The Beat

A Closing Call for Impeachment

posted by John Nichols on 12/09/2006 @ 09:10am

"President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people," Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney explained in remarks prepared to accompany her submission on Friday of articles of impeachment against Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

McKinney, in her last legislative act before leaving the House at the end of her current term, represented not merely a final thrust by the Georgia Democrat against the Bush administration that she has so consistently opposed but a challenge to the new House Democratic leadership to pay more than lip service to its Constitutionally-mandated duty to check and balance the executive branch.

"With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us," continued McKinney, according to a copy of her remarks distributed by the Atlanta Progressive News network. "To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake. Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship. I am not willing to put any political party before my principles. This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded."

There will be many who dismiss McKinney's filing of articles of impeachment against the president and members of his administration as an act of little consequence. The congresswoman has been a controversial figure during six terms in the House, often placing herself well to the left of her own caucus, particularly on issues of presidential accountability. And her impending departure from the chamber means that her resolution will only be a factor in the next Congress if another member takes it up. With incoming-Speaker Nancy Pelosi telling fellow Democrats that they must keep impeachment "off the table," that may not happen in the short term.

But McKinney's move ought not be casually discounted. As a legislative veteran whose service at the state and federal levels goes back almost 20 years, she well understands that the coming investigations of administration wrongdoing could well put impeachment back on the table.

McKinney knows that speaks for a great many House Democrats who, while they may currently be honoring their leadership's calls for caution on the issue, fully recognize that the president and vice president need to be held to account for their disregard of the rule of law and their Constitutionally-defined responsibilities. Remember that McKinney, who lost a primary runoff earlier this year, was just one of 38 members of the House who cosponsored a resolution submitted last year by Congressman John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who will take charge of the Judiciary Committee in January, to create "a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

McKinney speaks, as well, for the 51 percent of Americans who, according to a Newsweek Poll conducted on the eve of the November 7 election, expressed support for impeachment of the president. In that poll, 47 percent of Democrats said that impeachment should be a "top priority" of their party if it took control of the House, as did an intriguing 5 percent of Republicans.

A measure of the pro-impeachment sentiment will be on display this weekend, as activists rally in dozens of communities across the country to express support for sanctioning the president with the Constitutional remedy provided by the founders.

McKinney's impeachment resolution, the last legislation she will introduce as a House member, echoes the concerns that have underpinned the movement to impeach the president and members of his administration: allegations that the White House manipulated intelligence to convince members of Congress and the American people to support going to war in Iraq, the president's approval of an illegal warrantless wiretapping program, seizure of powers and failures to cooperate with Congressional investigations.

Perhaps more importantly, McKinney made clear in the statement she prtepared for the Congressional Record that she was concerned not only with presidential wrongdoing but with congressional inaction.

A failure to uphold the delicate system of checks and balances that was put in place by the founders does not occur in isolation. Just as the executive branch pushes the envelope in exceeding its authority, so the Congress must at least to some extent allow the envelope to be pushed.

As a departing member of Congress, McKinney is perhaps freer than most to criticize the House as a whole, and she is doing so with appropriate sternness.

"We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high," read the congresswoman's prepared remarks, which will appear in the Congressional Record next week. "No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable, what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?"

McKinney's answer is an appeal to the people who Thomas Jefferson correctly identified as "the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government."

"To my fellow Americans," declared McKinney, "as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by author Gore Vidal as "essential reading for patriots." David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, says: "With The Genius of Impeachment, John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so."

The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (99)

  1. Articles of Impeachment:

    1. Treason: giving aid and comfort to America's number one terrorist enemy, the Saudis, who have contributed millions of petrodollars to al Qaida, the Taliban, and the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

    2. War Crimes: deliberately violating the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on the torture of prisoners of war.

    3. Malfeasance: deliberately violating U.S. laws prohibiting surveillance without warrants and detention without habeas corpus.

    Posted by samcrossett at 12/09/2006 @ 09:26am

  2. Talk about being a sore loser...

    Posted by woodyee at 12/09/2006 @ 09:55am

  3. Did she slap any cops on the way out?

    Posted by Mask at 12/09/2006 @ 10:02am

  4. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 12/09/2006 @ 09:26am

    1. Treason: giving aid and comfort to America's number one terrorist enemy, the Saudis, who have contributed millions of petrodollars to al Qaida, the Taliban, and the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

    This is absurd for a number of reasons. First, if you believe this, then Bill Clinton is a traitor, because he gave aid and comfort to the Saudis as well. Second, the Saudis are not a "terrorist regime" in any meaningful sense; their government is not giving money to al Qaeda (they are, in fact, fightingthem), nor are they helping to prop up the Taliban. They're also not helping the insurgency in Iraq; there are Saudi nationals there, but the Saudi government strongly disapproves of this. Third, what constitutes aid and comfort? Anything short of invasion? If that's your standard, the war in Iraq was not only justified but obligatory, since Saddam Hussein was unquestionably giving "aid and comfort" to suicide bombers in Israel by compensating their families.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/09/2006 @ 11:35am

  5. 2. War Crimes: deliberately violating the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on the torture of prisoners of war.

    Under the Geneva Convention, captured al Qaeda members are not prisoners of war, though you may be correct to claim that many of the other people that we've imprisoned would qualify for that status.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/09/2006 @ 11:37am

  6. 3. Malfeasance: deliberately violating U.S. laws prohibiting surveillance without warrants and detention without habeas corpus.

    Would you join the Lincoln impeachment movement in the 1860's, then?

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/09/2006 @ 11:37am

  7. McKinney...McKook....really helped the cause..gotta love them Dems...

    Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 11:38am

  8. Next up - Massive conspiracy postings by Plunger.

    Posted by woodyee at 12/09/2006 @ 11:40am

  9. That was the only time she has showed up in Congress since she lost the election in early November. Since then she has been a no show. I'll bet she is not giving back her paychecks.

    Posted by dscott at 12/09/2006 @ 11:42am

  10. Maybe she blew her checks on getting a new hairstyle. Ugh!

    Posted by woodyee at 12/09/2006 @ 12:20pm

  11. She shouldn't take a paycheck for what she has been doing there...it is stealing.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 12:37pm

  12. "Talk about being a sore loser..."

    Posted by WOODYEE 12/09/2006 @ 09:55am

    It's ok...The Nation still lets losers like you post here.

    -------------------------------------------------

    "Would you join the Lincoln impeachment movement in the 1860's, then?"

    Posted by THRAWN 12/09/2006 @ 11:37am

    Whatever it takes. Lincoln was a big fan of doing whatever it takes to preserve the integrity of the union, so I doubt he'd mind.

    -----------------------------------------------

    Posted by DSCOTT 12/09/2006 @ 11:42am

    Posted by WOODYEE 12/09/2006 @ 12:20am

    Sure. I mean, most folks who quit their job or get fired, decline their final paychecks...um...based on what premise again?

    And of course, hairstyle is a major indicator of political competence.... Or does that only apply to females? Oh yea. You're conservatives...superstitious, anti-science, racist and sexist. (And of course, in complete denial mode about the later two items).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 12:55pm

  13. Eric,

    "You're conservatives...superstitious, anti-science, racist and sexist. (And of course, in complete denial mode about the later two items"

    This silly and beneath your intelligence..don't devalue yourself and your reasoned posts with this crap.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 12:59pm

  14. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/09/2006 @ 12:55am

    Lincoln was a big fan of doing whatever it takes to preserve the integrity of the union, so I doubt he'd mind.

    Not the point. The underlying question was whether Lincoln deserved impeachment for taking actions that probably went beyond his Constitutional powers. I think the answer is clearly no.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/09/2006 @ 1:03pm

  15. Such a shame that McKinney also courts the Conspiracy Theorist crowd. It only hurts the push for impeachment.

    Meanwhile, the case for impeachment of Bush is much MUCH stronger than the one made against Clinton.

    Posted by JoeDaJuggler at 12/09/2006 @ 1:13pm

  16. "This silly and beneath your intelligence..don't devalue yourself and your reasoned posts with this crap."

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/09/2006 @ 12:59am

    I hear what you are saying. I even appreciate the attempt at civility alluded to, by saying, "...your reasoned posts".

    Now, having said that; Do you really believe the persons hairstyle would be a topic of interest, if the person in question was male? Honestly?

    Kinda comes of to me like, "It's heritage not hate, ignore the fact I throw the term niggar around, loosely." or "Racial prejudice is yesterdays issue, just ask my reps. S. Thurmond or T. Lott."

    You can deny. I cannot prove. Yet still, I don't believe it.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 1:15pm

  17. "Do you really believe the persons hairstyle would be a topic of interest, if the person in question was male? Honestly? "

    No.

    But I have commented on funny hair styls, including my own lack of hair...not style of course:)

    "You can deny. I cannot prove. Yet still, I don't believe it."

    Well, there is a difference between knowledge and belief.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 1:18pm

  18. Posted by THRAWN 12/09/2006 @ 1:03pm

    I am sorry if it shows my political/cultural niavete, but it still boggles my mind, that corruption and adherence to constitutional principles are, to some, partisan issues.

    These people seem to have a basic defect in their reasoning skills. (Can they not concieve, (with more horror than me, even) of; "Hillary R. Clinton- Unitary executive"?)

    Hard to argue, with those whom, obviously, are not thinking.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 1:21pm

  19. ..... To me the bottom line is; if it seems un-American for your political rival to have a certain power, it is probably un-American for your guy to do it too.

    Are we Dems., Reps. and Grns.? Or Americans?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 1:29pm

  20. Just like the Dems. seem to have gotten over their issues with Iraq, now that they won congress, I would like to see how fast the Reps. backpedal on their "unitary executive" theory, if we ever get a liberal president. (I know, I know...like that will happen. We may change party affiliation, but not actual policies).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 1:33pm

  21. Jmash, I for one will miss Cynthia Mc-Ninny....She's been a running joke since taking office, and it's fitting that she go out with one last laugh.....No doubt she'll have a worthy successor in this upcoming congress,.....Maybe Alcee Hastings will step up???

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/09/2006 @ 1:57pm

  22. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/09/2006 @ 1:21pm

    I am sorry if it shows my political/cultural niavete, but it still boggles my mind, that corruption and adherence to constitutional principles are, to some, partisan issues.

    You're still not really responding to the point. My argument is that exceeding Constitutional powers in wartime does not constitute a prima facie justification for impeachment. This, of course, does not mean that any and all excesses are justified (to preempt any potential strawmen), but rather that there may be times when such excess is necessary, and I think that judgment needs to be able to be made on an individual basis.

    That's why I don't think that an impeachment of Lincoln (were he still alive) would have been justified.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

  23. "That's why I don't think that an impeachment of Lincoln (were he still alive) would have been justified."

    Posted by THRAWN 12/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

    And I would agree. On the other hand Lincoln was responding to an inevitable conflict, in the best way he new how.

    Chimpy intentionally created...through lies and deception a state, which he chose war and decided before the conflict was finished, that this war would go on indefinitly, the people he abducted were not POWs, but this is definately a war...and therefore, he can do as he pleases.

    This should not stand. Even if you cheer our war of choice, you cannot trade the constitution or my civil liberties for your "get the brown, funny talking/dressing guys and steal their resources, cause we need them more", "war".

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 2:24pm

  24. Also Thrawn, in accordance with your urge to avoid strawmen, perhaps we should not compare chimpy and Lincoln....or the civil war and the "It's a war, but they're not POWs" action.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 2:27pm

  25. Reagan wasn't impeached for his dirty little war in Nicaragua and as a consequence the Military Industrial Complex grew stronger. Democrats then and now covered up a multitude of crimes, including genocide at the behest of America's plutocracy. Which means the Military Industrial Complex will again grow stronger. Which means militarism, perpetual wars and perpetual profits for those who own the Military Industrial Complex are assured. Our leaders are rushing to fascism for profit.

    The rule of law doesn't apply to plutocrats because our lawmakers have been bribed into granting them immunity. Can anyone see a good outcome if we continue along this road to perdition, madness, economic collapse and moral depravity?

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 12/09/2006 @ 2:28pm

  26. Maybe RESE could get the "Country Bear Jamboree" to impeach Bush???

    "Check it out... one of the advocates of the Iraq war is a Disney robot!!!! Made by the imagrnders!!!! Oh my God!\\\ Frigened futureistic puppet.!"----Posted by RESE 12/08/2006 @ 7:11pm

    Posted by Mask at 12/09/2006 @ 2:30pm

  27. "You're still not really responding to the point. My argument is that exceeding Constitutional powers in wartime does not constitute a prima facie justification for impeachment."

    This is also true...but verging on a strawman argument, inasmuch as the impeachable offences were, arguably the cause of the war, not a response to it.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 2:30pm

  28. Eric,

    "Chimpy intentionally created...through lies and deception a state, which he chose war and decided before the conflict was finished, that this war would go on indefinitly, the people he abducted were not POWs, but this is definately a war...and therefore, he can do as he pleases."

    This is where the line and differnce comes to the fore front ..knowledge and belief..for you this is knowledge and to me it is your belief..hence our disagreement on facts and circumstances.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/09/2006 @ 2:31pm

  29. "Did she slap any cops on the way out?"

    Posted by MASK 12/09/2006 @ 10:02am

    Posted by MALCONTENT 12/08/2006 @ 7:22pm Comments for "Dems Bite Rubin's Hand"

    A " smart-ass/obnoxious post".

    Very good. :o)

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 2:34pm

  30. "This is where the line and differnce comes to the fore front ..knowledge and belief..for you this is knowledge and to me it is your belief..hence our disagreement on facts and circumstances."

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/09/2006 @ 2:31pm

    This is where knowledge (carefully garnered) and facts can displace belief, if one choses to actually aquire some knowledge, istead of just speculating, based on preconceived notions, a belief system.

    If you learned some facts, your belief would either become my knowledge, or you would have an actual argument...not just the "your knowledge, my belief" bullshit.

    Care to argue/supply any "facts and circumstances"? Or are we just discussing your belief system?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 2:38pm

  31. RESE, you are truly a simpleton . How about another racist remark? my jamaican ex-girlfriend was a wild woman in the sack!

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/09/2006 @ 2:39pm

  32. An that's no lie.

    Posted by davebarlett at 12/09/2006 @ 2:39pm

  33. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/09/2006 @ 2:34pm

    So, Eric...we'll NEVER see one from you, when, say, Bush and Cheney leave office?

    (in January 2009, by the way!)

    Posted by Mask at 12/09/2006 @ 2:46pm

  34. Posted by MASK 12/09/2006 @ 2:46pm

    I am assuming "one from you" refers to "A smart-ass/obnoxious post"?

    Did you read the post I refered to? Because, it was meant, in that context.

    (Have I ever posted w/o being smart-ass/obnoxious? Sadly, our current crop of candidates, on both sides of the aisle, lack the competence/ethics to inspire much emotion either way....perhaps a tiny sigh of hope?)

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 2:53pm

  35. 1. Treason: Like Iran-Contra, the Saudi sponsorship of terrorism was not an official act of a government but a conspiracy of criminal elements within a government, influential persons outside the government, and third parties that laundered money and brokered weapons. Bush & Co. shut down the FBI investigation into Saudi 'Islamic charities' that laundered contributions to al Qaida, the Taliban, and 'religious schools' where terrorists are recruited. This administration also 'classified' (i.e. censored) the congressional report on the sponsorship of 9/11 by prominent Saudis, including members of the Saudi royal family. This administration continues to defend the Saudi regime with American armed forces, weapons, and logistical support.

    2. War Crimes: a person who is subjected to military incarceration is entitled to the same treatment as a POW. 'Enemy combatants' are either criminal suspects under civilian jurisdiction, in which case they have rights under the U.S. Constitution, or they are prisoners of war with rights under the Geneva Conventions. Unilaterally declaring the existence of a new class of 'enemy combatants' doesn't make it so.

    3. Malfeasance: the U.S. Constitution specifically grants the right to suspend habeas corpus in time of war and insurrection, and the American Civil War was a congressionally declared insurrection ("whereas the execution of the laws of the United States is, and has been for some time, obstructed . . ."). Again, unilaterally declaring the existence of an undeclared 'War on Terror' doesn't make it so.

    Posted by samcrossett at 12/09/2006 @ 2:56pm

  36. good post Sam.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 2:59pm

  37. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 12/09/2006 @ 2:56pm

    Yea. What he said.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 3:01pm

  38. (in January 2009, by the way!)

    Transient fascists.

    ;o)

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 3:02pm

  39. Posted by THRAWN 12/09/2006 @ 2:00pm

    You're still not really responding to the point. My argument is that exceeding Constitutional powers in wartime does not constitute a prima facie justification for impeachment. This, of course, does not mean that any and all excesses are justified (to preempt any potential strawmen), but rather that there may be times when such excess is necessary, and I think that judgment needs to be able to be made on an individual basis.

    Then, if I hear you correctly, you believe that we should go forward with investigations into what might be considered "exceeding Constitutional power in wartime" to determine if those excesses were necessary. Should the results of those investigations indicate that measures taken may have, in fact, exceeded the presidents executive power, then I'm sure you would agree then that impeachment should go forward and allow the president the opportunity to explain, under oath, his resaoning. Correct?

    "A democratic despotism is like a theocracy: it assumes its own correctness." Walter Bagehot

    Posted by COProgressive at 12/09/2006 @ 3:32pm

  40. Chimpy intentionally created...through lies and deception a state, which he chose war and decided before the conflict was finished, that this war would go on indefinitly, the people he abducted were not POWs, but this is definately a war...and therefore, he can do as he pleases.

    This should not stand. Even if you cheer our war of choice, you cannot trade the constitution or my civil liberties for your "get the brown, funny talking/dressing guys and steal their resources, cause we need them more", "war".

    Eric

    Posted by MALCONTENT 12/09/2006 @ 2:24pm

    First off, the characterization towards the end makes no sense. Second, I'm talking about the broader issue of terrorism, which indubitably constitutes a meaningful threat, both because it requires constant vigilance, and because the consequences of even one successful WMD attack would be catastrophic. Given that, the Lincoln example still stands because they both responded to significant threats with action that perhaps exceeded their Constitutional authority.

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 12/09/2006 @ 2:56pm

    Treason: Like Iran-Contra, the Saudi sponsorship of terrorism was not an official act of a government but a conspiracy of criminal elements within a government, influential persons outside the government, and third parties that laundered money and brokered weapons. Bush & Co. shut down the FBI investigation into Saudi 'Islamic charities' that laundered contributions to al Qaida, the Taliban, and 'religious schools' where terrorists are recruited. This administration also 'classified' (i.e. censored) the congressional report on the sponsorship of 9/11 by prominent Saudis, including members of the Saudi royal family. This administration continues to defend the Saudi regime with American armed forces, weapons, and logistical support.

    Many of my response here still apply. First, does this mean that Clinton is a traitor? The Saudis were still supporting al Qaeda during his tenure, and still doing the bad stuff that they're doing now. Second, I think that the actions you cite are at the very least ambiguous, and assume poor motives for Bush when no justification is given. Third, Saudi Arabia is actively fighting al Qaeda right now, which not only means that Bush would have no Saudi-friendly motive to block the investigations, but also means that the Saudis aren't the enemies that you paint them to be.

    2. War Crimes: a person who is subjected to military incarceration is entitled to the same treatment as a POW. 'Enemy combatants' are either criminal suspects under civilian jurisdiction, in which case they have rights under the U.S. Constitution, or they are prisoners of war with rights under the Geneva Conventions. Unilaterally declaring the existence of a new class of 'enemy combatants' doesn't make it so.

    You are factually incorrect here. The "enemy combatant status" has been recognized for at least 50 years under US law, and since the Geneva Convention's creating. Enemy combatants are not subject to Geneva Convention protections, and it's unclear whether they are subject to Constitutional protections either. At best, the US is obligated to try them in military tribunals.

    Malfeasance: the U.S. Constitution specifically grants the right to suspend habeas corpus in time of war and insurrection, and the American Civil War was a congressionally declared insurrection ("whereas the execution of the laws of the United States is, and has been for some time, obstructed . . ."). Again, unilaterally declaring the existence of an undeclared 'War on Terror' doesn't make it so.

    This is also factually incorrect. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the power to the President to suspend habeas corpus, and if there was ambiguity there, it was resolved in Ex Parte Milligan. In addition, what specifically is your objection to the idea of a War on Terror (other than the unnecessarily vague name). Insofar as fighting al Qaeda requires a military component (for example, Afghanistan), the war designation seems appropriate. Moroever, even if it's not technically a war, one could argue that the President is justified in exceeding his power to an extent proportional to the security threat involved, and the reasonably-perceived necessity for action. I think that's the correct principle for justifying the actions Lincoln took, and could reasonably be applied to this case as well.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/09/2006 @ 3:34pm

  41. Sorry, let me clear the last bit up a bit, italics-wise:

    . War Crimes: a person who is subjected to military incarceration is entitled to the same treatment as a POW. 'Enemy combatants' are either criminal suspects under civilian jurisdiction, in which case they have rights under the U.S. Constitution, or they are prisoners of war with rights under the Geneva Conventions. Unilaterally declaring the existence of a new class of 'enemy combatants' doesn't make it so.

    You are factually incorrect here. The "enemy combatant status" has been recognized for at least 50 years under US law, and since the Geneva Convention's creating. Enemy combatants are not subject to Geneva Convention protections, and it's unclear whether they are subject to Constitutional protections either. At best, the US is obligated to try them in military tribunals.

    Malfeasance: the U.S. Constitution specifically grants the right to suspend habeas corpus in time of war and insurrection, and the American Civil War was a congressionally declared insurrection ("whereas the execution of the laws of the United States is, and has been for some time, obstructed . . ."). Again, unilaterally declaring the existence of an undeclared 'War on Terror' doesn't make it so.

    This is also factually incorrect. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the power to the President to suspend habeas corpus, and if there was ambiguity there, it was resolved in Ex Parte Milligan. In addition, what specifically is your objection to the idea of a War on Terror (other than the unnecessarily vague name). Insofar as fighting al Qaeda requires a military component (for example, Afghanistan), the war designation seems appropriate. Moroever, even if it's not technically a war, one could argue that the President is justified in exceeding his power to an extent proportional to the security threat involved, and the reasonably-perceived necessity for action. I think that's the correct principle for justifying the actions Lincoln took, and could reasonably be applied to this case as well.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/09/2006 @ 3:35pm

  42. Well, it seems as though another hate crime has occurred in Los Angeles! We all know how intolerant liberals and The Nation are of hate crimes, so I'm eager to see what they have to say about this latest violent act of racism. I know they won't stay silent, because they are activists against any type of racism! Oh wait, I just read that the victims were unfortunately WHITE ( young white girls ) and the perpetrators were BLACK ( gang members, as many as ten ). Well, I can all but gaurantee that tis story won't see the light of day on the MSM or in The Nation, because, according to them, only white people can qualify to be termed RACIST! Just ask Cynthia " right hook on whitey " McKinney! The perpetrators were yelling " I hate white people " ( they were taught to hate whites by the liberal MSM, and racist academia by the way ). This was witnessed by a black girl ( 18 yrs. old ) who is now being intimidated and is under protection. The suspects liberal lawyer denies they were even involved and any gang affiliation. I guess the BLACK witness must be a racist, against blacks!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/09/2006 @ 4:07pm

  43. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/09/2006 @ 3:02pm

    Yep....sorry, but unless there is Heaven and Hell, there is no guarentee of "justice" on Earth.

    A year from now, when impeachment by the Dems has been postponed long enough (going into the 2008 primaries) that it is no longer possible (much less viable)....I expect a rash of mass insanity on the American Left like something from a George Romero flick!

    Posted by Mask at 12/09/2006 @ 4:40pm

  44. My hat is off to you Cynthia. Thank God someone has the nerve to say what should have been said by "the other" democrats. It is an honor to know that you are on the planet.

    Posted by elo at 12/09/2006 @ 5:19pm

  45. "First off, the characterization towards the end makes no sense. Second, I'm talking about the broader issue of terrorism, which indubitably constitutes a meaningful threat..."

    Posted by THRAWN 12/09/2006 @ 3:34pm

    I see. I was under the impression the rest of us were talking about chimpy's pre-war propoganda (mushroom clouds, mobile weapons labs and aluminium tubes, oh my!!), not agreeing on his need to create an interminable "war on Terror!!!" with it's subsequent attacks on civil liberties, grabs for extra-presidential power and it's farcical creation of "enemy combatants" in a blatent attemt to wriggle out from under every rule about holding other human beings prisoner. (Either you are under arrest, a POW or you have been kidnapped. Period.)

    And yes, my excessive use of quotes is not technically correct. I just hate to mention the "war on Terror!!" without quotes. Let's just call it what it is; the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, and leave the quotes out of it.

    Why do you keep mentioning strawmen and then mentioning Lincoln over and over? In what way, (other than people dying) does this situation even remotely resemble the civil war?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/09/2006 @ 6:23pm

  46. It's truly amazing to read comments by what seem to be dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who seem to believe that the government - in the person of George Bush - can do no wrong? Reagan deplored government. Goldwater called it the scourge of mankind. Yet, in the person of Bush, it is beyond reproach. All who challenge it are fools, malcontents, conspiracy theorists. You people have lost your minds!!! All dead Repubs are turning over in their graves at your mindless adoration of a man, a government man, who has committed acts which will, if left unattended, sink this Republic into the pile of has-beens.

    Posted by felicity at 12/09/2006 @ 6:53pm

  47. Kudos to McKinney and Nichols, and may your examples inspire more to patriotic activism!

    Posted by lewwelge at 12/09/2006 @ 8:15pm

  48. Next up - Massive conspiracy postings by Plunger.

    Posted by WOODYEE 12/09/2006 @ 11:40am

    Beat the Christmas rush by ignoring Plunger early...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/09/2006 @ 8:26pm

  49. But I have commented on funny hair styls, including my own lack of hair...not style of course:)

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/09/2006 @ 1:18pm

    Thanks for the belly laugh - almost snorted beer up my nose...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/09/2006 @ 8:29pm

  50. my jamaican ex-girlfriend was a wild woman in the sack!

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 12/09/2006 @ 2:39pm

    Can I get her number?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/09/2006 @ 8:32pm

  51. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/09/2006 @ 8:26pm

    Seriously, ILP...if you've got RESE on "ignore" (as of course I did, but HAD to peek in true FRB fashion)...you missed a GREAT one.

    I'd like to think he's getting a sense of humor...but he probably honestly thinks a Disney animatronic robot helped push the Iraq War!---Posted by RESE 12/08/2006 @ 7:11pm

    Posted by Mask at 12/09/2006 @ 10:17pm

  52. Posted by MASK 12/09/2006 @ 10:17pm

    Thanks, MASK, for the info (which gave me a laugh), but once I ignore someone, I never sneak a peek.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/09/2006 @ 10:57pm

  53. What Felicity wrote X2.

    I cannot understand the reticence to allow hearings to go forth. Chimpy should let the inspectors in, if he has nothing to be afraid of. This is not sex, it is war gone wrong with near epochal repercussions. Put him on the stand, hand on Bible, ask him questions. Subpoena documents. Put Rummmy, cheney, Cambone, Feith, Turd Blossom, Libby, Powell, Condi, Perle, Warner, Levin, Biden, Rockefellor and every one ten levels down under oath.

    Then ITMFA.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2006 @ 11:55pm

  54. It is not just the lefty loonies calling for at least hearings. John Dean, Buchanon, Fein and Specter have all made comments to that effect. Dean has drawn up the papers for impeachment. The old school conservatives that are not frightened see what's going on too.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2006 @ 12:27am

  55. Katrina Vanden Huevel,

    NO DOUBT HE WILL WANT HIS SEAT ON THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE BACK:

    I know one of your favorite catch-phrases is:

    "A POLITICS WHICH BLAMES THE PEOPLE IS DEAD ON ARRIVAL."

    TRY THIS ON FOR DEAD, AS IN THE VOTERS FROM THIS DISTRICT ARE FROM THE NECK UP.............

    Runoff foe concedes to scandal-hit Jefferson

    POSTED: 12:29 a.m. EST, December 10, 2006

    Story Highlights• NEW: Jefferson set to salvage political career with runoff win • An FBI raid allegedly found $90,000 in Jefferson's freezer • Rival sought to become state's first elected black Congresswoman Adjust font size:

    NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- U.S. Rep. William Jefferson was cruising to an easy win over his fellow Democratic opponent in Saturday's runoff, despite an ongoing federal bribery investigation.

    With 44 percent of the precincts reporting, Jefferson, Louisiana's first black congressman since Reconstruction, led with 61 percent of the vote over state Rep. Karen Carter, who had 39 percent.

    Carter was unable to capitalize on a scandal that included allegations the FBI found $90,000 in bribe money in Jefferson's freezer.

    In a concession speech, Carter embraced family members and pledged to work with Jefferson, especially on the area's recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

    "I guess the people are happy with the status-quo," she said.

    Jefferson was forced into the runoff against Carter when he failed to win 50 percent of the vote in a crowded open multiparty primary. Carter had sought to become the first black woman from Louisiana elected to Congress.

    He described his success as "a great moment, and I thank almighty God for making it possible." He called for regional unity to focus on the hurricane recovery and in bringing back evacuees who are still scattered across the country.

    Jefferson, 59, was accused of taking bribes from a company seeking lucrative contracts in the Nigerian telecommunications market. He has not been charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.

    The scandal turned the race into a debate largely divided along racial lines, an age-old dynamic in this city that has intensified since Hurricane Katrina displaced large numbers of blacks and upended their demographic and political dominance.

    Whites, who overwhelmingly voted for Carter in the primary and have been her most enthusiastic financial backers, believed a Jefferson win would confirm this city's image as corrupt and untrustworthy as it asks the nation to fund its recovery from Katrina.

    City Councilman Oliver Thomas said Jefferson's success would make the recovery more difficult.

    "People are watching this election all around the country, and I can only imagine what they are thinking," Thomas said. "It will be very difficult to go back to them and ask them to trust us with the money we need here."

    'Too dirty' Carter's campaign spokesman and father, Ken Carter, said he felt they had done all they could to compete against Jefferson, but regretted the tone of the campaign in the final stages.

    "Race is all too often a factor in campaigns in New Orleans," Ken Carter said. "Here we had a candidate that tried to paint this young African-American woman as a pawn of the white establishment."

    One white voter, George Christen, a registered independent, cast his ballot in a predominantly white precinct in the Algiers neighborhood, just across the Mississippi River from the French Quarter.

    "I just didn't want Jefferson in. Period," said Christen, 42. "Jefferson is an embarrassment. He needs to be out."

    Jefferson did get a vote from Jene Allen, who is black.

    "He started the job. Let him finish it," said Allen, who wouldn't give her age. "I know Karen Carter would be the first black woman, but I think she played it dirty, too dirty."

    Jefferson drew widespread support among blacks who are skeptical of the federal government's motives in its investigation of him. He repeatedly suggested the probe is groundless because he has yet to be indicted more than a year after the FBI raided his home in New Orleans.

    Carter, 37, raised nearly five times as much money as Jefferson, but she was largely outflanked in the endorsement game. Jefferson picked up the backing of Mayor Ray Nagin and other prominent black politicians.

    The endorsements spoke to Jefferson's solid footing in New Orleans politics. He arrived here in the 1970s as a Harvard-educated lawyer from rural north Louisiana, the sixth of 10 children brought up in a three-room country home.

    By 1980, he represented New Orleans in the state Senate. At 42, he became the first black from Louisiana in the House since Reconstruction.

    The law firm Jefferson founded became the largest black-owned practice in the South. He created a political organization, the Progressive Democrats, which fielded candidates for the school board, assessors' races, state House seats and mayoral contests.

    Before the bribery scandal erupted, Jefferson had climbed to the pinnacle of the Democratic Party. He was a confidant of former President Bill Clinton and held a seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/10/2006 @ 12:48am

  56. my jamaican ex-girlfriend was a wild woman in the sack!

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 12/09/2006 @ 2:39pm

    maybe she found you less than wild in the sack, hence the ex.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/10/2006 @ 01:20am

  57. My Country Right or Wrong?

    If you accept that framing of the issue, you have already lost the battle. The Rabid Right is very clever at claiming the moral high ground from a position deep in Death Valley. For one thing, the Rabid Right is not my country. Opinions expressed by the Rabid Right are not traditional American values and do not represent my values. Though millions of Americans have mindlessly accepted these lies, millions of Americans haven't.

    The United State of America is not a Democracy, it's a plutocracy.

    The plutocrat's omniscient and omnipotent propaganda machine, the mass media . . . represents their interests and values, not mine or millions of other Americans.

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 12/10/2006 @ 05:26am

  58. "The United State of America is not a Democracy, it's a plutocracy.

    The plutocrat's omniscient and omnipotent propaganda machine, the mass media . . . represents their interests and values, not mine or millions of other Americans."

    Posted by RABBLEROWZER 12/10/2006 @ 05:26am

    Is there one democracy, autocracy or theocracy that was not, or is not in some measure a plutocracy?

    Probably wouldn't be hard to show that for all intents and purposes America has been a plutocracy since its founding. The Founding Fathers were hardly disinterested, barefooted peasants. Plutocracy is immune, so it seems, from the power of (present) constitutions and bills of rights.

    Where representative democracy, the best system available unless one is an anarchist, exists there will always be affluent elites who are either in government or have its ear.

    Rule by referenda, which may seem to be a control measure on plutocracy, is so fraught with the possibility of wacky agenda that it is hardly a safe option. i.e. the majority rarely get it right on many issues. Eg. For those who oppose the Bush war what would the public vote for the Iraq invasion have been like in the months after 9/11? In many cases the electorate simply gets it wrong. (We Iraq invasion supporters are inclined to think the public's first majority attitude was the better one on moral grounds, rather than on what was then an attitude apparently fueled by misinformation and the desire for revenge).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/10/2006 @ 07:12am

  59. It is not just the lefty loonies calling for at least hearings. John Dean, Buchanon, Fein and Specter have all made comments to that effect. Dean has drawn up the papers for impeachment. The old school conservatives that are not frightened see what's going on too.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2006 @ 12:27am |

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    This posting embodies, I claim, one of the problems of those who wish to see a sane political dialog. The far right have learned very well the Goebbles' insight that controlling the language is a political act. Newspeak is a telling characteristic of fascism. By not being as careful with labeling as the reactionaries are, much political turf is conceded. For example, when the normal, rather politically unsophisticated, citizen hears "reactionary" rather than "conservative," they notice the unfamiliar word and wonder about its meaning. It does the important thing of getting them to think - either to learn about the difference or to be reminded of it! Further, it distinguishes them, a large number of whom are conservatives, from the radical right.

    Certainly, as with all such distinctions, it is a matter of degree with the reactionary characteristically wanting to adhere to out-moded ideas and return to operating as in earlier times while the conservative wants to retain existing conditions as much as possible and make progress slowly and carefully. As some English politician said, "A reactionary is a man walking backward with his face to the future." And I would say a conservative is a person walking forward, quite slowly and cautiously, with face to the future. Another, I think quite positive trait of the true conservative, is a willingness to question themselves; their skepticism is turned on everything.

    It is the trait of conservatives to be still walking forward that has allowed for a civil dialog and shared governance of the nation up until the early '90's reactionary seizure of the GOP. The Snows and Chafees are the lonely few of conservatives who are now in the GOP and it is but a matter of time before the purging or exodus of such conservatives from the GOP will be complete.

    This process is seen in postings with the absurd classifications of these old guard Republicans as "socialists" etc. This is nothing more than a rhetoric of ostracism to drive the last of the "true" conservatives from the GOP and to consolidate the radical right seizure of that once venerable party. And again, it can be seen how important the control of the language is - the use of "socialist" or "liberal" as smear words, labels of denigration to marginalize these people within their own party. The logical conclusion of this attitude, one with which a conservative would never agree, is that there can be only one correct way of seeing everything and that there is no room for any substantial disagreement. In a party this logic leads to party loyalty shown by unquestioning belief in an infallible ideology. In a nation, the consequence is a one-party state and tyranny.

    The acceptance by nearly all, especially the media, of the label of conservative for those ideas or individuals that are actually reactionary, radical reactionary or fascist entirely confuses any political discussion. Dean is a conservative, as is Specter. This is why they are so upset with the present reactionary regime. True conservatives do not like reaction either, just as true liberals do not like communism.

    Buchanan is what I would call a "constitutional" reactionary for his views are clearly reactionary. However, they are not inconsistent with thinking that the Constitution (seen as literal and immutable, as in the Scalia school of jurisprudence, and thus a document of the past ca. 1790) has been violated by the present regime. [This is one thing, I argue, that distinguishes the fascists from reactionaries. Even interpreting the Constitution as a 1790 document, a reactionary, such as Buchanan, can see impeachable offenses by the present regime, but those of a fascist turn cannot because of purblind loyalty to their Fuerher and his cadre.] So, I disagree that Buchanan is an "old school conservative" a la Dean, Eisenhower or Ford for that gives him more credit and respect than he is due. [I do not know who Fein is.]

    In fact, I still hold (this will be a risible statement for the reactionary posters here) some conservative views (ay, 'tis so!) and keenly distinguish them from the reactionary. [In fact, science is a conservative institution that is not as revolutionary as some think. It's so-called revolutions are, in fact, not at all that revolutionary, but appear so because they may be adopted relatively quickly. But they are quickly accepted because they explain old and accepted facts. Thus, the new paradigms actually are seen to uphold, but now explain, the extant factual knowledge. Of course, the new models necessarily bring in new ideas and predictions, but that is inherent to the method. This cannot be a complete and thorough discussion of the philosophy of science, but the gist of it is that the method is inherently conservative - some concepts and equations it uses are now centuries old - but most definitely not reactionary.]

    The center, conservatives and liberals must recapture the political language in order to make sensible political decisions. By conceding the terminology, definitions and/or meaning (e.g. the "L-word" ) to the reactionaries and those farther to the right, much is lost in being able to make necessary distinctions and to identify those with whom a reasonable political dialog can be entertained. If many true conservatives begin, as I think many now are doing, to see that they are not the kind of "conservatives" that are identified with the present regime and Republican party, and that the GOP usurpers are given a label for what most citizens are not, then there will be some hope for returning the nation to a sane political dialog.

    Posted by Tiresias at 12/10/2006 @ 07:16am

  60. Every man in Switzerland, for instance, is required to have guns in his home, including assault rifles. Crime in Switzerland is almost non-existent.

    In states and cities in America that allow people to carry guns, the crime rate is extremely low.

    Posted by RESE 12/10/2006 @ 06:36am

    This is why the Right Conspiracy Nuts and the Left Conspiracy Nuts will split....after January 20, 2009 (especially if a Dem becomes President!)

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 07:48am

  61. Posted by TIRESIAS 12/10/2006 @ 07:16am

    T,

    The problem with your call to inform the masses about the meaning of words may of course lead them to consult their dictionaries.

    They may then wonder if it is not you who is the reactionary.

    Reactionaries are those who are transfixed with the past and look nostalgically back to the old order. In the case of the Nazis and the Italian Fascists it was to their ancient mythologies. They (fascists) of course saw the Church and the aristocracy and its supporters as the reactionaries. You as a scientist should be familiar with the importance of an observer's viewpoint.

    In your case it seems to be a desire for the "old order", which defines you as a reactionary.

    As the neo-cons joined the "conservatives" from the left or liberal wing of politics, it surely is a moot point as to who in fact are the reactionaries; those like yourself who appear to be transfixed in the past or the new breed who left liberalism behind in their endeavour to "force" freedom and democracy on nations they thought needed it.

    Democracy as we know it is a fairly modern invention and unless you can enlighten us I don't think the ex-liberals (neo-cons) were looking backwards at all but were trailblazers. If that is so then they are the antithesis of reactionary. One approach you could try is to name them colonialists but I suggest that is not an easy path. Unless you wish to redefine what a colonialist is.

    Perhaps your best approach would be to do a Joseph Goebbels on the word reactionary and wear it as a badge of honour.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/10/2006 @ 08:27am

  62. Posted by LRJONES4 12/10/2006 @ 07:12am

    In many cases the electorate simply gets it wrong.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Not just a few cases....many.

    One waits long enough and the true colours are unfurled.

    Damned fool voters, so easily duped, really need the guidance of a proper elite, say, hmm ... the plutocracy. But they really need an elite of some kind for, after all, the people are an ass. Of course, it would be acceptable for nobles, prelates or sovereigns to rule for they could not be anywhere near as frequently wrong as the people. But these aristocrats would not be nearly as often correct as the rich, although most of them are that, but they didn't earn it. But best would be Plato's government of philosophers, as long, of course, as they adhered to reactionary ideology and were practicing and committed plutocrats. Then the decisions would be infallible.

    The fact that democracies are susceptible to dominance or control by elites is not the question. The question is whether this is desirable and, if not, what should be done to eliminate such dominance or control. To allow that a certain situation obtains and has always done so, and that makes it acceptable is, of course, at best, conservative and more arguably reactionary. America's founders did give thought to this.

    Jefferson, of course, got it right: a democracy cannot survive without an educated electorate. By that, he meant a people who had access to facts and who were able to think about them clearly within the context of their nation and the world; he did not mean they needed to go to a college. It was envisaged that a free press would, if unfettered, provide the needed facts and variety of opinion. It was not foreseen, I suspect, that the press and its modern parallel, the non-print media, would be concentrated in the hands of ... the plutocracy.

    The plutocracy is careful to control the information and the flow of facts. [Surely one does not have to invoke the embedding of the press, the secrecy in which caskets of dead soldiers are processed, Palme affair, etc. to establish this.] But even then, a lot of information is, so far, still available, but not without really working at it, and the average citizen has neither the time nor inclination to do that. Nor should they have to. But if relatively convenient access to facts and information is sufficiently circumscribed, then the citizen can no longer properly exercise the franchise. And even given sufficient analytical power, it is useless if there is insufficient or controlled information.

    When Reagan came to office I posed a political thought experiment: "How could the US be turned into a tyranny?" This is not at all easy given its Federal structure, the diffuse nature of its governments, an apolitical (but increasingly less so) military, and a tripartite government. There is only one way, I argued: the people must vote for it. How would that be achieved? First, and most importantly, you destroy the educational system, not literally, but by making it worthless. Worthless in what sense? You no longer teach people about their history or how their government operates nor the principles upon which the nation is founded, but, most importantly, you do not teach them to evaluate information and to think critically and independently. You still give them parchments and other certificates showing they have survived something called education.

    But even then, that will not deliver the nation to do your bidding. Next, you must control the media. And that last step allows you to tell the people how to think and act. Note, you do not need to achieve this for all of the people or even a majority of them. All you need do is be able to have a majority of those who vote to be controlled in this way. But the more you can "educate", the better. And it will be an irreversible downward spiral for the less educated the people are, the more they will accept what comes from the media you control. This scenario will lead to an electorate who increasingly make wrong decisions. What does that say where the nation is now? This possible road to tyranny is, of course, not original with me. I had read, among others, Orwell.

    Of course, I do not argue that our moguls sat in some formal conference to devise such a plan, but, the rationale of a purely capitalist ethos will lead to it naturally, as it is now doing. And what group is better able to effect such a plan, deliberately or not, than is the plutocracy?

    Posted by Tiresias at 12/10/2006 @ 08:31am

  63. Posted by LRJONES4 12/10/2006 @ 08:27am

    The problem with your call to inform the masses about the meaning of words may of course lead them to consult their dictionaries.

    _____________________________________________________________

    Your really should do two things before posting here:

    1. Do something more thoughtful than consulting dictionaries about concepts that you do not comprehend and that are discussed in rather more detail in scholarly works than a two sentence dictionary definition for the totally ignorant.

    2. Take a course in logic.

    Posted by Tiresias at 12/10/2006 @ 08:36am

  64. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/10/2006 @ 01:20am

    More likely he stopped humpin and started talkin'.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2006 @ 09:43am

  65. Posted by TIRESIAS 12/10/2006 @ 08:31am

    TIRES, one problem with your theory.

    Conservatives, right-wingers, "neo-cons", Ronald Reagan, crypto-fascists, etc.....

    aren't controlling the American education system.

    It's groups called the NEA and AFT, liberal UNIONS that almost exclusively support the Democratic Party and vice-versa.

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 09:44am

  66. Krugman, words of wisdom: "We should also ask why anyone who didn't raise questions about the war - or, at any rate, anyone who acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly - should be taken seriously when he or she talks about matters of national security."

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2006 @ 09:50am

  67. LR, Fukyama and Strauss were libs, then the poppas of neo'ism. But most of the "vulcans" were NEVER liberal. I think they would be most displeased with the idea.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2006 @ 10:00am

  68. Posted by MASK 12/10/2006 @ 09:44am

    Conservatives, right-wingers, "neo-cons", Ronald Reagan, crypto-fascists, etc.....

    aren't controlling the American education system.

    --------------------------------------------------

    Oh really? My and here I thought the State of Kansas school board requiring evolution not be taught..or that in Georgia....or Texas... or Tennessee... or.. gee... they are all liberal and Dems?

    And the schoolbook publishers watering down content to avoid conservative criticism of content... all forced by liberals..

    Who knew?

    Posted by Tiresias at 12/10/2006 @ 10:53am

  69. LR, Fukyama and Strauss were libs, then the poppas of neo'ism. But most of the "vulcans" were NEVER liberal. I think they would be most displeased with the idea.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2006 @ 10:00am

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Not sure what your point is vis a vis former liberals. It does not matter what you were, but what you are.

    Posted by Tiresias at 12/10/2006 @ 10:56am

  70. Posted by TIRESIAS 12/10/2006 @ 10:53am

    TIRES, so the State of Kansas is responsible for the entire nation?

    You were talking DECADES of "mis-education" and in every state in the Union (well, maybe not the BLUE ones, since I'd guess you'd judge whether or not a State is educated by its politics.).

    The Federal Dept. of Education hasn't suffered a cut in budget YET...the teachers' unions weren't "broken" by Ronald Reagan (like PATCO)...etc., etc.

    How are these "fascist who want to destroy our democracy by making education fail" ...doing it?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 11:52am

  71. Back on-topic again...

    Why is this Cynthia McKinney doing this?

    And not one of the LEADERSHIP of the Dems in Congress?

    Answer....because they know it's a loser with ALL BUT the Blogosphere Left. Embaress Bush...sure, make him look like a miscreant....absolutely, but impeach? Nope, means nothing legislatively gets done and all the right-wing proclamations that "The Dems and libs are only in for revenge for 2000/2004...not helping ordinary Americans"...KILL them in 2008.

    Again, find a couple non-"online" polls that show that the majority of Americans support this...and not just the 20% on the Hard Left. And don't give me "Well, once the CRIMES ARE REVEALED in the investigations...THEN the people will demand it".

    Cuz that means that you think the people are stupid....of course, that's always the default position for the Left, I guess.

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 11:56am

  72. Crabbie, who's "Turd Blossom?"

    Posted by ACook at 12/10/2006 @ 12:51pm

  73. "Again, find a couple non-"online" polls that show that the majority of Americans support this...and not just the 20% on the Hard Left. And don't give me "Well, once the CRIMES ARE REVEALED in the investigations...THEN the people will demand it".

    Cuz that means that you think the people are stupid....of course, that's always the default position for the Left, I guess."

    Posted by MASK 12/10/2006 @ 11:56am

    I'm not sure, if the MSM doesn't feel the need to take a poll, how anyone here could quote one, that you won't belittle the source of? How about you find a poll, that shows only the "looney left" supports such an action.

    I was kinda young during the whole nixon thing, but my recollection is that the public was not behind removing him, until after investigations started and the truth started to trickle down to those who don't follow politics closely (Most Americans, sadly).

    Feeling good...in a conciliatory mood even. But alas, I cannot follow your lead, and I am compelled to state, "Well, once the CRIMES ARE REVEALED in the investigations...THEN the people will demand it". Mostly because it is true...and I believe you know this.

    Stupid? Malinformed? Full of propoganda (good knows they've had enough hurled at them)?

    None of the above, I think. I think Americans are just to proud (knee-jerk patriotic?) to admit their leader is wrong, unless you parade his deeds around in a fashion that embarasses them, in which case, they'll turn on him, in a heartbeat.

    This is why we need leaders, not politicians. If everyone in charge/in power seems to be against it, your average (conformist) American will go along. Same as if they're percieved to be on to something. We here at this blog, left and right, have a much deeper interest in this than your average person, so without something drowning out OJ and jonbenet, they won't even notice.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/10/2006 @ 12:53pm

  74. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/10/2006 @ 12:53am

    Eric, again, hate to burst this little fantasy but two questions...

    1. No polls mean it's not registering enough for such DEVASTATING results to come out. Think CNN or Gallup wouldn't want that out ASAP if there was anything close to 45-50% in favor of impeaching Bush?

    2. What's left for the American people to discover?

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 4:23pm

  75. Posted by MASK 12/10/2006 @ 4:23pm

    "1. No polls mean it's not registering enough for such DEVASTATING results to come out. Think CNN or Gallup wouldn't want that out ASAP if there was anything close to 45-50% in favor of impeaching Bush?"

    Perhaps not. How many advertising dollars do you really think a poll would generate? Seems to me, the bottom line (These are big businesses) would barely, if at all, be affected.

    And even if it were, perhaps these corporate owners think the perks (like a dissolving FCC etc.), more than compensate for any possible loss. Why would they encourage a trend that is bad for their business model?

    "2. What's left for the American people to discover?"

    As has been stated, (ad nauseum), a significant number of people are unaware or only peripherally aware. They are easily distracted by naysayers, because the really don't have all the facts. I say he's commited crimes. They say, "Oh, that's bad". You say I'm full of shit. And they say, "Oh, maybe I'll check into it...surely if it were true, I'd have heard it on the news."

    The media is conspicuously not disseminating the facts, in the same easy to digest, hammered home with talking points way, that they deliver other news.

    They seemed to be afraid to talk bad about chimpy for a while. Now they seem to be happy with their new spoon fed arrangement.

    In a nutshell, we can argue about his impeachability all day. I seriously doubt, your average man on the street, having many argument/info, one way or another. This won't happen until the real news gets a chance to drown out the propoganda and entertainment/news.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/10/2006 @ 7:27pm

  76. Dear Thrawn,

    You are an ugly, nationalistic lapdog howling for a gang of plutocratic thugs playing out their cynical fantasies on the world. The Iraq fiasco is over. Please, shut up with your rantings concerning the so-called "War on Terror." Terrorism is a particular act of violence. This specific type of aggression is no less vile than the delivery of death and destruction via military planes wrapped in official state insignia or uniforms. The warriors of al Qaeda were fine lads while killing Russians in Afghanistan--or were you defining them as terrorists back then--if so, I apologize: you are not a shrill hypocrite.

    Also, my condolences on your kind of guy-Pinochet, he was just the type of scum-bag despotic muderer you conservatives worship. Milton Friedman, the same. He was co-responsible for ruining Chile's economy during the 1970s.

    Posted by Oustbush at 12/10/2006 @ 7:41pm

  77. I love you too.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2006 @ 7:56pm

  78. In all seriousness, though, there are a number of things that I feel need to be pointed out.

    First, I, like you, believe that bad things are bad. Dictators, terrorists, wars, etc. are bad things. I don't like Pinochet or al Qaeda, nor do I believe that Hitler is a sterling model for leaders everywhere. Just so that's clear.

    Continuing with the theme of bad things being bad, I assume we should be able to agree that terrorism is bad, and I think it's meaningfully worse than war because of one primary characteristic: it specifically, explicitly, and often exclusively, targets civilians. It's one thing to say that, over the course of an attack on a military target, some civilians will probably die, but we want to minimize the number of civilian deaths. It's completely another to specifically aim for civilian deaths, and often to aim to maximize civilian deaths. In that sense, I think terrorism is clearly worse than most cases of war, especially war that the US is involved in. I also think that this reasoning (ie, choose the least of a number of possible evils) remedies any apparent inconsistency; supporting al Qaeda was understood (whether correctly or not) to be the lesser evil in the case of Afghanistan. In fact, had we actually stayed to help rebuild Afghanistan, al Qaeda might not even have grown as strong as it was.

    I also have a hard time believing that terrorism isn't a meaningful threat. I gave two reasons for this that have so far been undisputed; there is always an extremely difficult and draining defensive component to resisting terrorism, and the impact of a terrorist strike (especially with any form of WMD) would be catastrophic.

    Casting aside nuclear weapons for a moment, consider the threat that biological weapons would pose. Literally, someone might only have to cough in an airport to transmit a lethal biological agent that could create an epidemic. This need not be detectable by security, not only because it's a disease and not a physical weapon in the usual sense, but also because it could be transmitted in virtually any large public area where security might not exist at all. Is there reason to believe that terorrists could obtain biological agents? Well, there are certainly a number of them from the old Soviet Union that haven't even come close to being accounted for, and the disincentive for other nations that might have them to give them to groups like al Qaeda is fairly small since they probably don't need to fear a retaliatory strike.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/10/2006 @ 8:06pm

  79. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/10/2006 @ 7:27pm

    But, uh, once the "hard-hitting Democratic investigations" go up on C-SPAN....Then, oh yes brother, THEN the people will rise up and start hating Bush as much as "we" do and DEMAND that he be impeached and CNN and the NY Times won't be able to cover for Dubya anymore!!!!!!!

    (I forget is it seven or eight exclamations???)

    Posted by Mask at 12/10/2006 @ 9:39pm

  80. ACOOK, Turd blossom is a nickname given by the POTUS to a trusted advisor:

    http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse.15017869

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2006 @ 11:02pm

  81. LR, Fukyama and Strauss were libs, then the poppas of neo'ism. But most of the "vulcans" were NEVER liberal. I think they would be most displeased with the idea.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/10/2006 @ 10:00am

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Not sure what your point is vis a vis former liberals. It does not matter what you were, but what you are.

    Posted by TIRESIAS 12/10/2006 @ 10:56am

    "As the neo-cons joined the "conservatives" from the left or liberal wing of politics.."-LRJONES

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/10/2006 @ 11:18pm

  82. Plot this now:http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000682.html

    As I've been saying for a few months, or maybe year or so now, once the investigations start, hsuB's numbers will sink lower. And people think his numbers can't sink lower! HA. I think hsuB will beat Nixon with the lowest numbers and highest negatives, if he stays one more year. Nixon's '73 poll numbers went from 51 to 24% in '74 once the Watergate investigations started-- hsuB's will start at 28 and reach 12% approval this time next year if he doesn't resign first. I see him eventually living with his Saudi familia far far away in seclusion.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/ opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml

    PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls

    Dates________________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure__minus

    Newsweek 12/6-7/06______32________60________8_____-28

    Zogby 12/5-8/06_________30________68________2_____-38

    AP-Ipsos 12/4-6/06_______33________64________3_____-31

    Pew 11/9-12/06__________32________58_______10_____-26

    USA Today/

    Gallup 11/9-12/06________33________62________4_____-29

    And then finally: http://impeachfp.blogspot.com/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/10/2006 @ 11:42pm

  83. "But, uh, once the "hard-hitting Democratic investigations" go up on C-SPAN....Then, oh yes brother, THEN the people will rise up and start hating Bush as much as "we" do and DEMAND that he be impeached and CNN and the NY Times won't be able to cover for Dubya anymore!!!!!!!

    (I forget is it seven or eight exclamations???)

    Posted by MASK 12/10/2006 @ 9:39pm

    Exactly who are you quoting with; "hard-hitting Democratic investigations"?

    And "THEN", if things are as bad as they appear from a distance w/o investigations, "THEN" they will rise up. If not (doubtful, but possible) then bush would be vindicated.

    Then, no, then the MSM won't be able to cover for him. (Proven: at least the NYT did. WP only printed propoganda as real news, so...)

    And, finally, what are you thinking?!?! eight is waay too many!!!!!!!! (<--see?).

    Six.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/11/2006 @ 12:21am

  84. now chimpy is listening to people. or at least pretending to...according to the today show...

    call to republicans...turn on him now...like many nixonian era pubs who saw the writing on the wall, you have the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon, partaking in the zeitgeist, distancing yourself from rank failure and possible criminality (definate incompetance). and you will look like you have some backbone and integrity...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/11/2006 @ 07:05am

  85. Any sightings of the Phase II report? Is it under chimps desk? Behind the new curtains? hidden in an undisclosed location?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/11/2006 @ 08:43am

  86. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/11/2006 @ 12:21am

    Eric (or anybody else), let's put it in real terms....

    Honestly, now....Would you risk your kid's college fund on articles of impeachment getting out of the 2007-2008 House of Representatives?

    House payment?

    Car payment?

    Cable payment?

    Loose change?

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2006 @ 08:54am

  87. If anybody is still wondering what to get Chimpy for x-mas, I suggest this: http://www.amazon.com/Imagination-Entertainment-1904-Wrong-Board/dp/B000 E48LMQ/sr=8-1/qid=1165845148/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7712677-0083005?ie=UTF8 &s=toys-and-games

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/11/2006 @ 08:55am

  88. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/11/2006 @ 07:05am

    its happening. just heard that a pub senator (who has always voted solid bushco) is now jumping on the bandwagon...cant remember his name, but he's from oregon...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/11/2006 @ 09:02am

  89. Rep Gordon Smith (r).

    "I, for one, am tired of paying the price of 10 or more of our troops dying a day. So let's cut and run or cut and walk, but let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way,"

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/11/2006 @ 09:04am

  90. OOPS. Sorry Ibble, that is Senator Gordon Smith (R), Oregon, who also said this:

    "the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up the same bombs, day after day."

    "That is absurd," he said. "It may even be criminal."

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/11/2006 @ 09:11am

  91. Posted by CRABWALK 12/11/2006 @ 09:11am

    well i say "welcome aboard, republican senator congressman! welcome aboard all republican senator congressmen/women! at this point, its about all thats left to you and though it would have been nice to have seen/heard more of this before the election and sure i know (wink wink) you are trying to save your political butts...but...if rank self preservation helps rid this country of this cancerous presidency, welcome aboard!"

    bipartisanship, YEAH! lets ALL tear a chunk out of the flank of this beast...and for all you closet moderate pubs who have been chafing under these fundyvangelist/aynrander monstrosities...get those knives you have been sharpening ready...hot or cold, vengeance is great when it coincides with the right thing to do anyway...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/11/2006 @ 09:36am

  92. i call it "righteous wrath"

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/11/2006 @ 09:38am

  93. Honestly, now....

    House payment?

    Car payment?

    Cable payment?

    Loose change?

    Posted by MASK 12/11/2006 @ 08:54am

    Is that it now? Money or impeachment, rather like telling a spouse-- you can stay in this big beautiful house and have some of the benefits of wealth, 'but' as for my cheating on you and beating on you and your kids, just ignore it; that is if you want to stay and 'borrow' all these things.... Rather low opinion of people I'd say.

    Pretty much another false choice as 'we the people' have 'all' the power, not the pres, not our gov-- us. I say if hsuB gets into the 20's job approval range- he's getting impeached and the repubs in congress will be way ok with it.

    Honestly, I don't bet with my family's future; I have no problem with the idea of taking out anyone that threatens them.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/11/2006 @ 09:44am

  94. 07-08 will be the congress of investigation...

    no, impeachment? well, lets not talk about that...yet...

    ironically it could be the "leaping from the sinking ship" pubs who make impeachment seem like the most natural thing imaginable...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/11/2006 @ 10:13am

  95. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/11/2006 @ 09:44am

    Sorry if I wasn't CLEARER for you, HSUB.....

    I meant WOULD YOU BET the college fund on that event happening?

    How sure are you of it happening? $30,000 worth?....maybe just $10K?....or 1000 bucks?....or 50?

    Before you lay that money down...consider a few events-

    1. "Speaker Nancy" and the flub over Murtha as Minorty Leader.

    2. Same Nancy says "impeachment is off the table" (she didn't HAVE to say that to Lesley Stahl, did she?).

    3. Conyers, House Judiciary Chair, said it....and this was the guy who lead the "basement hearings" on impeachment just a while back.

    4. No, as in none, polls (outside of ridiculous online ones and one unconfirmed by Zogby) show ANY large public support for it....even with Bush's approvals in the 30s.

    5. A "John Roberts" Supreme Court would judge the Constitutionality of "dual impeachments" (Bush & Cheney)...so the likelihood of "President Nancy" is infinitesimal.

    Oh, and that same John Roberts would be the JUDGE at a Senate impeachment trial....AND a very pissed-off-at-the-Blog-Base Joe Lieberman would be the deciding vote.

    "Bush will resign in disgrace before it gets to that"?....not likely....did Clinton and all he did was get hoovered by a fat chick.

    There is NO logical scenario by which this doesn't STILL result in "President Cheney" and then maybe "President CONDI" (Dick picking a sure vote for his Veep)....and Democrats losing a TON of support from the public and losing a TON of TIME for any kind of legislative agenda passing that can help them hold Congress in 2008.

    But then....logic rarely enters into a.....fantasy.

    Posted by Mask at 12/11/2006 @ 10:31am

  96. Posted by MASK 12/11/2006 @ 10:31am

    I would like to believe that our forefathers chose not to rely on gaming our nations future by creating our Constitution to remedy the hsuB pres problem. I'd bet our Constitution on it.

    As for comparing hsuB to Bill Clinton-- I know Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton is my friend-- hsuB is no Bill Clinton. More of a Nixon-ish model for impeachment if you ask most people; much worse a criminal, not as smart as Nixon though. BTW remember what happened to Nixon's first VP?

    And as always:

    December 11, 2006

    Quote of the Day

    "Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit." – e. e. cummings

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/11/2006 @ 12:21pm

  97. ....and Democrats losing a TON of support from the public and losing a TON of TIME for any kind of legislative agenda passing that can help them hold Congress in 2008.

    Posted by MASK 12/11/2006 @ 10:31am

    Masky, remember the Dems actually want to work while they are there in Congress. Bet (Constitutionally) they juggle TONS of BALLS in the air simultaneously without dropping the big one.

    As for Roberts he's got a good reason to recuse himself (as do others)... Lets see, has he done that before?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/11/2006 @ 12:29pm

  98. So hsuB admin see's both hsuB and Cheney are going down per all the bad press via the dem investigations, you think they say sure let Pelosi take over... Naw, a new VP comes in. The question then becomes, do the Dems confirm before hsuB has a chance to resign or get impeached and who does hsuB pick that he trusts to parden him or will accept this career stopper: Jeb, Condi, Gonzales, Bolten, Miers, Laura, speothos venaticus (Barney),...poppy?

    Order of Presidential Succession

    Amendment XXV, The Constitution of the United States

    NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements.

    The Vice President

    Speaker of the House

    President pro tempore of the Senate

    Secretary of State

    Secretary of the Treasury

    Secretary of Defense

    Attorney General

    Secretary of the Interior

    Secretary of Agriculture

    Secretary of Commerce

    Secretary of Labor

    Secretary of Health and Human Services

    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

    Secretary of Transportation

    Secretary of Energy

    Secretary of Education

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/11/2006 @ 4:11pm

  99. 1. "Speaker Nancy" and the flub over Murtha as Minorty Leader.

    this was not even a blip on the radar. in two month no one will even know what you're talking about when you bring it up. you have trouble distinguishing between a mountain and a molehill. this goes for pretty much all your posts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/11/2006 @ 6:13pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Facing Bipartisan Criticism, RNC's Steele Asks If Race Is Factor | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols
Posted at 8:46 PM ET

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
24 Comments
Posted at 4:52 PM ET

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
40 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
25 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
55 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman