the era would, and third, if you are naive to the point of truly believing that Cheney, et al. got us into this mess because they were trying to stop Iraq from attacking us with WMDs, then you calling someone a cretin is a classic example of projection (it's a psychological term - look it up).
Posted by Steve1us at 11/16/2007 @ 5:29pm
Know a lot about pole dancing, RIO?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2007 @ 5:32pm
Question: Which one of these four statements do you agree with about Vice President Cheney: 1. Vice President Cheney has not abused his powers as vice president.
2. Vice President Cheney has abused his powers as vice president, but the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment under the Constitution.
3. Vice President Cheney has abused his powers as vice president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached.
4. Vice President Cheney has abused his powers as vice president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.
11/12/07 ___________#1 ____#2 ___ #3 ___ #4
All voters ___________30% __18% ___9% __43%
Democrats (39%) _____6% __25% ___6% __63%
Republicans (35%) ___61% __12% ___6% __21%
Independents (26%)__26% __16% __18% __39%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of registered voters nationwide November 9-12, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Thus we see that while 70% feel cHeney absured the system, 52% of the US population believe that cHeney committed impeachable offenses-- while only 64% feel hsuB abused the system, but 55% believe that hsuB committed impeachable offenses... very interesting.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/16/2007 @ 5:49pm
er, ha, abused
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/16/2007 @ 5:50pm
Good point Oustbush! Too bad sexism is an effective and unscrutinized front for more latent and insidious forms of prejudice/discrimination.
Posted by lewwelge at 11/16/2007 @ 5:59pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/16/2007 @ 5:23pm
Could it be that Congress has the appearance of getting nothing done because Clueless Leader Dumbya His-self has found his veto pen and uses it at every opportunity (having not used it all for the previous 6 years)
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/16/2007 @ 6:05pm
Posted by STEVE1US 11/16/07 @5:32
Thank you Stevie! Succinctly beautiful!
And yes, projection is a repug specialty. It wasn't until we realized that fascism was taking over, that the term islamo-fascist suddenly surfaced!
Posted by days23000 at 11/16/2007 @ 6:48pm
Don't forget that each resolution/bill has to have veto proof 60 majority votes to even move forward from senate debate. Reptilian repub new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, are continuing to make a mess even as they're not in the majority and they mean to drag the dems and everyone else down with them-- yet the citizenry can tell the difference:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2007. N=1,131 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their job?"
Date ____________Approve ____Disapprove __Unsure
10/29 - 11/1/07______36 _________58 _________6
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their job?"
Date ____________Approve ____Disapprove __Unsure
10/29 - 11/1/07______32 _________63 _________6
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The Harris Poll. Oct. 5-8, 2007. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How would you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
Dates_____Excellent/Pretty Good___Only Fair/Poor
10/5-8/07____________29 ___________67
9/7-10/07____________24 ___________70
"How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
Dates_____Excellent/Pretty Good___Only Fair/Poor
10/5-8/07____________19 ___________76
9/7-10/07____________22 ___________73
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Generic Congressional Vote
Poll ______________Date ___Republican__Democrat__Spread
RCP Average __11/01 - 11/05 ___38.0% ___48.3% ___10.3%
NBC/WSJ _____11/01 - 11/05 ___37% ____ 46% _____ 9%
CNN _________11/02 - 11/04 ___42% ____ 53% ____ 11%
Rasmussen ___11/02 - 11/04 ___35% ____ 46% ___ _11%
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/16/2007 @ 6:54pm
Soldiers " are dying for you"-JOMA the Sleepy
how is that, exactly? What are they doing for me in Iraq? Are they protecting me from wmd's? Are they protecting a stable, liberal government? Are they protecting me from Al Qaida in Messopotamia?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2007 @ 07:49am
know that these taxes will end up in the hands of citizens of countries other than America.RIOKORESH
Is that because Chimpy is borrowing from those nations? I guess you are in favor of just continuing to borrow for a whole country lap dance.
it is almost impossible to meet lengthy government regulations to build refineries.
If you believe that is the reason for refinery closures and no new ones, I have this great bridge over the EUphrates still for sale.
You are the most gullible, scared sheep that shows up here. Clueless. Almost deranged. Totally lacking in the most basic reasoning skills, ready to believe whatever the propaganda ministry tells you to believe. Just look at your history the last few years. Tell us how many wmd's were found. Tell us how outing Plame was necessary to refute the Truth about Chimpies lies. Tell us about the tax cuts helping the middle class.
You are the Moron Emeritus of The Nation Blog.
And a chickenshit coward to boot.
Have a nice day.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2007 @ 07:56am
RIO, why don't you tell us why it is OK for Blackwater to gun down 14 Iraqis while "we" are trying to build a stable, terrorist free Iraq. Or, why it is OK for Halliburton to steal your tax money. Or why it is OK for pallets of your tax money to go missing in Iraq. Or why it is OK for thousands of weapons to disappear from US stocks in Iraq.
but it is not OK to question these things?
Ask Coulter, I am sure she has something witty to say, like "America Hater!!".
Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2007 @ 08:02am
RIO, tell us why it is OK for the brother of a Blackwater board member to be the oversight for your tax dollars spent by Blackwater.
Is that good government?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2007 @ 08:03am
Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 17, 2007; Page A08
U.S. mine safety regulators failed to conduct inspections required by federal law at more than one in seven of the country's 731 underground coal mines last year, a year in which the number of worker deaths in mining accidents more than doubled to 47, a government report says.
Budget constraints and a lack of management emphasis on worker safety by the Bush administration are responsible for the lapses, the Labor Department inspector general said in a report released yesterday. The report details the department's failure to meet inspection mandates of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
And, ChimpCO lost yet another court case yesterday.
Has there ever been an admin that lost as many court cases as Bush? BRUNOWE, HMAN, do you know the answer to that one?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2007 @ 08:18am
"Given the legal deference given to federal agencies in court, it is truly incredible that the Bush administration has lost more than three-fourths of its ‘NEPA-hostile' ( National Environmental Policy Act )court arguments. One shudders to think of the number of times they must have broken the law without being caught and taken to court by some citizen group."-said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2007 @ 08:27am
It's nice to see so many Kucinich fans are finally stepping up to the plate and showing their support.
But his impeachment plan is not the only reason to vote for Rep Kucinich:
1. He voted against the Iraq War;
2. He voted against the Patriot Act;
3. He wants Single Payer, Not-for-Profit, Universal Health Care, i.e. Medicare for All. (He is the ONLY candidate proposing this.) H.R. 676;
4. He wants corporations out of government;
5. He does not accept corporate PAC contributions, so he is only beholden to We The People;
6. He would create a Works Green Administration, essentially a combination of the WPA and EPA that would provide jobs for Americans and work towards an energy sustainability;
7. He would tax the richest Americans (the top 1%) and provide tax relief for the poorest Americans (those of us making less than $80,000 per year);
8. We would rejoin the Kyoto Treaty;
9. We would withdraw from NAFTA and WTO;
10. He would provide publicly funded education prek-college (two or four-year college);
11. He has a legitimate plan for getting us out of Iraq - H.R. 1234;
12. He believes in reducing our consumption of foreign oil through energy conservation and alternative sustainable energies;
13. He has voted against funding the Iraq War 100% of the time;
14. He would create a Department of Peace where citizens could volunteer to serve their country in peaceful ways rather than just joining the military;
15. He is the ONLY candidate who is pro gay marriage (marriage, not separate-but-equal civil unions);
16. He believes in small, local farming;
17. He believes is publicly funded elections;
18. He would legalize industrial hemp;
19. He's vegan;
20. He has the hottest wife(/spouse);
21. He wants to reduce military spending and use the excess to fund education and health care;
22. He wants to revisit our aid plans to Israel to assure that our aid is contingent upon Israel's adherance to UN resolutions calling for their removal from Palestinian West Bank.
He is the true candidate for change in this election. And change is desperately needed at this point in history.
Posted by LarryB at 11/17/2007 @ 09:55am
Posted by LARRYB 11/17/2007 @ 09:55am
And he polls at 3% among DEMOCRATS.
So...if he does that badly among DEMOCRATS, how does he win with the independents?
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2007 @ 10:03am
RIOB,
You pose a serious question, science versus ideology, which is a greater reality to the US citizenry?
We'll just have to see if the hsuB/cHeney new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy did their 'dumbing down of the USA'-job, effectively enough. It didn't work too well in 2006 even with the new ideological Rovian math... As even reptilian repub polls show most US citizenry see repubs as the greater obsticle to an effective government by the people sans corporations, your ideology has its work cut out for it before it becomes so obviously delusional to all, even the mentally retarded, that everyone will simply laugh at anything a 'repub' says.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/17/2007 @ 10:19am
He is the true candidate for change in this election. And change is desperately needed at this point in history.
Posted by LARRYB 11/17/2007 @ 09:55am
And he polls at 3% among DEMOCRATS.
So...if he does that badly among DEMOCRATS, how does he win with the independents?
Posted by MASK 11/17/2007 @ 10:03am
Q. And the point completely missed here is what?
A. How in the hell does the candidate with the most refreshingly honest and sane answers on the most critical issues America and the world faces manage to garner a vanishingly tiny fraction of the Democratic vote?
To pursue that rabbit is to enter the warped world of Washington politics and intrigue that is far more psychedelic and deranged than any 60's acid trip could have possibly entertained.
And it is that same shape-shifting bizarro land that has the blubbering masses of umbilically-connected-to-their-TV Americans in thrall to the candidacy of Ruppert "Emperor Palpatine" Murdoch's wench, Hillary.
I highly recommend the recent --Nov 14-16-- Counterpunch.org three-part series on the tarnished arc our new Queen of Mean's rise.
Excerpt:
In fact, Mrs. Clinton was not a particularly good lawyer and would have had trouble making any honest list of the 100 best lawyers in Little Rock. In their political biography, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. tell the story about the National Law Journal and also probe her lawyerly skills when she was at Rose Law. She only tried five cases and confided to Vince Foster--another Rose Law partner--that she was terrified of juries. So Foster had to accompany her to court. Because of her lack of prowess in the courtroom, she had to make her way at Rose Law by working her connections as the State's first lady to bring in clients, and even then her annual partner's share was mostly below $100,000--the lowest in the firm and very small potatoes for one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America....
Even as Hillary Clinton was making trouble for herself and Bill in her legal and business dealings, she was reinventing Bill as a politician. Defeat in 1980 after his first two-year gubernatorial term was a cataclysmic event. Bill called it a "near death experience". According to Gerth and Van Natta, it was "the only time anyone has seen Hillary Clinton cry in public". Bill was inclined to throw in the political towel and go back to being a law professor in Fayetteville, where he would doubtless be roosting in tenured bliss to this day, plump and pony-tailed, fragrant with marijuana and still working his way through an endless roster of coeds. But in 1980, over a funereal breakfast of instant grits, Vernon Jordan brokered a deal: Bill Clinton would give up being a southern populist in the mold of Orval Faubus, six-term governor of Arkansas. Southern populism involved offending powerful corporations. Bill lost in 1980 because not only had he taken the un-populist course of hiking the rate on car registration, he'd angered Weyerhaeuser and Tyson Foods. So, for his comeback he would remake himself as a neoliberal. Hillary Rodham would give up insisting on keeping her maiden name and become Hillary Clinton. The man charged with supervising the Clintons' makeover was selected by Hillary: Dick Morris, a political consultant known for his work for Southern racists like Jesse Helms. Morris ultimately guided President Bill Clinton into the politics of triangulation, outflanking the Republicans from the right on race, crime, morals posturing and deference to corporations. As Hillary said in 1980, "If you want to be in this business, this is the type of person you have to deal with".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/17/2007 @ 12:59pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/17/2007 @ 12:59pm
B_KOOL...so your explanation for why Kucinich can't win but 3% of the DEMOCRATIC vote is the old standy-by "cuz the people are stupid"?
Or is it all part of a "Vast DLC-wing Conspiracy"? Or the fact that Russert and Wolf Blitzer don't let Dennis go on and on for 1/3 of the debates? Or that they ask him about things that are embarassing, but true? (like UFO sightings with Shirley Maclaine)
Or could it be...brace yourself...that Dennis isn't popular, because...Dennis' ideas or his policies aren't popular, even among Democrats?
No,no,no...never mind...that's too fantastic!
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2007 @ 1:25pm
You're a veritable encyclopedia of information Rese! I wonder if you're retired, because the thousands of words with seeming hundreds of links positions you as the Wizard of US, er Oz himself!
Don't look at the man behind the curtain! Don't taze me bro'!
Seriously, you must be a retired writer/researcher, eh Rese?
Posted by lewwelge at 11/17/2007 @ 4:22pm
Geez Canyon, take your meds.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/16/2007 @ 06:48am
And get some serious therapy....
Posted by w_m_bear at 11/17/2007 @ 4:46pm
Thanks for the brief critique of psychopharmacology, W..Bear, as the predominant curative agent for mental/psychosocial impairments.
Relationships are, rather, key, in my professional opinion.
Posted by lewwelge at 11/17/2007 @ 5:43pm
U of Michigan goes down!!
Tressel owns Carr.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2007 @ 6:26pm
Katrina Vanden Heuvel remarked in her piece, that in response to "perky thirty-something" Campbell Brown's question to Clinton as to what she meant by the "boys' club,"
Clinton sighed, smiled, and with a tone of almost-maternal exasperation that any intelligent, sentient woman in 2007 could ask such a question, replied that it was pretty clear to many women in America that impediments exist when dealing with "the boys" who overpopulate our media and political worlds. Her campaign, she explained to Brown, is about making history by breaking the "highest and hardest glass ceiling."
Let me leave aside the question of whether Vanden Heuvel patronizes Campbell Brown ( almost-maternal exasperation) in precisely the way culturally-male writers tend to discount women in general as "cute" (etc.), as if Vanden Heuvel herself were seeing through male-educated eyes. (In much the same fashion, male writers tend repeatedly to discount the intelligence and social justice commitment of Elizabeth Kucinich by making puerile remarks that focus on her hair or her beauty or her physique.)
Seems to me that Clinton's smarmy patronizing of even the women she hopes will be her core support and captive audience is a decidedly uncool tactic. Seems to me further that the foundational problem is that she doesn't realize how arrogant she sounds, because in fact that's not a concern for her in the least.
Seems to me (#3) that Campbell Brown was not saying she'd never heard the term or didn't know what it meant. By contrast I heard her asking Clinton really to define what SHE meant by it at this moment in history .
The question went right over Hillary's head (to mix a fine metaphor) because she looks down so empyreanly on everyone else.
Posted by amalie bear at 11/17/2007 @ 7:10pm
Big Ten-ism seems oh so peurile here Crabwalk. Sorry. The Academy Award winning 1976 Peter Davis documentary "Hearts & Minds" forever challenged my uncritical fanship of football.
Posted by lewwelge at 11/17/2007 @ 7:10pm
Posted by MASK 11/17/2007 @ 10:03am
Unfortunate for us that most Americans are scared shitless of change
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/17/2007 @ 7:11pm
Katrina Vanden Heuvel remarked in her piece, that in response to "perky thirty-something" Campbell Brown's question to Clinton as to what she meant by the "boys' club,"
Clinton sighed, smiled, and with a tone of almost-maternal exasperation that any intelligent, sentient woman in 2007 could ask such a question, replied that it was pretty clear to many women in America that impediments exist when dealing with "the boys" who overpopulate our media and political worlds. Her campaign, she explained to Brown, is about making history by breaking the "highest and hardest glass ceiling."
Let me leave aside the question of whether Vanden Heuvel patronizes Campbell Brown ( almost-maternal exasperation) in precisely the way culturally-male writers tend to discount women in general as "cute" (etc.), as if Vanden Heuvel herself were seeing through male-educated eyes. (In much the same fashion, male writers tend repeatedly to discount the intelligence and social justice commitment of Elizabeth Kucinich by making puerile remarks that focus on her hair or her beauty or her physique.)
Seems to me that Clinton's smarmy patronizing of even the women she hopes will be her core support and captive audience is a decidedly uncool tactic. Seems to me further that the foundational problem is that she doesn't realize how arrogant she sounds, because in fact that's not a concern for her in the least.
Seems to me (#3) that Campbell Brown was not saying she'd never heard the term or didn't know what it meant. By contrast I heard her asking Clinton really to define what SHE meant by it at this moment in history .
The question went right over Hillary's head (to mix a fine metaphor) because she looks down so empyreanly on everyone else.
Posted by amalie bear at 11/17/2007 @ 7:13pm
Interesting post, Amelia Bear (Field Asplund?), and thanks for the correct spelling of "puerile."
Posted by lewwelge at 11/17/2007 @ 7:14pm
Seems to me, L of C, that being "scared shitless" requires an objective stimulus and conscious awareness.
Our general aversion to "change," however, is more unconsciously biological, in my professional opinion. Not to say it, change, isn't a bane consciously too, however.
Let's "stay the course," shall we. (Isn't that so much more comforting a statement/idea, especially for those of us with the leisure to speculate/distance?
Posted by lewwelge at 11/17/2007 @ 7:21pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/17/2007 @ 7:11pm
Or maybe they don't want as MUCH change as Kucinich wants to give them?
Again and again, why is it so inconceivable that Dennis Kucinich's IDEAS (not his elfin looks, "lack of Media coverage", or "distractions" like UFO sightings)...are the reason he polls below Biden and Dodd???
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2007 @ 7:28pm
Posted by MASK 11/17/2007 @ 7:28pm
Because they're good ideas?
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/17/2007 @ 8:30pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/17/2007 @ 8:30pm
That's the only answer, LOC...
if you can't accept that the views of Dennis Kucinich are not the majority views...even of Democrats. The people are wrong...not Dennis.
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2007 @ 9:06pm
Mask
I know the people are ill-informed and too complacent with narrow viewpoints, industry propaganda, and general lies and BS. As said before, they are deadly afraid of change - but are nearly always pleased with the outcome when it occurs.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/17/2007 @ 9:58pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/17/2007 @ 9:58pm
You're merely repeating yourself, LOC...."the people are stupid, as evidenced by their lack of support for Dennis".
It's a simple enough equation....quite simple in fact......VERY simple in fact.
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2007 @ 10:00pm
Lew,
Great commentary, as usual.
Mask,
I'll pass off a little Lewis Lapham, former editor of Harper's, sizing up our media establishment:
"The ladies and gentleman seated behind the wineglasses enjoy the patronage of very large, very rich, and very timid corporations (Time Warner, General Electric, the Disney Company), and anybody who rises to prominence in their ranks--as editor, political columnist, publisher, anchorperson, theater critic--learns to think along the accommodating lines of an English butler bringing buttered scones to the Prince of Wales."
The recent debate emphasizes this point as we saw Kucinich's participatory role reduced to an afterthought. Point being (in case you're still squinting through your filtered our-media-is-fair-to-all-goggles): Americans at-large don't know who this guy is, nor are they well acquainted with his ideas. Nor does it behoove the private corporate media to juice up his presidential platform, since the boat is just fine where it floats.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/17/2007 @ 10:49pm
And another thing. It is less than encouraging for potential Kucinch supporters to expend time, energy, and hard-earned loot, to grass-roots a campaign given zero chances by the supercilious ones staring down on us from tv land.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/17/2007 @ 10:57pm
Lets agree that the system is rigged. How would one become president legitimately without using the system and the corrupt system not being able to manipulate the outcome?
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/18/2007 @ 12:27am
Posted by MASK 11/17/2007 @ 10:00pm
No Mask, I am not saying that at all. I observe the learnedness of citizenry every day in classrooms. I see a majority of students that do not want to know. That are not engaged in much beyond hedonism and text messaging.
So I am not saying they are stupid because they don't appreciate DK (or for that matter the subtleties of any candidates.) I am saying that many are stupid regardless and they do not bother to know anything of more substance than the taste of a beer and a sound bite.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/18/2007 @ 12:40am
Regardless of Kucinich's "electability", his ideas are still representative of the progressive movement, moreso than any other candidate out there. Nader's getting old, and now Dennis can continue to challenge the establishment with his honesty. I appreciate that guys like Nader and Kucinich are willing to try, and that they don't give up because they represent me.
I have the luxury of living in Washington state, which we all KNOW is blue, so I'll cast my symbolic vote...
MASK, it's apparent that Kucinich is fairing poorly in the polls, but what is your opinion of the man? What do you make of his ideas, or do you think they are irrelevant because of his poll position?
Posted by MATTMAN at 11/18/2007 @ 06:04am
Posted by OUSTBUSH 11/17/2007 @ 10:49pm
If "Big Media" is crushing Dennis...how did an unknown and "out of the mainstream on the war in Iraq" Vermont Governor get past their radar in 2004 to atleast COMPETE in Iowa?
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2007 @ 08:46am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/18/2007 @ 12:40am
I have this suspicious feeling that if a Democrat (any Democrat) wins the White House in 2008....your view of the intelligence of the American people will spike up.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2007 @ 08:47am
MASK, it's apparent that Kucinich is fairing poorly in the polls, but what is your opinion of the man? What do you make of his ideas, or do you think they are irrelevant because of his poll position? ---Posted by MATTMAN 11/18/2007 @ 06:04am
1. I agree with him on the war. Get out now and TRY (though I think the idea is a bit optimistic) to get UN peace-keepers in there.
2. I oppose a single-payer health care plan (though I think it may be inevitable) because NOBODY (not even Dennis) has yet shown how it doesn't become just as bad as the HMOs (not worse, but no better).
3. A "Department of Peace" already exists. It's called the "Department of State". A "DOP" is hippie silliness.
4. I don't really want any more Presidents who think God talks to them...or that flying saucers are real, either.
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2007 @ 08:51am
Posted by LEWWELGE 11/17/2007 @ 7:10pm
No argument with the downsides of college football, it is (at the least) a farm system manipulating young for the entertainment of the masses.
But, I love it when UM gets trounced!!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2007 @ 09:33am
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/17/2007 @ 8:04pm
Propaganda induced pap.
1: the "war" is over. Chimpy said so. PONTIFLOGIC declared victory as well, along with most neo-cons, long ago.
2: Putting goals into legislation requiring tax dollars is a long used method of the right. Ya'll want a four year limit on money going to the least among us, but want zero limits on war, killing and graft, regardless of the lack of concrete results.
3: The Iraqi guvt has failed to meet the "benchmarks" put into place by Chimpy Himself. Why should I continue to pay for their inability to do their jobs?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2007 @ 09:38am
If "Big Media" is crushing Dennis...how did an unknown and "out of the mainstream on the war in Iraq" Vermont Governor get past their radar in 2004 to atleast COMPETE in Iowa?
Posted by MASK 11/18/2007 @ 08:46am | ignore this person
Mask,
Governorships garner more respect, whether they're from a small but well-off and highly educated New England state as Vermont, or an impoverished one like Arkansas. The House of representatives is of the lowly 'people's' province, thus hardly qualifying as a prized and coveted office. We just don't elect those people. But, beyond the arbitrariness of which elected offices are considered presidential by the prim pundentry, Howard Dean was the first to tap into non-conventional media technology (I personally became acquainted with him through the internet), and this allowed him to essentially by-pass the establishment to horror of the beltway crowd. And during a time of war Dean presented himself as the most outspoken, forthright candidate among a rather timid set, at least among the so-called electable ones. Sure, Kucinch was out there, but he didn't have the resources or status of Dean.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/18/2007 @ 09:48am
Let us not underestimate Americas fixation on physical stature when critiquing Kucinich. It is only a small part of the opinion machine, but a part nonetheless. Look at the amount of work that goes into making sure platforms set candidates at similar heights at debates. Look at the fawning over Phred The Dumb as Hell. Some of that comes from his physique, as well as his movie personas (which the anti-hollywood Taliban scoops up like cheap candy).
I've been waiting for you, Joe, to present some positive reasons for supporting him. Do you have any, besides his tall stature and good voice?http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003811.html
Someone like the 6ft, 6in-tall Thompson, whose stature and gravely voice exudes reassurance and commandhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/may07/dinner withfredthompson.htm
Plus, we know that some women feel safe around Phred.
too rich.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2007 @ 09:55am
Mask,
And I wouldn't say that mainstream corporate media is "crushing" Kucinch, all they really need to do is ignore him. Or if addressing his candidacy, frame him as a kind of radical, unhinged kind of guy. Never mind that his ideas are quite banal in all other industrialized nations.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/18/2007 @ 09:56am
When talking to people about Kucinich, I am constantly amazed at the [I know this will be hard to believe..:) ] misinformation that people have about him. The media machine, both rightwing and mainstream has worked it's magic on poor Dennis. If you actually present many of Dennis' ideas to people, they end up agreeing with a lot of them. As stated above by others.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2007 @ 09:59am
"Fred is a perfect example of chivalry. He's the kind of man little girls dream about marrying, who opens doors for you, lights your cigarettes, helps you on with your coat, buys wonderful gifts. It's every woman's fantasy." --Lorrie Morgan, a country singer who dated Thompson and considered marrying him in the mid1990-"I think he has a great chance of capturing the women's vote. He's majestic. He's a soft, safe place to be and that could be Fred's ticket. Women love a soft place to lay and a strong pair of hands to hold us,"
How about this for a role model for our Yutes?
"I was single for a long time and yep I chased a lot of women," Thompson told them with a grin. "And a lot of women chased me. And those who chased me tended to catch me."
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2007 @ 10:02am
Posted by CRABWALK 11/18/2007 @ 09:38am | ignore this person
It's somewhat enjoyable to flog these guys with their own tools, isn't it?
Posted by Oustbush at 11/18/2007 @ 10:04am
Posted by OUSTBUSH 11/18/2007 @ 10:04am
It is most enjoyable to hold up a mirror!
but, like other undead, the neo-cons will not submit to self analysis. As can be seen here daily, they are more interested in spreading propaganda and misinformation.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2007 @ 10:11am
For instance:
Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, November 18, 2007; Page A04
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. -- Up the winding mountain road, Rachel Coolidge pressed her digital camera to the window of the van she shared with other young conservatives, snapping pictures of the rough countryside loved by her hero, Ronald Reagan.
The van's radio blasted one of the many right-wing radio talk shows that have become the soundtrack of her 21-year-old life, and when she reached Rancho del Cielo, once Reagan's vacation retreat, Coolidge was almost giddy.
they listen to and watch the same old people tell them the same ol crap day in and day out. But, even after a decade of Rush and Bubba Oh Really? they still have not outlawed abortion, balanced our budget, stamped out communism, or defeated Islamic Jihadists.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2007 @ 10:16am
It gets even scarier:
Coolidge's love for Reagan and his no-apologies conservatism began at the age of 4 on Houston's west side when she sat in the living room with her parents to watch a not-yet-bald Rush Limbaugh on television. She recently grew nostalgic for those early Limbaugh episodes, and just as others her age watch old episodes of "Full House," she searched and found his early 1990s bashing of Bill Clinton on YouTube and viewed them again.
She admires Ann Coulter's say-anything, politically incorrect liberal bashing.
but, then another Young Conservative not fighting in Iraq said this"We were attacked over and over again by the left," -Daniel Lipian
Gee, it's ok to attack others, but not to be attacked? Sounds like our neo-cons alright.
sheep.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/18/2007 @ 10:23am
Nation - please continue to drive for impeachment. Many of us now see that Bush and Cheney have very likely committed multiple crimes against the constitution far more serious than illicit sexual behavior. I need not go into the list. Please support Mr. Kucinich's impeachment resolution. We must show ourselves and other nations that the founding nation of democracy does not have to endure the illegal take-over of our military, judicial and legislative systems, and economic substructures by mad dictators. best regards, Rikki Westerschulte Los Gatos, CA
Posted by rikkiw at 11/18/2007 @ 11:03am
Posted by MASK 11/18/2007 @ 08:47am
Not as long as I see what I see in the classroom today. The ignorant stepchildren of "No child left behind" which ironically seems to leave all children behind (the rest of the developed world) and ensures another generation of ignorance...
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/18/2007 @ 11:32am
Hear here, RikkiW. As a doctoral student colleague at UF informed me, quoting Marx, Karl, we must "negate the negation," i.e. address the mountain of lies and hold the traitors accountable by exercising the one tool, impeachment, stipulated to handle such criminality. The concrete illustration/example my friend gave was that of a swamp which must be drained before any solid structure can there and then be constructed, i.e. negate the negation/swamp by draining it so as to establish a firm foundation/premise.
Posted by lewwelge at 11/18/2007 @ 11:41am
4. I don't really want any more Presidents who think God talks to them...or that flying saucers are real, either.
Posted by MASK 11/18/2007 @ 08:51am
Er, Frita, the problem that hsuB has isn't that God talks to him, it's that hsuB is 'higher-consciousness-disabled'; hsuB is merely 'reptilian' (SPOS). And as well, no one can disprove that more advanced intelligent life on another planet does or does not exist. At some point I'm pretty sure that not believing in 'extraterrestrials' will be as funny as someone that currently believes that there's no such thing as the 'French'..., or that hsuB isn't a dic'tator.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/18/2007 @ 11:44am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/18/2007 @ 11:32am
LOC, what do you think your students would say if you called them "ignorant and apathetic"?
"I don't know and I don't care"?...heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2007 @ 2:08pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/18/2007 @ 11:44am
So, HSUB....is it official yet? Given up on impeachment (you haven't mentioned that in ...what is it? Oh, yeah, 19 days)...
how's that "Gore in '08" campaign coming???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2007 @ 2:08pm
Posted by MASK 11/18/2007 @ 2:08pm
Funny you should mention that...I recently asked one class a "quasi-rhetorical" - "Don't you guys want to kow how the world around you works?" - A couple said "No" - to which I said "I'm sorry to hear you choose ignorance" [explaining the correct definition of the word] and that while it was indeed a choice....it wasn't one I would recommend.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/18/2007 @ 11:15pm
I'd ask them if they're apathetic, but I don't think they'd care....
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/18/2007 @ 11:16pm
Mark Canyon, bless you. You must have been born the day you read the comments of Biden and Kucinich. How could you know that Kucinich was speaking for those of us who know what went on in the days and months, even years, before that? Thanks, Steve1; you said it well. And as for Rio Bravo, do you have a screw loose? You'd better check; I think you might. Hope you will be ok when you get it fixed. Cheney needs to be impeached asap (and has since forever) and then Bush - before he has a chance to put anyone in Cheney's place. If Bush is impeached, the Speaker of the House becomes acting President until the next election (if we ever have a real election and not a theft again). All of you oughta get yourselves a copy of two documents: The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution. And read them. The U.S. Constitution becomes clearer and clearer if you read it more than once or twice. Read it every year. You, Mark Canyon, really need to do this so you can be a good American. And Rio Bravo, you can't read anything with a screw loose and understand it, so - really - get that thing fixed, ok? Love you and wish you well, all of you, especially those two who need it so badly. We're all Americans, folks. Can we just get it together, please?
Posted by forsanity at 11/19/2007 @ 12:19am
Thanks for the brief critique of psychopharmacology, W..Bear, as the predominant curative agent for mental/psychosocial impairments.
Relationships are, rather, key, in my professional opinion.
Posted by LEWWELGE 11/17/2007 @ 5:43pm
RELATIONSHIPS WITHOUT THERAPY...
Are likely to go bust unless the partners are (as we used to say) heavy into role-playing. This at least is what our marriage counsellor told my wife and me shortly before our marriage went bust in part because (as he also observed) we DIDN'T role play. But anyway....
What used to be called "the talking cure" may not be the answer to everything but it sure as hell beats anything else that I've tried, including conventional religion and meds (both of which I rate about equally low on my scale....)
Posted by w_m_bear at 11/19/2007 @ 02:33am
4. I don't really want any more Presidents who think God talks to them...or that flying saucers are real, either.
Posted by MASK 11/18/2007 @ 08:51am
I WOULD NOT PLACE KUCINICH'S UFO BLOOPER...
(And it was a blooper, no question) on the same plane at all with George W. Bush's fireside chats with the Almighty. What DK said was that he'd SEEN a UFO but as some pains to clarify that this means UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT not an "alien spaceship" or some such. UFOs have been identified (to the extent possible) with a number of both natural phenonmena (lenticular clouds, for example) AND (especially) experimental aircraft. And frankly, from his description, what DK saw sounds as though it was one of the latter. Only mass media stupidos EQUATE UFOs with alien spaceships or some such. And the question was a trick question anyway, intended to embarass DK, which, evidently, it did. My only quarrel with him was that he should have pulled a Hillary and waffled on that one instead of giving his usual straightforward, honest answer....
Posted by w_m_bear at 11/19/2007 @ 02:43am
Posted by W_M_BEAR 11/19/2007 @ 02:43am
BEAR, Dennis isn't being completely "open" about his sighting.
Read the Shirley Maclaine account. She isn't talking about some "mysterious light in the sky" or "an object sighted at a distance exhibiting non-ballistic motion"...to whit-
"Kucinich "had a close sighting over my home in Graham, Washington, when I lived there," the actress, a close Kucinich friend, wrote. "Dennis found his encounter extremely moving. The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him. It hovered, soundless, for 10 minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."
Kucinich merely told Russert that he saw something he couldn't identify....but didn't exactly deny the Maclaine account.
That's a bit of disengenuousness. He knows if he confirmed the Maclaine version, he'd have no rational explanation for it and come off even odder than he did with the innocuouss "I saw something I couldn't identify" comment.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2007 @ 09:13am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/18/2007 @ 11:15pm
if you choose not to decide,
you still have made a choice.
n. peart
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/19/2007 @ 09:27am
I'd ask them if they're apathetic, but I don't think they'd care....
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/18/2007 @ 11:16pm
or understand...................
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/19/2007 @ 09:28am
MarkCanyon-You make up odd things.I don't recall anyone marching in support of Saddam nor do I remember any war supporters ever caring about what Saddam did to his people until you were told to pretend that you cared after Bush attacked.You don't care about the murders of millions and the reason you don't provide facts,but simply call names,is because you make things up as you go along.You have no idea how many weapons we gave to Saddam and made that up,too.There are many foul mouthed lowlifes who don't live in inner cities.You need to get out more.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/19/2007 @ 1:18pm
MarkCanyon-You do alot of tough talking while you hide behind your computer.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/19/2007 @ 1:20pm
MARKCANYON....serious question with snarky warning...
How old ARE you?
(Now, don't lie, because six months from now, it'll trip you up...bet on it!)
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2007 @ 2:45pm
By your criteria Detroit, Flint, Cleveland, Newark and all of America's inner cities are conservative politically since they are the bastions of America's most foul mouthed low lifes.
by markcanyon
what nonsense.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/19/2007 @ 3:09pm
MarkCanyon-You do make up strange things.For obvious reasons you can't back up your claim that there were pro Saddam demonstrations just as you can't back up your claim that I or anyone else supported Saddam because no such evidence exists.You made it up.You don't know me despite your claim that you do.I did not even have a computer during Saddams reign so I couldn't have supported him from my computer,as you claimed that I did..Again,I never heard one person who now supports the war that ever mentioned caring about oppressed Iraqis until after Bush told them to pretend that they cared.There are many nasty leaders,but we just can't attack them all and when you do you end up killing many of the people you are trying to free.Try to stay more in reality rather than just making things up as you go along.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/19/2007 @ 3:17pm
MarkCanyon-What is your view on the subject of the mass murdering of Jews by Nazis?
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/19/2007 @ 3:23pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/19/2007 @ 3:23pm
Allow me to quote the young feller...
"For one bright moment that came to view well enough in Europe when there were no people of color to confuse the picture. Then the right people, for once, were locked up, and put on Death Row, and sent to gas chamber. For a short moment the picture was clear and honest folks knew what to do....
....Working people must come to their senses. We must defend the innocent against the true enemy. We need a prisoner exchange: Blacks out, Jews in."----Posted by MARKCANYON 10/06/2007 @ 1:15pm
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2007 @ 5:03pm
Mask-Sounds like he's contradicting his claim that he is against mass murderers.I noticed he hasn't come back to answer the question.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/19/2007 @ 5:13pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 11/18/2007 @ 05:03am | ignore this person
Canyon,
Regarding the destruction of Hama, the records will show that Assad, through great brutality, prevented Syria, a secular state, from becoming a modern-day Algeria. Let Assad speak for himself: " Nothing is more dangerous to Islam than distorting its meanings and concepts while you are posing as a Muslim. This is what the criminal brothers are doing…They are killing in the name of Islam. They are butchering children, women, and old people in the name of Islam…death a thousand times to the Muslim Brothers, the criminal brothers, the corrupt brothers."
The "Brotherhood" uprising was not led by the likes of suntanned George Washington's. This revolt consisted of such ‘brotherly' love as beheading schoolteachers who insisted on teaching secular education, cutting the throats of family members related to government workers, and slaughtering policeman, and so on. Would you have preferred a fundamentalist regime? Savage reprisal? Yes, but no different from the murderous, genocidal behavior of numerous dictatorships endorsed and coddled by our own government over past decades.
You appear to endorse this kind of thing, as you seem just short of thrilled with the general population of Iraq hating the US, as long as they're ruled iron-fisted by corrupt thugs obedient to ‘American interests,' no matter, as long as they manage to bypass such trifling inconveniences as self-rule and democracy, in any meaningful sense of the term. Just like the good old days before our chum, Hussein, went sour and exercised a bit of independence in which nation he chose to invade.
You mentioned the Turks, let's consider the barbarous cruelty they've inflicted on the Kurds. Remember those people? Yeah, they also live in Turkey where they've been ravaged by a genocide-denying regime. All this Orwellian shit floating around the Anglo-American press: the Kurds utilize violence and are thereby terrorists…what about the Turkish government? Most of those 40,000 killed during the 90s were Kurds. This sick and twisted government doesn't even acknowledge that Kurds are Kurds: they've contrived some fable about ‘Mountain Turks,' even though they speak a separate and distinct language. Perhaps that's one more reason why the Kurdish language is not permitted in written form. The Turkish government uses the PKK as pretext for bloated military expenditures and fear mongering, just as the gang of sociopaths in the Bush junta exploit the ignorance of the ill informed, along with the maliciously demented, armchair waraholics.
As for Syria and its history, no shit it's been one long timeline of conquering armies: that's the history of human civilization. Are you asserting that there is no connected history for those who've lived in the same region, shared the same religious customs and cultural beliefs since the 7th century and the establishment of Islamic society in that region? Perhaps, you should consider crawling out of that musty, pestilent chamber where you fester and spew angrily at a world never seen or experienced outside of your own hallucinations.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/19/2007 @ 5:20pm
MARKCANYON you are one stone cold little nazi mouthpiece! Do you really believe the propaganda you regurgitate? Dick Cheney had some sort of evidence about wmds? The opposite is true, Cheney knew for sure there were no wmds, but he knew he could pass a lie with the media behind him, especially with Colin Powell as delivery boy. Cheney is a manipulative genius.
You write clearly & well, but you think so poorly you are hopeless. Thanks for making me laugh!
As to the article, both men are right.
Posted by blurbster at 11/19/2007 @ 5:26pm
Perhaps, you should consider crawling out of that musty, pestilent chamber where you fester and spew angrily at a world never seen or experienced outside of your own hallucinations.
Posted by OUSTBUSH 11/19/2007 @ 5:20pm
c'mon out and smell the flowers. markie
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/19/2007 @ 5:42pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 11/19/2007 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person
Canyon,
You are correct that western governments provided the weapons and the majority of chemicals, but the American government was allowing sale of biological agents such as anthrax, along with the ‘dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the developing of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile-system programs, including…chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings, chemical warhead filling equipment…" (according to Senate records).
But more crucial to the Reagan-Hussein alliance was the technical assistance by the US Defense Intelligence Agency, which provided the battlefield intelligence necessary for Hussein to utilize and administer his arsenal of chemical weapons on Iranian troops, and Kurds suspected of being sympathetic.
I am a bit pressed for time, but thought I'd infuse a bit of truth and honesty to your clipped version of what happened. It is you and your Reagan apologists that remain immersed in blood.
Have a nice evening Mark ‘NaCl' Canyon!
Posted by Oustbush at 11/19/2007 @ 5:42pm
The people who put Saddam in power and armed him to the teeth were everyone but the USYOUNGMARKYMARK
As IM has dispatched your silly claim that the anti-quagmire side somehow supported Saddam Hussein, allow me to discredit some more of your illusory beliefs.
Rumsfeld was accompanied on his Baghdad trip by Howard Teicher, the then US National Security Advisor. In 1995, Teicher lodged a sworn declaration in the US district court in the Southern district of Florida, saying: "While a staff member to the National Security Council, I was responsible for the Middle East and for political-military affairs. During my five years' tenure on the National Security Council, I had regular contact with both CIA director William Casey and deputy director Robert Gates … Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war ... In 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. Similar strategic advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state."
And I just love this one: from the Great Ronald Reagans State Dept,
"While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use - the United States finds the present Iranian government regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."
Joyce Battle said that after this gentle scolding, the State Department was asked if Iraq's CW program would have "any effect on US recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range". A State Department official said: "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer relationship with Iraq."
That was quite evident from a US State Department memo dated May 9, 1984, which said that the US was reviewing its policy "on the sale of certain dual-use items to Iraq nuclear entities" and that "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities". A dual-use item can be a part for a heart machine, which is also used in the construction of nuclear bomb s.
Flip, flop. One mans necessary tool is his VP's sons war of choice.
But, Young Marky, we expect about your level of theory vs reality from most of the mongers around here. Pay attention long enough and maybe you too can join the real world.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2007 @ 7:25pm
In 1983 the Great Communicator removed Iraq from it's status as a state sponsor of terrorism.
In 1984 The Actor President met with Tariq Aziz, soon after The Actor made intel from the CIA and the DOD available to Saddam Hussien. Direct links were set up between Saddam and the CIA through the US embassy. Do you remember Mr. Aziz, Marky? Nice guy. the kind of friends Reagan had lined up, Noriega, Bin Laden, Aziz, The Sauds.
"Everything we did was checked with America, They knew our policy was to use chemical weapons on the Iranian army when they entered our territory. We told them that and they continued to help us."-retired Iraqi Brigadier-General Zekki Daoud Jabber
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2007 @ 7:37pm
From Juan Cole, "informed comment"
Reagan increased the budget for support of the radical Muslim Mujahidin conducting terrorism against the Afghanistan government to half a billion dollars a year.
One fifth of the money, which the CIA mostly turned over to Pakistani military intelligence to distribute, went to Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a violent extremist who as a youth used to throw acid on the faces of unveiled girls in Afghanistan.
Not content with creating a vast terrorist network to harass the Soviets, Reagan then pressured the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to match US contributions. He had earlier imposed on Fahd to give money to the Contras in Nicaragua, some of which was used to create rightwing death squads. (Reagan liked to sidestep Congress in creating private terrorist organizations for his foreign policy purposes, which he branded "freedom fighters," giving terrorists the idea that it was all right to inflict vast damage on civilians in order to achieve their goals).
Turki al-Faisal checked around and discovered that a young member of the fabulously wealthy Bin Laden construction dynasty, Usama, was committed to Islamic causes. Turki thus gave Usama the task of raising money from Gulf millionaires for the Afghan struggle. This whole effort was undertaken, remember, on Reagan Administration instructions.
Bin Laden not only raised millions for the effort, but helped encourage Arab volunteers to go fight for Reagan against the Soviets and the Afghan communists. The Arab volunteers included people like Ayman al-Zawahiri, a young physician who had been jailed for having been involved in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar El-Sadat. Bin Laden kept a database of these volunteers. In Arabic the word for base is al-Qaeda.
In the US, the Christian Right adopted the Mujahideen as their favorite project. They even sent around a "biblical checklist" for grading US congressman as to how close they were to the "Christian" political line. If a congressman didn't support the radical Muslim Muj, he or she was downgraded by the evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Reagan wanted to give more and more sophisticated weapons to the Mujahideen ("freedom fighters"). The Pakistani generals were forming an alliance with the fundamentalist Jamaat-i Islam and begining to support madrasahs or hardline seminaries that would teach Islamic extremism. But even they balked at giving the ragtag Muj really advanced weaponry. Pakistan had a close alliance with China, and took advice from Beijing.
In 1985 Reagan sent Senator Orrin Hatch, Undersecretary of Defense Fred Iklé and others to Beijing to ask China to put pressure on Pakistan to allow the US to give the Muslim radicals, such as Hikmatyar, more sophisticated weapons. Hatch succeeded in this mission.
By giving the Muj weaponry like the stinger shoulderheld missile, which could destroy advanced Soviet arms like their helicopter gunships, Reagan demonstrated to the radical Muslims that they could defeat a super power.
On becoming president, George H. W. Bush made a deal with the Soviets that he would cut the Mujahideen off if the Soviets would leave Afghanistan. The last Soviet troops departed in early 1989. The US then turned its back on Afghanistan and allowed it to fall into civil war, as the radical Muslim factions fostered by Washington and Riyadh turned against one another and used their extensive weaponry on each other and on civilians.
"Trust him, he is the President".
Sound familiar?
Pakistan= US ally
China= MFN
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2007 @ 7:55pm
I want to make sure ya'll see this line:
If a congressman didn't support the radical Muslim Muj, he or she was downgraded by the evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2007 @ 7:58pm
ATTENTION NATION STAFF:
HERE ARE A FEW OF THE TYPICAL "ARGUMENTS" PRESENTED BY MARKCANYON.
Posted by MARKCANYON 11/19/2007
You're a prick
Because an asshole like you says so.
You shameless lout have the nerve to spin those ravings and to project your own swinish qualities on me. You are more than a nobody, you are a pile of shit.
You are a crawling scumbag.
You are an example of a cunt too fucking stupid for reasoned discourse.
YEP. THAT IS INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/19/2007 @ 9:54pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/19/2007 @ 9:54pm
Two theories-
1. He's a teenager-20ish (no more than 25) who needs something to latch onto...so it's Nazism.
2. He's "Comic Book Guy"...big fat Pepsi-and-pizza swiller at a crusty keyboard, who blogs to get a rise out of people by being both simultaneously a "purer leftist" and a "neo-Nazi", just to see if people will discourse with him seriously...
and then he touchs himself.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2007 @ 10:06pm
But the truth is that while you call me a Nazi you sided with Saddam Hussein against the US. You openly sought to keep that tyrant in office and vocally opposed the invasion of Iraq. You are a true blue fascist collaborator. Except you don't admit to your sympathies, you hide your attachment. You are a crawling scumbag.
Posted by MARKCANYON 11/19/2007 @ 9:09pm |
First, I never called you a Nazi.
Second, not wanting a hundred thousand soldiers to be bogged down in Iraq for decades is not support of Saddam. Opposition to a bad plan does not equate to support for a tyrant. But, again, the non-sequitor is one center piece of the neo-con debate.
third, I opposed Saddam Hussein while you were still suckling your wet nurses titties. While Raygun was outfitting Saddam, Noriega, Bin-laden and others, I was opposing those policies. Turns out, listening to me would have been good for the Twin Towers and the US Armed forces.
Just out of curiosity, without using The Google, tell us, in your words, the relationship between Carlos the Jackal and Saddam Hussein prior to your historical support for Saddam against Iran. It would appear that The Great Communicator conspired with a state sponsor of terrorism. A lot. All in the convenient world of geo-politics.
"The enemy of my enemy will be my children's enemy, but my grandchildren will pay the bills."- an lessor known Reagan quote.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2007 @ 11:05pm
Posted by MASK 11/19/2007 @ 10:06pm
Mark canyon is Mark Foley?
hmm, astute observation.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2007 @ 11:09pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/19/2007 @ 09:27am
True enuff (in a rush of realization...) But I will choose free will.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/19/2007 @ 09:27am
Sadly true
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/19/2007 @ 11:13pm
But the US also allowed Iraq to buy some cluster-bomb ammunition which at that time violated a US statute.-MARKFOLEY
Ahh, the pesky US laws. Damn those laws!
what was it JOMA said the other day about lending support to the enemy? Something about being a traitor?
Who will be the next Bin Laden? Which tinpot that Chimpy and his sheep support now will be the enemy of the next generation?
Oh, and MARKY, do a little research on Pakistans nookyular programs and the countries that supported it. That could be the next "oops I did it again" moment for the mongers. But, it will be passed off as more geo-politics of the moment.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2007 @ 11:17pm
If one wants to see what a "true blue fascist collaborator" looks like:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN01286945
It seems oil is thicker than patriotism.
But, I forget, this isn't about oil, is it? It's about the humanitarian streak in the rightwing .
Posted by crabwalk at 11/19/2007 @ 11:28pm
"Ol Abe thinks Reagan was a traitor?
Interesting.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2007 @ 07:24am
Marky, can you list the number of new democracies in the ME versus the number of dictators supported by the US in the region?
I'll help.
# of new democracies= 0.
Dictators supported by Chimpy=
Mushareff
Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah, "leader" of a country we liberated in order to put in a democracy. That was a decade ago.
Qaddafi. a known sponsor of terrorism.
King Mohammed VI, a "benevolent" dictator.
Qaboos Bin Said Al Said, more benevolence.
King Abdullah Bin-Abd-al-Aziz Al Saud, not so benevolent.
Islam Abduganiyevich Karimov, AKA "The Boiler"
Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov
Nursultan Abish-uly Nazarbayev
Posted by crabwalk at 11/20/2007 @ 07:57am