The Beat

Kucinich: “I'm Talking About Impeachment”

posted by John Nichols on 03/20/2007 @ 10:11pm

Nancy Pelosi's attempt to keep impeachment off the table has already been upset outside the District of Columbia, as grassroots campaigns in states across the country have begun raising the prospect of Constitutionally sanctioning President Bush, Vice President Cheney and members of their administration. More than three dozen Vermont town meetings endorsed impeachment resolutions in early March, and legislators in Vermont, Washington state and New Mexico have mustered efforts to dispatch articles of impeachment from state Capitols to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Now, Pelosi's moves to silence this discussion in the Congress are being upset by a fellow Democrat, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Last week, after meeting with pro-impeachment activists, Kucinich delivered a speech on the House floor in which he said:

This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power.

The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies.

The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the UN Charter states, "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. . ." Even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal.

Article VI of the US Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land. This Administration, has openly threatened aggression against Iran in violation of the US Constitution and the UN Charter.

This week the House Appropriations committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran.

Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran.

Now, Kucinich, a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nod, has begun contacting supporters to ask if he should embrace impeachment as a candidate and an active member of Congress.

"For four years I have been working to end this war, including leading the effort to cut off continued funding for the war. There is enough money to bring our troops home and we should do that. But the Bush administration, with the help of some in Congress, wants to pour more money into this war. Worse than that, the Bush administration now is signaling its intention to wage war with Iran. We cannot allow that to happen," writes Kucinich.

"So I'm asking you: Do you think it's time?" he adds. "I'm talking about time for impeachment."

Noting that "we are now have a condition in this country where we are told to take impeachment off the table, and keep on the table a U.S. military attack against Iran," Kucinich concludes: "This situation calls for us to reconsider very deeply the moment that we're in –- where our Constitution is being trashed, where international law is being violated, where our hopes and dreams for the education of our children, for the health of our people, for housing, for our veterans, are being set aside as we go deeper and deeper into war."

Kucinich's analysis is right. Impeachment is an appropriate tool, not only for sanctioning Bush for past wrongs, but also as a threat to prevent the president from engaging in new wrongs.

There will be those who suggest that, as a long-shot presidential contender, the former mayor of Cleveland and veteran peace activist is the wrong messenger. But the initial champions of impeachment are often political outsiders: like the abolitionist Whigs – including a young Abraham Lincoln and an old John Quincy Adams -- who sought to sanction pro-slavery Presidents John Tyler and James K. Polk in the 1840s.

"Radical" foes of the Vietnam War, such as New York Congresswoman Bella Abzug and Father Robert Drinan, a congressman from Massachusetts, were among the first to call for impeaching Richard Nixon. They were eventually joined by a Republican, California Congressman Pete McCloskey, who had mounted an quixotic anti-war primary challenge to Nixon in 1972.

The first members of Congress who dare raise the subject of impeaching any errant executive are invariably dismissed as premature and intemperate. But history tends to view them kindly, just as it tends to view poorly the subjects of their proposed sanctions.

The bottom line is that Kucinich is right when he says: "This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power." The congressman deserves credit for recognizing that "impeachment may well be the only remedy" for the Constitutional crisis Bush has created, and for the crises he now schemes to create. And if his fellow anti-war Democrats in Congress are honest with themselves, they will recognize that it is time for the House to start talking about impeachment.

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

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (173)

  1. Personally, I think it's time for us to start talking about the lunatic asylum for congressman Dennis Kucinich... I wish I were joking, but I'm dead serious.

    Posted by davebarlett at 03/20/2007 @ 10:20pm

  2. DENNIS THE MENACE IS JUST YOUR TYPICAL LEFTWING TRAITOROUS KOOK THAT IS MORE INTERESTED IN POWER THAN PROTECTING HIS COUNTRY.

    PATHETIC

    Posted by looneylefties at 03/20/2007 @ 10:26pm

  3. DENNIS ANOTHER LINCOLN OR ADAMS????

    GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK....I WANT SOME OF WHAT YOUR SMOKING NICHOLS

    Posted by looneylefties at 03/20/2007 @ 10:39pm

  4. Kucinich is absolutely right. The Bush Administration has repeatedly demonstrated its complete contempt for the law and the Congress. Pelosi and the Democratic right have given Bush a blank check for attacking Iran, and when Hillary Clinton says that Iran must know that "all options, I repeat all options, are on the table", we need to be clear that she is giving Bush the nod to use nuclear weapons. We need leadership that we can trust, that we know won't flinch or waffle. Kucinich is offering us that leadership. We must support him.

    If Bush attacks Iran, and all the evidence suggests that he intends to in spite of (or perhaps because of) the deteriorating US position in Iraq, he will have to generate a national emergency. We must recognize this situation clearly and admit that we are in fact face to face with an emergency. Kucinich is calling us to battle against a regime that is posing a mortal threat to our democracy and that threatens to plunge the world into a downward spiral of violence. We need to respond - to take up and amplify his call and carry it urgently into all of our circles of people and influence.

    No war on Iran!

    Posted by chrishorton at 03/20/2007 @ 10:57pm

  5. Count the "WASTED" lives spent in Iraq.

    Compare that to a "denial of infidelity".

    Let George Bush testify under oath.

    Then compare the LIES!

    And Judge for yourself --- The Crime!

    For Impeachment!

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/20/2007 @ 10:58pm

  6. Impeach Bush!

    Posted by chrishorton at 03/20/2007 @ 11:01pm

  7. More candidates for the loony bin on this thread, I see.....

    Posted by davebarlett at 03/20/2007 @ 11:13pm

  8. Let the hearings begin! Let's start subpoening the criminals and have them testify before Congress and the people of the U.S.

    Even now Bush is trying to avoid having his people testify under oath about the plot to fire his political enemies on the Federal bench.

    Pressure the Dems to do their job. If they don't, they are complicit.

    Similarly, if the Democratic Congress authorizes more funding for the war in Iraq, the war will no longer be "Bush's War". They can't speak out against it and be its authors at the same time.

    Posted by JoeDaJuggler at 03/20/2007 @ 11:37pm

  9. Congressman Kucinich is making a lot of sense. If we don't hold the executive branch in check, there will be no balance in our government.

    Our country's founders knew what they were doing when they carefully divided the power between the three branches of government.

    We see now what has been done as a result of the thumping that congress gave the executive branch after Nixon. When Ford came in congress pulled in the reigns on the President and it was Cheney as Ford Chief of Staff that saw it all take place and he has been steaming about it ever since.

    Leading up to the 2000 (s)election, Cheney saw his chance to take back the power he feels belongs to the "Unitary Executive" (aka Dictator) and he had the backing of the NeoNuts at PNAC and a puppet for a presidential candidate. The puppet asked Cheney to find a suitable running mate, and after looking around, he found himself.

    After the (s)election of 2000, all the power he ever wanted feel into the hands of the man now running the country. Darth Cheney. He and his little puppet have done everything they could possibly think of to circumvent the checks and balances of our Constitution to seize total power and insure a everlasting Repug one party rule for our country.

    However, as they grabbed power, they overextended their reach. They have shown the American people just how incompetent and corrupt they are. The American people can be fooled only so long. Even with all the voting tricks, with all the lies and smears the American people came through and gave us back checks and balances.

    The congress is at a moment in history where it can put a stinging lesson on those who attempt to subvert our Constitution by bringing those who have attempted to steal our country out from under us by bringing Articles of Impeachment to both Cheney and Bush.

    If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. Bring on the Articles of Impeachment and let Cheney and Bush have their say in the Senate, under oath.

    "The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry." William F. Buckley

    itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 03/20/2007 @ 11:49pm

  10. Nanci Pelosi is a great disappointment to me, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. I say Go Dennis Go! It's great to see someone who is fearless is the face of the threats from this Bush Crime Family. Let the hearings begin!

    Posted by keymanwst at 03/20/2007 @ 11:56pm

  11. And for LOONEYLEFTIES...... Dig this: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- President Theodore Roosevelt

    'Nuff said.

    Posted by keymanwst at 03/21/2007 @ 12:01am

  12. The 18-minute gap, Bush-style

    by kos

    Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:46:38 PM PDT

    The Bush Administration is working overtime to make this attorney scandal look more and more like Watergate by the day.

    In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.

    Expect the phrases "constitutional crisis", "impeachment", and "inherent contempt" to start making the rounds.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/21/2007 @ 12:50am

  13. As a consrvative I say..... Go Dennis Go!!

    We can't buy help like that...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/21/2007 @ 01:40am

  14. Finally Bush grew some balls and tells the committees to shove it...its about time he realized that the dems are out to kill him...and have been since 2000...

    I hope he holds true..

    Posted by john maasch at 03/21/2007 @ 01:45am

  15. Kucinich is saying that the only thing Congress can do now to stop war with Iran is to impeach the President. There appears to me to be one other thing they could do.

    Bush/Cheney are putting a lot of assets in place for a war on Iran. They would not be doing this just in the hope that Iran will do something outrageous to justify the war. They would have to have a plan for *starting* it. If Congressional investigations could dig out and expose this plan, and if (as seems likely) it involves sacrificing the lives of American servicemen or citizens, the resulting outrage would put an end to the Iran war plan and lead directly to impeachment hearings.

    Posted by chrishorton at 03/21/2007 @ 06:27am

  16. Well....Speaker Pelosi, not Dennis Kucinich, runs the House.

    Proof?.....www.politico.com--

    By: Josephine Hearn March 21, 2007 05:06 AM EST

    The most outspoken critics of the $124 billion wartime spending bill in the House are facing withering support in their fight to defeat it.

    California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.

    They also cited MoveOn.org's endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.

    "This is the process: people who feel strongly about this issue hold out as long as they can," said Waters. "A lot of pressure comes to bear and they can't hold up under the pressure."

    The $124 billion emergency spending bill, backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), includes not only more funds this year for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also new military readiness standards, benchmarks for the Iraqi government and an Aug. 31, 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

    A floor vote is planned for Thursday.

    Democratic leaders have also added billions in funds not related to wartime spending in a bid for more support.

    That additional money was attractive for at least one lawmaker, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), an Out of Iraq Caucus member. His spokeswoman, Danielle Langone, cited $400 million for a one-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

    "That's pretty vital for our district, so we'll be voting for the bill," Langone said. (my bolds for emphasis)

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 06:29am

  17. Dave,

    Wasn't accusing people of mental illness that disagreed with a point a Stalinist tactic?

    Posted by Draconis at 03/21/2007 @ 06:57am

  18. Personally, I think it's time for us to start talking about the lunatic asylum for me.. I wish I were joking, but I'm dead serious.

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 03/20/2007 @ 10:20pm | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 08:09am

  19. JOHANNES, I love the new tactic of re-writing the trash served up by servile and brainwashed rightwing rimjobistas so that it finally makes sense. Keep up da' good work!

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 08:51am

  20. thanks Glenn, and it's such a timesaver too.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 09:11am

  21. Hard to believe he's a presidential candidate.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 03/21/2007 @ 09:23am | ignore this person

    hard to believe for one as cynical as you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 09:24am

  22. OK, let's impeach Bush.

    But first, lets do this impeachment thing right and also impeach every representative and every senator who voted for the war and/or lied to their constinciency. Oh yea, and let's insure that those other world leaders who have broken international law by threatening the West, the US, or Israel with even "the threat of war" (Iran, Syria, N Korea, Venezuela, etc.) be brought to justice. But wait, who is going to hold these "threatening" countries accountable? The UN? Dennis Kucinich? Vermont?

    Get a clue John Nichols. Do you see a trend here? If you actually got your way and impeached Bush, do you honostly believe that your preference for President would not also be subject to impeachment. If Hillary or Obama actually won an election for President, I guarrantee you that I and millions of others like me will be at the front of the list of those looking for any excuse whatsoever to support impeaching their skinny butts. And on and on it will go...

    SUPPORT YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF - whether you like him or not - and always give him the benefit of the doubt. A united country is the only way that we, these United States, will survive a very hostile world; A hostile world who hates us not because of perceived injustices, but because of envy and jealousy and the fact that we represent what is left of the concept of "good" and "honorable." To believe otherwise is national suicide.

    Our strength comes from being united in purpose, whether we agree with our elected leadership or not. Our strength does not come from dissension - though we are free to dissent. However, many of you don't seem to understand that dissension has a price. And I fear that the price will be more than any of you understand... and that in the not-so-far future that price will be more than this country can pay.

    Posted by John Powell at 03/21/2007 @ 09:31am

  23. Personally, I think it's time for us to start talking about the lunatic asylum for congressman Dennis Kucinich... I wish I were joking, but I'm dead serious.

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 03/20/2007 @ 10:20pm

    So demanding that a criminal be tried, convicted and punished for crimes committed is crazy? Maybe you're the one who needs a stay in a lunatic asylum.

    DENNIS THE MENACE IS JUST YOUR TYPICAL LEFTWING TRAITOROUS KOOK THAT IS MORE INTERESTED IN POWER THAN PROTECTING HIS COUNTRY.

    PATHETIC

    Posted by LOONEYLEFTIES 03/20/2007

    The only one here who is being traitorous is you. Kucinich is doing his job, a large part of which involves upholding and defending the Constitution. Why do you hate America?

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/21/2007 @ 09:33am

  24. Kucinich is in one of the safest districts in the country. It will cost him nothing to shoot his mouth off. So if we pull out of Iraq and all hell breaks loose, his conscience will be untarnished.

    Meanwhile the Dem leadership tiptoes on eggshells, given the fact that it is now their asses on the line if they're predictions don't ring true.

    Posted by Sliver at 03/21/2007 @ 09:36am

  25. OK, let's impeach Bush.

    But first, lets do this impeachment thing right and also impeach every representative and every senator who voted for the war and/or lied to their constinciency. Oh yea, and let's insure that those other world leaders who have broken international law by threatening the West, the US, or Israel with even "the threat of war" (Iran, Syria, N Korea, Venezuela, etc.) be brought to justice. But wait, who is going to hold these "threatening" countries accountable? The UN? Dennis Kucinich? Vermont?

    Get a clue John Nichols. Do you see a trend here? If you actually got your way and impeached Bush, do you honostly believe that your preference for President would not also be subject to impeachment. If Hillary or Obama actually won an election for President, I guarrantee you that I and millions of others like me will be at the front of the list of those looking for any excuse whatsoever to support impeaching their skinny butts. And on and on it will go...

    SUPPORT YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF - whether you like him or not - and always give him the benefit of the doubt. A united country is the only way that we, these United States, will survive a very hostile world; A hostile world who hates us not because of perceived injustices, but because of envy and jealousy and the fact that we represent what is left of the concept of "good" and "honorable." To believe otherwise is national suicide.

    Our strength comes from being united in purpose, whether we agree with our elected leadership or not. Our strength does not come from dissension - though we are free to dissent. However, many of you don't seem to understand that dissension has a price. And I fear that the price will be more than any of you understand... and that in the not-so-far future that price will be more than this country can pay.

    Posted by JOHN POWELL 03/21/2007 @ 09:31am

    Why don't YOU get a clue, Powell? Impeachment is for officials who have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and who have committed treason. Bush, Cheney and Gonzalez certainly have done all these things. You would use the spectre of impeachment for as-yet unelected presidents who have committed no crimes in an office they haven't even won, just because you want revenge for your little tin dictator getting his comeuppance. That places you in the 'morally treasonable' and 'base and servile' categories described by former president Theodore Roosevelt.

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/21/2007 @ 09:39am

  26. SUPPORT YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF - whether you like him or not - and always give him the benefit of the doubt. A united country is the only way that we, these United States, will survive a very hostile world; A hostile world who hates us not because of perceived injustices, but because of envy and jealousy and the fact that we represent what is left of the concept of "good" and "honorable." To believe otherwise is national suicide. Posted by JOHN POWELL

    Jr enjoyed the benefit of the doubt way back when he used fabricated, manipulated information to gain support for the invasion of Iraq--an egregious waste of resources, soldiers, diplomatic credit, and so many other valuable things. The US defied the rest of the world, the UN, and its allies and went in alone; now 'we' (not Jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld) are paying the price.

    This is not partisan. This is about an abnormally clear case of right and wrong. Allowing this administration to abuse our Constitution without severe consequences sets a dangerous precedent for all that follow. Had LBJ been hung out to dry for the Tonkin Gulf bs we might not be in Iraq now, wasting lives and resources.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/21/2007 @ 09:47am

  27. Like I noted, guys....it ain't happening.

    Mr Nichols thinks Kucinich and the "net-roots", grass-roots, whatever are going to change Pelosi's mind....

    and she just proved she can BUY OFF any agenda she wants in Congress.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 09:51am

  28. "The bottom line is that Kucinich is right when he says: "This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power." The congressman deserves credit for recognizing that "impeachment may well be the only remedy" for the Constitutional crisis Bush has created, and for the crises he now schemes to create. And if his fellow anti-war Democrats in Congress are honest with themselves, they will recognize that it is time for the House to start talking about impeachment."

    AMEN!!

    Anybody who doesn't think these traitors shouldn't be impeached because of the impracticality of doing so is missing the point. These traitors have set a dangerous precedent of constitutional transgression that must be addressed at all cost. We are defining the limits of executive power by not bringing impeachment proceedings right now.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/21/2007 @ 09:53am

  29. Posted by FREIHEIT 03/21/2007 @ 09:55am

    You failed to live upto the "black or white", "fer us or agin us", CONSHAME/JOHANNES way of thinking, FREI, when you complimented Kucinich. As an "evil con", you "should have", therefore are immediately suspect of, dissing Dennis. So, you blew his 16K RAM chip.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 10:05am

  30. President Bush, why are you posting comments under the name "Dave Barlett"?

    Posted by writerwoman at 03/21/2007 @ 10:08am

  31. Thats right nationalists. Who needs the constitution? Its just a G-D piece of paper right?

    Scared little boys.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2007 @ 10:20am

  32. Posted by WRITERWOMAN 03/21/2007 @ 10:08am

    Because "Dan Bartlett" is too obvious.

    go back to sleep Dave, we will wake you when martial law is declared.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2007 @ 10:22am

  33. SUPPORT YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF - whether you like him or not - and always give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Bahh. Bahh. sheep.

    Yea, give him the benefit of the doubt, unless he has been wrong about war.

    Been a while since this has been posted, read it, learn it.

    "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."-Theoedore Roosevelt

    But we know the neo-cons are the very definition of "base and servile".

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2007 @ 10:26am

  34. Posted by JOHN POWELL 03/21/2007 @ 09:31am

    the question for you John, is why can Bush not show leadership and unite the country behind his cause? Remember all the talk about "leadership".

    It could be because Bush is not a leader, never has been. It could be because his cause is off base and counterproductive. 65-70% of the electorate thinks he is leading the country down the wrong path, why the hell should we follow him down that path? Because we "owe" him allegiance? Give me a break. This isn't a monarchy, as much as you neo cons would like it to be. Its a republic, for the people BY the people. At least in theory.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2007 @ 10:31am

  35. Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 03/21/2007 @ 09:33am

    Sorry, jumped the gun.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2007 @ 10:37am

  36. Posted by SLIVER 03/21/2007 @ 09:36am

    Care to give some predictions on the amount of wmd's in Iraq? Tons I heard. How about some connections between Al Qaida and Saddam? Or tell us the war will last weeks, maybe months, certainly not years.

    Lay it on us.

    baaaa.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2007 @ 10:39am

  37. There are two important problems with this article. (1) the effort to impeach John Tyler and James Polk are not treated highly by historians, but rather with contempt (and, I might add, Lincoln was hardly an abolitionist.) The actual impeachment of Pres. Andrew Johnson by vicious radicals has been treated with even a greater degree of contempt. (2) Nichols is wrong when he states that the threat to use force is a form of aggression; not in an age when rogue states acquire the kind of weapons that can destroy American cities from afar and in moments. This is not aggression, it is called pre-emptive defense.

    J.H. Cohen NYC

    Posted by CritComm at 03/21/2007 @ 10:44am

  38. sorry Frei, what I meant was that you are usually so cynical, a descriptive adjective rather than insulting, as in "they're all....."

    the word you were looking for is cue. the other word is for when you stand in or on line.

    I'm sorry you feel attacked, that was not my intent.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 10:47am

  39. A hostile world who hates us not because of perceived injustices, but because of envy and jealousy and the fact that we represent what is left of the concept of "good" and "honorable.

    you must be kidding. that train left the station with the first secret prison and the first tortured prisoner. good and honorable? oh my god are you deluded.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 10:49am

  40. This is not aggression, it is called pre-emptive defense.

    this is a lie. pre-emptive war is against international law.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 10:50am

  41. Posted by FREIHEIT 03/21/2007 @ 09:55am

    people are a little trigger-happy around here. as for me, i took your comments at face value and appreciated them.

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/21/2007 @ 10:52am

  42. SUPPORT YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF - whether you like him or not - and always give him the benefit of the doubt. A united country is the only way that we, these United States, will survive a very hostile world; A hostile world who hates us not because of perceived injustices, but because of envy and jealousy and the fact that we represent what is left of the concept of "good" and "honorable." To believe otherwise is national suicide.

    Posted by JOHN POWELL 03/21/2007 @ 09:31am

    Wow. You really believe our enemies in the world are as one-dimensional as that? Whether you want to accept it or not, they are complex human beings like you and I. The world is not just black-and-white or good-and-evil. Do you really think that we are hated in parts of this world merely out of jealousy? That people "hate our freedom"?

    It is time for people like you to join the real world and realize that the government of a nation full of good people (such as the US) can commit evil acts in the name of its citizens. And that we bear the responsibility of these actions that are carried out in our name.

    Posted by bjkron at 03/21/2007 @ 10:52am

  43. Kucinich is in one of the safest districts in the country. It will cost him nothing to shoot his mouth off. So if we pull out of Iraq and all hell breaks loose, his conscience will be untarnished.

    this is a non sequitur, Sliv. running in a safe district has nothing to do with conscience.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 10:53am

  44. Posted by FREIHEIT 03/21/2007 @ 09:55am

    people are a little trigger-happy around here. as for me, i took your comments at face value and appreciated them.

    Posted by KATAMANTULO 03/21/2007 @ 10:52am | ignore this person

    this was a part of a long term dialogue with this poster, and refers to previous conversations.

    and Frei, that was a lefthanded compliment for Kucinic.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 10:55am

  45. It's as if JOHN POWELL has been chained to the wall in the basement of a re-education camp. For years upon years, he had the same hideously dumb slogans drummed into his head until his will to resist and think any remotely independant thoughts had been abolished -- and identification with his evil rightwing captors was complete.

    Then he spasmodcially secretes what he had been brainwashed into mouthing, in the pathetic, weak vioce of a crushed human spirit:

    SUPPORT YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF - whether you like him or not - and always give him the benefit of the doubt. A united country is the only way that we, these United States, will survive a very hostile world; A hostile world who hates us not because of perceived injustices, but because of envy and jealousy and the fact that we represent what is left of the concept of "good" and "honorable." To believe otherwise is national suicide.

    Our strength comes from being united in purpose, whether we agree with our elected leadership or not. Our strength does not come from dissension - though we are free to dissent. However, many of you don't seem to understand that dissension has a price.

    Question: Just wondering, but what did the dismal likes of JOHN POWELL have to say when one of the thought leaders of his community -- namely, Imam An al-Quoltar (formerly Anne Coulter) -- issued her fatwah against the people's selection as POTUS: "The question is whether to impeach or assassinate"? A question duly answered by the brown-shirted rightwing goons -- the Sensenbrenners and the Hydes -- who heard the imam's call from the minaret and bowed down toward their ideological Mecca with their lumpish asses dangling in the rancid air.

    What does the pathetic Powellian rimjob machine have to say about Ne'wt Qingreech continuing to defend his role in the fatwah as recently as, oh, last week on the radio even though his "crimes" of the flesh were identical?

    The only thing worese than a fundementalist is what one sees with contemporary conservaLosers who love George W Bush, who love 9/11, who love Americastan and thrill viciously at seeing America bleed in Bush's VanityWar. It is a fundementalist relativism, as dictated by their Maximum Leader.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 10:57am

  46. JOHN POWELL 03/21/2007 @ 09:31am

    Sherman, we've set the Wayback Machine for Germany, 1933. We're going to learn all about national suicide!

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/21/2007 @ 10:57am

  47. Our strength does not come from dissension -

    that is where you are wrong. completely and utterly wrong.what you are proscribing is fascism, communism, corporatism, and all other totalitarian societies where dissent is squelched, which is what you are attempting here.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 10:58am

  48. this is a non sequitur, Sliv. running in a safe district has nothing to do with conscience.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/21/2007 @ 10:53am

    Oh really? Then I take it the converse of this would also be true. "Running a tight race in a district thats up for grabs has nothing to do with conscience"

    Gonna buy that as well?

    Posted by Sliver at 03/21/2007 @ 11:02am

  49. "...and that in the not-so-far future that price will be more than this country can pay."---Posted by JOHN POWELL 03/21/2007 @ 09:31am

    Like the deficit, JOHN?

    JOHN POWELL taking a lot of hits here (deservedly), for his "My CIC right or ineptly wrong" attitude...but you guys need to realize something:

    He's a VERY tiny minority that's ideology has been undercut by the very man they've supported.

    Bush has done more to destroy conservatism than any Democrat/liberal ever could. How bad a CIC do you have to be to make Americans polled say that "Democrats are better on national security than Republicans"? How big a spender (with help from the pre-2006 GOP Congress) to lose the "fiscal conservative" qualifier to LIBERALS?!?!?

    And how bad a President, so damaging to your own Party, that you've given ....HILLARY a good to better shot at becoming the next one?

    So, maybe the 30% Club deserves some pity....not much...but some.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 11:05am

  50. Sliv, what happened to proof of your absurd assertion that the US fought along side of the insurgents against the soviets.?

    or an acknowledgment of your wrong numbers on the estate tax in Ohia?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 11:05am

  51. Sherman, we've set the Wayback Machine for Germany, 1933. We're going to learn all about national suicide!

    Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/21/2007 @ 10:57am | ignore this person

    yes, the sound of heels clicking was very noticeable in that post.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 11:07am

  52. Comparing Kucinich to JQ Adams or especially Lincoln in any form is ludicrous. He's not even in the same class. And I would not place to much stock in the "bold" actions of previous personages against the objects of their venom. They were "floating" notions they knew wouldn't happen: John Adams suggested once in 1786 that if Britain didn't honor all her the Treaty of Paris obligations that we should "declare war" on them, a notion hardly, as Adams knew, even feasible for us at the time.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/21/2007 @ 11:26am

  53. according to an authoritative poll sponsored jointly by ABC, BBC and USA Today: Only 38 percent of Iraqis believe that the country is better off today than under Hussein, while nearly four out of five oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 11:27am

  54. So, maybe the 30% Club deserves some pity....not much...but some.

    Posted by MASK 03/21/2007 @ 11:05am

    MASK,

    While granting some (and/or some parts) of your claims, not a chance on this one. The 30%-ers and their Maximum Leader have taken the nation and its highest office hostage and operate many of the important levers of power. With some blood in the water now, oppposition to the "American Mugabe" must be stepped up, and NOT relaxed.

    Liberals, we must confront the conservaTraitors and their brownshirted goons. We do not want to do this, because they are unpleasant, dull, ill-educated people who always cheat and lie and do not have redeeming qualities; we would rather not have to bother with them anymore than we would go out of our way to step in maggot-laden dogshit.

    But, for the good of the nation, we must. We must confront them. And because we don't really want to have to do this we must do it with re-doubled, bare-kunckled, straight-talking zeal.

    Tha standard to adopt is not to "play for a tie game" in confronting a conservaTraitor or to have an "honest exchange of ideas" like this is a fucking seminar. The standard is full spectrum dominance. A conservaTraitor must withdraw from an encounter with you, the Liberal, shamed and shaken up. The kind of shaken up that silences a person, makes him or her not want to leave the house for days at a time. That is the standard to reach for and achieve.

    They want to ruin our country because they are failed, inferior people such as RIO WARREN JEFFS. No time for bromides and politically correct nicities, Liberals. Tell the truth bluntly, be assertive, win big, take back our nation with vigor one person at a time.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 11:50am

  55. the high priest of the false god

    this is you liverty

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 11:53am

  56. lvliberty Your paranoia of socialists is treatable as is your delusion that these people hate America,people of faith etc.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 11:58am

  57. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/21/2007 @ 10:55am

    i disagree - i think he was being sincerely complimentary. if someone offers you their hand, do you smack it down?

    Posted by katamantulo at 03/21/2007 @ 12:14pm

  58. On a realted topic:

    To the dustbin with another right-wing noise machine talking point - "no proof" that anyone's rights are being violated by this administration.

    Anyone surprised?

    FBI Violations May Number 3,000, Official Says [tinyurl.com]

    The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here.

    Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that according to the FBI's own estimate, as many as 600 of these violations could be "cases of serious misconduct" involving the improper use of "national security letters" to compel telephone companies, banks and credit institutions to produce records.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 12:22pm

  59. i disagree - i think he was being sincerely complimentary. if someone offers you their hand, do you smack it down?

    Posted by KATAMANTULO 03/21/2007 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person

    yes he was complimentary. somewhat. he expressed surprise that K. would be a pres candidate. this from one who has made a point of saying they're all corrupt in politics. it is this surprise I was referring to.

    I am not surprised, especially since Kucinic was a pres candidate last time around. I hold this poster in high regard, that's why I try not to let him get away with anything.

    again, it was well established in previous conversation that I considered him a cynic, and he has acknowledged that as well.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 12:28pm

  60. With some blood in the water now, oppposition to the "American Mugabe" must be stepped up, and NOT relaxed.

    Posted by GLENN LEMON 03/21/2007 @ 11:50am |

    Well first, and secondarily, as noted in Nancy Pelosi BUYING votes for her lame-ass "Out of Iraq by Hillary's Inaugural" proposal, I kind of suspect she's is going to KEEP her promise that "impeachment is off the table", regardless of "Attorney-gate" or "Fitzmas II: The Wrath of Gonz" or whatever.

    Second, but more importantly, I realize that Godwin's Law or a variation like yours is fun, but comparing Bush to Robert Mugabe, does not make Bush look worse....but trivializes Mugabe's crimes, as comparing Bush or conservatives to "Nazis" trivializes those horrors.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 12:30pm

  61. MASK,

    Mugabe's crimes are monsterous and speak for themselves. Notice the qualifier: "American Mugabe", as in a sick and grotesque departure from our traditions in our nation in our time.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 12:44pm

  62. Please, folks, please please please impeach George Bush.

    This long-time Republican would love the opportunity to explain to people all about why the Democratic Party (AKA, Soros-Moveon club) is wasting time impeaching Bush... Beautiful.

    Go for it!

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 12:49pm

  63. Be our guest Bill. Why don't you practice right now and please explain to us.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 12:52pm

  64. Bill Sanford-Please,tell us why rather than just claim you know.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 12:53pm

  65. Just an observation: why do ignorant right-wingers tend to write in all caps? (see above)

    Posted by kingwilly at 03/21/2007 @ 12:55pm

  66. March 21, 2007

    Quote of the Day

    "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."

    – Eleanor Roosevelt

    Therefore our constitution, co-equal branches of government, democracy, bill of rights, and our founding fathers as well-- all cry out for impeachment as the solution to making our nation's dream beautiful again. And for our children's future, we must not waver. For the future dreams of the new con repub hsuB/heney/ove admin are horrid.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/21/2007 @ 1:03pm

  67. Posted by GLENN LEMON 03/21/2007 @ 12:44pm

    GLENN, I saw the "qualifier"...but "American Mugabe" still doesn't cut it. Somebody calls Castro the "Cuban Hitler", isn't accurate. "Cuban Brezhnev" or maybe "Cuban Franco", but not "Hitler".

    Call Bush "Nixon" if you like...or "DeGaulle" (Ref: Dien Bien Phu, Algerian Revolt) or some other leader of a democracy who engaged in incompetence or corruption...

    but linking Bush to genocidal dictators (with NO term limits), doesn't seem realistic and DOWN-plays the crimes of people like Mugabe.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 1:04pm

  68. I would like to know how any patriotic American citizen who knows Constitutional Law, International Law, American/ world history, morality and ethics, could possibly argue AGAINST impeachment. Citizenry requires a whole lot more than listening, digesting and regurgitating the spoon-fed opinions of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and all the other lunatics on the payroll of the administration's partners in crime. If the law were applied to members of this administration, they would be in dock in the Hague, or in federal prison. Now tell me, partisanship aside, just what you think justifies all the illegal activities in which this administration has engaged. I can only assume that your opinion is based on the propagandized babble of some right-wing talk show host.

    Posted by dalikar985 at 03/21/2007 @ 1:09pm

  69. LOL ! (Three caps there, for those who are counting...)

    HMAN23 & Nobody - Folks, it would surely be a waste of my time to attempt to explain to you what is obvious to the average observer. Bush is not perfect; But, he has not engaged in any activity that is illegal. Now, before your hatred gets the better of you, be aware that I am not interested in the mud-slinging, gutter level diatribe that passes for political debate with the extreme left. But if you should have something that actually sheds light on some form of law-breaking, share it. Again, there has to be a law - that is spelled l - a - w. Not hatred.

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 1:13pm

  70. JR, would you mind describing "Corporatism"?

    And you forgot to include Socialism in your list of totalitarian systems

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/21/2007 @ 1:16pm

  71. We'll see how well world history records hsuB's comparisons to other mass failures via body count and other losses in just a few years. Distance does allow for objectivity. The sooner we get the hsuB/heney/ove machine out, the sooner objectivity will begin.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/21/2007 @ 1:18pm

  72. Posted by DALIKAR985 03/21/2007 @ 1:09pm

    DALIK, how about David Corn of "The Nation"?

    http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/08/impeachment_at_our_peril.php

    Final paragraphs--

    "There's another argument against impeachment: It will force its proponents to act as extremists. If you favor impeachment, then you must be committed to going all the way and this will include demanding (repeatedly) that the Democrats in Congress do the same. Impeachment is indeed an extreme action. To support it means that you believe the situation is dire and there's not a moment to waste. This will oblige impeachment partisans to assail Democrats--including Pelosi, who has declared impeachment "off the table," and incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid--for not seeing it this way. So Republicans and the White House officials can sit back and enjoy Democrats clawing each other over an issue not likely to be popular with non-Democratic voters (i.e., the people who just handed the Democrats their congressional victories).

    Impeachment is a substitute--a wishful shortcut?--for the difficult legislating and organizing that the Democratic Party and progressives must do to win the country in 2008. The Dems have a window of opportunity at the moment to show the public what Democratic governance looks like. They should investigate the Bush administration on many fronts, including how Bush misrepresented the prewar intelligence and how he bungled the war, as well as Bush's expansive claims of executive power and how he has put such imperial thinking into practice (wiretaps, detentions, etc.). Perhaps such investigations will produce information or a showdown (say, the White House refusing to turn over information to Congress) that would strengthen the legal and political cases for impeachment. But in order to create a lasting and positive relationship with the electorate, Democrats must deliver legislatively and produce significant bills that connect with the concerns of Americans. That's job No. 1."

    The Dems will have about 10 minutes to rebrand themselves when the new Congress convenes. Impeachment will be a serious impediment to that effort. Worse, it would become a black hole from which little, if any, political energy could escape. It would trump all else. After the recent elections, the congressional Democrats have Bush and the Republicans at a disadvantage; they have (as the cliché goes) the political capital of the moment. Spending it on impeachment would be a waste.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 1:25pm

  73. Nancy Pelosi has overstepped her authority in declaring impeachment to be "off the table".

    Impeachment is a constitutional right and to unilaterally take that check and balance off the table invites further abuse.

    Who the hell is she to take Constitutional rights away from Americans?

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2007 @ 1:31pm

  74. Biil Sanford-bush to pathetic for me to waste the emotion of hate on.I'm hardly the extreme left so you have no credibility just the usual right wing nonsense.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 1:42pm

  75. Mr|Ms NoBody... No problem. Now laws broken either, I guess.

    Now please, push for impeachment.

    Thank You.

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 1:49pm

  76. Bill Sanford-I suspect you aren't a lawyer.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 1:50pm

  77. JR, would you mind describing "Corporatism"?

    And you forgot to include Socialism in your list of totalitarian systems

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 03/21/2007 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person

    corporatism is what we have in this country. socialism is not totalitarian per se.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 1:52pm

  78. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/21/2007 @ 1:31pm | ignore this person

    impeachment is a political process. Pelosi made a political statement. it does not carry the force of law. she can change her mind tomorrow. I may disagree with her, but she is not taking any rights away from anyone.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/21/2007 @ 1:56pm

  79. In what parallel universe is Dennis Kucinich a "contender" for the 2008 nomination? What an asinine elevation.

    Posted by mhowell2008 at 03/21/2007 @ 2:00pm

  80. SUPPORT YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF - whether you like him or not - and always give him the benefit of the doubt. A united country is the only way that we, these United States, will survive a very hostile world; A hostile world who hates us not because of perceived injustices, but because of envy and jealousy and the fact that we represent what is left of the concept of "good" and "honorable." To believe otherwise is national suicide.

    Our strength comes from being united in purpose, whether we agree with our elected leadership or not. Our strength does not come from dissension - though we are free to dissent. However, many of you don't seem to understand that dissension has a price. And I fear that the price will be more than any of you understand... and that in the not-so-far future that price will be more than this country can pay.

    "Parsons was Winston's fellow employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralyzing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms--one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the thought police, the stability of the Party depended."

    "And in the general hardening of outlook that set in ... practices which had been long abandoned ... -- imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages and the deportation of whole populations -- not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."

    "There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle group to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern. These causes do not operate singly, and as a rule all four of them are present in some degree. A ruling class which could guard against all of them would remain in power permanently. Ultimately the determining factor is the mental attitude of the ruling class itself. ... From the point of view of our present rulers, therefore, the only genuine dangers are the splitting-off of a new group of able, under-employed, power-hungry people, and the growth of liberalism and scepticism in their own ranks. The problem, that is to say, is educational. ... and ... the level of popular education is actually declining."

    "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. ... How does one man assert his power over another ... By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is inflicting pain and humiliation. ... A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. ... If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."

    1984 - George Orwell

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/21/2007 @ 2:01pm

  81. NoBody - You got that right, I am not a lawyer. I work for a living! Actually, I am a computer person... long time, I'm afraid.

    Now, ahem, about them laws being broken by the prez... ?

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 2:04pm

  82. Bill Sanford-I'm no lawyer,but I know Libby is and he never would have lied under oath and obstructed justice unless he knew or had very good reason to suspect that a crime was committed.We now have bush not wanting his people to testify under oath.We haven't been able to get to the bottom of the selling the war,yet,but there is no doubt we were willfully mislead,but,not being a Constitutional attorney, I'm not sure if that's an impeachable offense.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 2:14pm

  83. Socialism may not start off totalitarian, although it's inevitable result will be. Its basic principles fly in the face of human nature, so it eventually becomes necessary to hold a gun to ones head in order to make it work. (try not signing up for the forced medical plan in Mass and see how long before the penalties start or the cops come) Even the Soviets had no illusions about this, calling themselves the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

    Now to "Corporatism": Its what we have here? Wutszatmean?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/21/2007 @ 2:21pm

  84. Fair statement, NoBody; From my perspective, my personal experience is that I really can not remember conversations from over a year ago... And I do a pretty good job of staying organized & taking notes. I do not think Libby was trying to protect anyone - indeed, I think he was a victim in the Special Prosecutor process just because he did get mixed up. As for not testifying under oath on the latest flap, consider: 1.) No law has been broken. 2.) using Libby as a lesson, these folks could have their careers broken (or go to jail!) simply because they get their facts wrong 3.) Executive priviledge is a widely used concept... and not just by Republicans. If I was a prez advisor, I wouldn't want to risk career or jail for no law being broken...

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 2:25pm

  85. But if you should have something that actually sheds light on some form of law-breaking, share it. Again, there has to be a law - that is spelled l - a - w. Not hatred.

    Posted by BILL SANFORD 03/21/2007 @ 1:13pm

    Now, ahem, about them laws being broken by the prez... ?

    Posted by BILL SANFORD 03/21/2007 @ 2:04pm

    The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War [tinyurl.com], which is Conyers' report will give you a good place to start.

    Although, as another poster mentioned above, impeachment is a political process, there is plenty of legal analysis on l–a-w-s for you beginning on page 157 – I believe it mentions 26 specific laws.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 2:26pm

  86. You are all so unbelievable.

    Thx lvliberty1 for your recognition of the people dominating this site. Attributing criminal behavior to the actions of our current executive branch goes beyond dissent and most definitely into the realm of traitorous activity. We can discuss the mistakes of Bush all day, but to accuse him and/or the Republican leadership of purposely planning 9/11; of taking the US to war on the basis of greed; of revenge; of anything other than a true desire to destroy our enemies, is where i and millions of others get off of the liberal "Dissent-even-if-it-kills-us" bus.

    I was particularly impressed with all of the name calling. It was refreshing to have so many of you remind me why i oppose the liberal worldview so vehemently.

    Conservtives believe in holding accountable the decisions of our leadership. We just believe that it should be done in the same spirit as we hold family members accountable... And God help the poor unfortunate soul that messes with my family member. Bush is alot of things but he is not a criminal. Rightly or wrongly, we are at war. The only way OUT is to win or lose (there is no such thing as withdraw). Most Libs choose to lose. Most conservatives chose to win. I and many others would rather be winners than losers. Honostly, help me understand why your preoccupation with losing???

    To the comparatively reasoned individual who said that my belief in God and Country and my belief in truely supporting our leadership made me a very small monority - I suggest that you don't equate the general dissastisfaction with Bush's conduct of the war with a general dissatisfaction with a conservative worldview... Not the same thing.

    There were enough of us to vote Bush into the Whitehouse twice. Say what you will about the wisdom of the American electorate but don't let this fact escape you: Not only has there been no attack on us since 9/11, other potential and current enemies are thinking twice before they attack again.

    I do agree that saying i would support impeaching a liberal president was out of line. I wouldn't really unless that President was convicted of criminal behavior by a true court. My point was to say that this impeachment thing will get out of control if lib congressmen were actually successful in conducting an impeachment of the President. If that happened, do any of you really think that impeachment won't be the weapon of choice from now on and used adnauseum by congressmen from the opposing party?

    Somebody out there take me for face value, give me the benefit of the doubt that i am as much in love with our Constitution as you claim to be, reduce the name calling and vitriol, and engage with some reason and supportable facts. Calling Bush a criminal and conservatives Nazis is not supportable.

    Statement: Impeachment outside of a US Court Conviction is a dangerous slippery slope that will ruin our country's executive branch, ensuring that it is no longer a viable and useful part of our government.

    Now, can a liberal engage this statement without pulling out his/hers guttermouth?

    Posted by John Powell at 03/21/2007 @ 2:29pm

  87. Bill Sanford-If you can't remember the conversation then you say-"I don't remember".You gave excuses for what Libby did.Libby is not you or me.He is a highly skilled and highly successful lawyer.Your side wants to, conveniently, forget that fact.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 2:37pm

  88. HMAN23 - Thanks, but I believe this takes us back to the beginning of this debate; I went to your url, as you kindly provided. it goes to the "House Judiciary Report of the Democratic Minority" headed by Cong. John Conyers. (Apologies if I get the title a little off, as I have other things going on at this moment) This report is a series of "he said, she said" accusations, written up by the Democratic minority (at the time) and Intended to be partisan. And, Congressman Conyers is well know as a partisan Democrat. So again, just having a bunch of Democrats write up what they interpret as laws broken does not settle it - Indeed the sampling that I had time to read was pretty easy to rebutt; It was all Cindy Sheehan type stuff. You're going to have to try harder, HMAN23. And again(#2) I would love to have these charges brought up in an impeachment effort...

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 2:44pm

  89. JohnPowell-Saying that Americans have to say that bush took us to war to fight our enemies is very much against what America stands for.If you think the name calling is one sided then please work on your reading comprehension skills as well as you English speaking skills.There are only 30% who support the war in Iraq so it isn't just "liberals" who are against this thing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 2:45pm

  90. JohnPowell-Saying that Americans have to say that bush took us to war to fight our enemies is very much against what America stands for.If you think the name calling is one sided then please work on your reading comprehension skills as well as you English speaking skills.There are only 30% who support the war in Iraq so it isn't just "liberals" who are against this thing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 2:45pm

  91. JohnPowell-Saying that Americans have to say that bush took us to war to fight our enemies is very much against what America stands for.If you think the name calling is one sided then please work on your reading comprehension skills as well as you English speaking skills.There are only 30% who support the war in Iraq so it isn't just "liberals" who are against this thing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 2:46pm

  92. JohnPowell-Saying that Americans have to say that bush took us to war to fight our enemies is very much against what America stands for.If you think the name calling is one sided then please work on your reading comprehension skills as well as you English speaking skills.There are only 30% who support the war in Iraq so it isn't just "liberals" who are against this thing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 2:47pm

  93. JohnPowell-Saying that Americans have to say that bush took us to war to fight our enemies is very much against what America stands for.If you think the name calling is one sided then please work on your reading comprehension skills as well as you English speaking skills.There are only 30% who support the war in Iraq so it isn't just "liberals" who are against this thing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 2:47pm

  94. Wow, what a surprise. It took nearly 6 1/2 years for Democrats and the Left to begin seriously lobbying for impeachment of the Republican President. You folks need to get over your animosity at the Clinton impeachment. He lied under oath, folks. That is against the law. That is why he was impeached, and why he lost his license to practice law. Remeber?

    Posted by rcmc at 03/21/2007 @ 2:51pm

  95. Very very interesting. Scroll.

    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002809.php

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/21/2007 @ 2:54pm

  96. You're going to have to try harder, HMAN23.

    Posted by BILL SANFORD 03/21/2007 @ 2:44pm

    As hard as you . . . noting that it came from a Democrat and is no more than "he said, she said?"

    Nice rebuttal, but you asked for LAWS and I gave you laws.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 2:58pm

  97. Conservtives believe in holding accountable the decisions of our leadership.

    Posted by JOHN POWELL 03/21/2007 @ 2:29pm

    Like when?

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 2:59pm

  98. Hard to believe that this -

    "reduce the name calling and vitriol, and engage with some reason and supportable facts."

    was in the same post as this -

    "Most Libs choose to lose. Most conservatives chose to win. I and many others would rather be winners than losers."

    Powell, were you captain of your High School Debate Team? Because THAT is one HELL of a persuasive line of reasoning.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 3:06pm

  99. Hmmm...OK, let's see if we can figure out the argumnet here. President Clinton fired ALL 93 US Attorneys, while President Bush fired eight of 'em. President Clinton was impeached and President Bush should be also because...Why was that again?

    Posted by rcmc at 03/21/2007 @ 3:06pm

  100. Let's take a look at BUBBLE BOY POWELL's first three or so sentences:

    Thx lvliberty1 for your recognition

    Since you are new here, BUBBLE BOY: LVLIBERTY1 is the resident Rapturist, lunacy that is puncuated with occasional bouts of auto-stimulation over the "great American hero" (his words) Joseph McCarthy. He is committed Stalinist in, for instance, his insistence that even science be subordinated to the Maximum Leader's ideology as it demonstrably has in part been since 2001.

    LVLIBERTY1 also threatened to kill me one time for insulting him via a family member. That was wrong of me and I apologized promptly -- and, to his credit, he accepted. It was, nonetheless, very revealing how quickly LVLIBERTY1 got the diaper on his head and started howling out his fatwah, imagining himself doling out punishments absurdly in excess of the original offence.

    In reality, the viagra-popping old fart LVLIBERTY1 is as threatening as Ronald Reagan just before (or perhaps just after) he croaked. But my question is: Is that how you conserTraitors express yourselves, BUBBLE BOY? Is that how you try to settle disagreements?

    In any case, some "distinguished" "friends" that you are making here.

    Attributing criminal behavior to the actions of our current executive branch goes beyond dissent and most definitely into the realm of traitorous activity.

    OK.

    So are we to understand that you will be petitioning local law enforcement to prosecute Patrick Fitgerald for treason? And if not -- why not? Please explain ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 3:12pm

  101. Some of you might also want to check out the column by Dick Morris entitled, "The Phoniest Scandal of the Century (So Far)," at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/the_phoniest_scandal_o f_the_ce.html, in which he makes the case that the US Attorney firings were completely justified, despite the refusal of the administration to make such a case coherently.

    Posted by rcmc at 03/21/2007 @ 3:14pm

  102. HMAN23, with all due respect, the url referred to some "laws" like the "1973 War Powers Act", but that does not exactly come close to presenting a case for breaking such. It's like having a highway speed law, and prosecuting someone for walking to fast down the aisle at work... There's a law, and there is an action that I don't agree with, and they both concern speed... But no broken law. Bush did things. You may not agree with them (Conyers goes back to the Vietnam days, when he was a war protestor). But to jump to a conclusion that Bush broke laws, well, it's quite a leap of logic... Again, the 2008 election is going to be a tough one (for all of us), so please help us Republicans out and get Kucinich/Conyers/Pelosi to go for impeachment. :-) Thanks.

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 3:16pm

  103. Thx lvliberty1 for your recognition of the people dominating this site. Attributing criminal behavior to the actions of our current executive branch goes beyond dissent and most definitely into the realm of traitorous activity. See hman23's post and actually bother to read Conyer's proposed articles that state that potentially 26 different laws have been broken. If you don't bother to read it, you have no further credibility here, if ever you had any.

    We can discuss the mistakes of Bush all day, but to accuse him and/or the Republican leadership of purposely planning 9/11; Take the time to read this with a thought toward objectivity instead of knee-jerk reactionism: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin

    of taking the US to war on the basis of greed; of revenge; of anything other than a true desire to destroy our enemies, is where i and millions of others get off of the liberal "Dissent-even-if-it-kills-us" bus. Perhaps if you educated yourself on matters above you'd be more apt to believe that the people you've placed so much trust in are actually as evil as some say they are. However, until you've educated yourself, your criticisms and not-so-veiled threats (traitors) have no powers here.

    I was particularly impressed with all of the name calling. It was refreshing to have so many of you remind me why i oppose the liberal worldview so vehemently. Was it name-calling or an attempt to label you? (see traitor statement of yours above).

    Conservtives believe in holding accountable the decisions of our leadership. We just believe that it should be done in the same spirit as we hold family members accountable... And God help the poor unfortunate soul that messes with my family member. You don't speak for all conservatives. (Delusions of grandeur?) This isn't about conservative/liberal. It's about power. I despise Pelosi for not wanting to investigate and hold this administration accountable. She has sacrificed her principles for power.

    Bush is alot of things but he is not a criminal. That would be your uneducated and biased opinion. Rightly or wrongly, we are at war. You see, that's why you're part of the problem. Principled, moral people do not just waive off the fact that we illegally and immorally invaded and destroyed a sovereign country based on manipulated evidence. We with consciences and Christian values attempt to set things to rights - not continue the slaughter and sacrifice, not only of the Iraqi people, but ours. The only way OUT is to win or lose (there is no such thing as withdraw). Your blinders and partisanship don't allow you to realize that we lost long ago. The only question now is when - not if - we extricate ourselves from a lost cause. You think that because the U.S. is 'the greatest country on earth' that we can't be morally wrong or that we could suffer defeat? Wake up. A 10-year-old knows defeat when they see it. Most Libs choose to lose. Most conservatives chose to win. I and many others would rather be winners than losers. Honostly, help me understand why your preoccupation with losing??? Your childish lack of realism is hardly worth responding to, but I will. Bush, et. al. chose to lose when they illegally invaded and destroyed a country with no plan for reconstruction. If victory had been an option, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would have listened to his generals at the time that insisted on a force triple the size that was sent, and were fired for doing so. This war was meant to be decades-long. We're in it for the regional hegemony, not to 'win'.

    To the comparatively reasoned individual who said that my belief in God and Country and my belief in truely supporting our leadership made me a very small monority - I suggest that you don't equate the general dissastisfaction with Bush's conduct of the war with a general dissatisfaction with a conservative worldview... Not the same thing. Many of us believe in God and country - we're just more educated and grounded in reality than you. What you describe as a conservative worldview is, in reality, anything but. Go read about true conservatism and its values. You won't see parallels between it and your views.

    There were enough of us to vote Bush into the Whitehouse twice. This administration was able to make enough people fearful, by manipulation (I'll refer you to your next comment and go so far as to say that you were easily manipulated), in order to get the vote close. The rest of the work was done by sheer theft. Say what you will about the wisdom of the American electorate but don't let this fact escape you: Not only has there been no attack on us since 9/11, other potential and current enemies are thinking twice before they attack again. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a successful attack on 9/11 if our government hadn't helped it happen? Your argument holds no water.

    I do agree that saying i would support impeaching a liberal president was out of line. I wouldn't really unless that President was convicted of criminal behavior by a true court. My point was to say that this impeachment thing will get out of control if lib congressmen were actually successful in conducting an impeachment of the President. If that happened, do any of you really think that impeachment won't be the weapon of choice from now on and used adnauseum by congressmen from the opposing party? Impeachment is done by courts. According to the Constitution, it's a political process in which the House of Representatives impeaches (brings charges) and the Senate conducts the trial (decides guilt or innocence and pronounces sentence). Courts aren't involved. Again, educate yourself.

    Somebody out there take me for face value, give me the benefit of the doubt that i am as much in love with our Constitution as you claim to be, reduce the name calling and vitriol, and engage with some reason and supportable facts. Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the impeachment process, I have to presume you don't love the Constitution enough to read it. Your statements are completely subjective and emotional with no supporting facts or references, yet you won't bother to objectively read our supporting material. How do you expect to be taken seriously.? Calling Bush a criminal and conservatives Nazis is not supportable. Name-calling is never productive, but if someone has committed crimes, they're a criminal. It's really inescapable.

    Statement: Impeachment outside of a US Court Conviction is a dangerous slippery slope that will ruin our country's executive branch, ensuring that it is no longer a viable and useful part of our government. Perhaps it needs to be ruined and rebuilt?

    Now, can a liberal engage this statement without pulling out his/hers guttermouth? I don't believe I used any offensive language.

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/21/2007 @ 3:19pm

  104. Posted by RCMC 03/21/2007 @ 3:14pm

    To state the obvious ... Morris' credibility is zilch. He is an embittered hack suitable for Brezhnev-era PRAVDA who can't keep his dick out of places where it should not be lodged. Typical conservaLoser, in other words, wholly alien to logic and Truth, emitting gusts of smelly noise to cover over his laughable personal failings. Period.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 3:23pm

  105. Hmmm ... RCMC ...

    You should "figure out" the facts before tackling the arguments . . . Similar to Clinton in 1993, Bush replaced nearly all of the USAs in 2001.

    The 8 USAs fired are unique in that they have come mid-term.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 3:30pm

  106. Sorry. There was a typo in my post. "Impeachment is done by courts." should have read "Impeachment isn't done by courts." Though, in a way, it was accurate. Congress does serve as the court since, in 1973, the Justice Dept found that the President is immune from prosecution by the courts and that only Congress has the power to impeach (charge, try and convict) a sitting executive. So Powell's misguided thoughts on impeaching only after a court conviction would present a paradox. We don't allow for paradox's here.

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/21/2007 @ 3:37pm

  107. Posted by BILL SANFORD 03/21/2007 @ 3:16pm

    Like I said, you asked for laws, I provided them. Impeachment is a political process - not requiring a violation of the U.S. Code - there are several to choose from (26) - some may be more persuasive than others.

    For my money, Conspiracy to Defraud the U.S. (section 371) is the best. Followed by the laws governing torture and unlawful sruveillance.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 3:38pm

  108. The 8 USAs fired are unique in that they have come mid-term.

    Posted by HMAN23 03/21/2007 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person

    The fact that the U.S. attorneys were fired in mid-term is not even the issue at hand. The real issue is if they (and some previously-fired justices - see Guam) were fired in an attempt to quash investigations of Republican power brokers/officials or because they refused to go on witch hunts after Democrats. Why does nobody seem to want to get to the criminal implications of this? The MSM wants to spin this as purely political, but there were potentially illegal acts committed - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/21/2007 @ 3:41pm

  109. Posted by JLSOLLEY 03/21/2007 @ 3:41pm

    Understood - my point was concerned with the timing.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 3:42pm

  110. LOL - HMAN23; Can we use our parking violation laws, too? Being human, I am sure the bushies have a few of those... In our justice system, anyone can bring charges against anyone. To make it "right" there needs to be some sort of "close fit". That is what needs to be proven in this discussion. Seriously, I would welcome an impeachment process; The above comments do accurately describe what that is. I believe the resulting outcome would be beneficial to the Republican party. It would clear away all the innuendos, accusations, and (in my view) hate politics, and then very VERY visibly get to the facts of any charges. Beautiful! Thanks.

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 3:49pm

  111. YAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN....

    You libs crack me up.

    Yeah, George Bush is the focus of evil in the modern world. And, Denny K is another Abe Lincoln.

    Where's Rod Serling when you need him? Have fun waiting on impeachment Johnny Boy.

    Posted by jaywalkingtx at 03/21/2007 @ 3:50pm

  112. but linking Bush to genocidal dictators (with NO term limits), doesn't seem realistic and DOWN-plays the crimes of people like Mugabe.

    Posted by MASK 03/21/2007 @ 1:04pm

    MASK,

    Methinks that you are (uncharacteristically) understating the depravities that have been enacted under Bush's signature since you appear to be bracketting off the impact of the ongoing Vanity Invasion. From your long record of previous posts, it is clear that you are well aware of the inferno unleashed there under the pampered metrosexual prep-school Cheerleader's command.

    As for Mugabe and his coterie of sickly goons, there are few rivals for the magnitude of their parasitical and despicable attack on their own nation. The Mugabe regime cannot be obliterated quickly enough and our hearts must go out to the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe. The facts speak for themselves.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 3:53pm

  113. LOL - HMAN23; Can we use our parking violation laws, too? Being human, I am sure the bushies have a few of those... In our justice system, anyone can bring charges against anyone. To make it "right" there needs to be some sort of "close fit". That is what needs to be proven in this discussion. Seriously, I would welcome an impeachment process; The above comments do accurately describe what that is. I believe the resulting outcome would be beneficial to the Republican party. It would clear away all the innuendos, accusations, and (in my view) hate politics, and then very VERY visibly get to the facts of any charges. Beautiful! Thanks.

    Be very careful what you wish for. You (and the admin) seem to want to spin the the administration's inadequate responses to the justice firings as purely an inability to communicate well. Please. The responses are contradictory and evasive because they haven't been able to concoct a plausible defense of their illegal actions. Otherwise, why wouldn't they voluntarily testify under oath? Why do they want "private interviews" with no notes or transcripts taken? They're scared shitless. Only people with something to hide run and hide. This business about "we couldn't do our jobs if we had to tell everybody what we were doing" is farce. It's time to bring these slinking slimeballs out into the light of day and expose them for what they are. You can play games with your positions all day, but you're scared for them, too. Go ahead and whistle past the graveyard.

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/21/2007 @ 3:56pm

  114. Perhaps I should be the one laughing. Are you putting a parking ticket on the same footing as conspiracy to defraud the U.S, false statements to congress; federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other government employees; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; communications privacy laws; and the Fourth Amendment?

    "But if you should have something that actually sheds light on some form of law-breaking, share it. Again, there has to be a law - that is spelled l - a - w."

    You wrote that, right?

    You could not have read the Report too closely because all you give it is the back of your hand. This Report is not the only source that spells it out either. But, you would give that the same treatment, so forget it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 3:58pm

  115. Kucinich and Nichols are absolutely correct on this point: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Gonzales and many more in this Administration have demonstrated conduct that deserves and requires impeachment. Of course, Rumsefeld deserved impeachment, and is no longer there, but he can still be prosecuted (though Bush will probably pardon him unless handled in the proper chronology). Thus, first they need to impeach Cheney, then Bush, then the rest of the Bushies and former Bushies. Then prosecute the whole bunch of them for all of their crimes. The should be incarcerted at Gitmo. Or better yet, let's build a prison in Iraq, staffed by those persons who hate Americans the most after what Bush and friends have done including a bunch of Iranians. We will not need to worry about their habeas corpus motions as they will be outside the U.S. jurisdiction and there exists no such authority any more. Then we will change the law back to allow habeas corpus except Iraq prisons that hold former members of the Bush's administration. Let's hope they try to escape too....

    Posted by KLG at 03/21/2007 @ 4:00pm

  116. I thought the X-Files had been cancelled; obiviously not.

    Posted by reverett at 03/21/2007 @ 4:03pm

  117. SEŃOR CERO,

    Tienes razon, cien por ciento, o más.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 4:04pm

  118. JLSOLLEY - Last I recall, the Marshals serve at the pleasure of the President. That is the law. Bottom line is, that's the end of the story. You may not like it, but try living in the real world, not fantasy land.

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 4:07pm

  119. ConservaKooks, step away from your incestous amorous encounters and/or put down your discount pornography literature for a moment and answer the $64,000 question:

    If, on top all of its other accomplishments that have been skillfully outlined by my colleagues above, the pampered metrosexual Cheerleader were to have his semi-soft weenie fellated by an intern eager to sink to her knees ... would you then support impeachment as a matter of defending the future of the Republic (James Sensenbrenner's words, 1999)?

    Now, let's get ready for some real belly laffs as the rightwing incest set untangles that conundrum ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 4:12pm

  120. HMAN23 - John Conyers has been around a long time. If you choose to base you understanding of what is the law, and what is not, on his committee report, please go ahead. Also understand that a reasonable person can do the same, only on other elected persons findings... Again, it's a "he said, she said" in this case.

    It's funny, but I've been blogging a long time... I can recall back in the beginning of bush's admin having a dialoge with a liberal who was convinced, absolutely convinced, that Bush would declare marshal law and take over the country by 2003. And of course he made his statements with complete certainty, and a lot of four-letter words. Lots of other liberal bloggers echoed the same... Those hate sentiments were wrong then, and they are just as wrong now. Think about it.

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 4:15pm

  121. COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM - A PRIMER

    London Guardian: "Two dollars bought mugger 17 years in jail"

    19 March 2007

    A man who was given a life sentence when he tested positive for marijuana in violation of his parole has been freed after serving 17 years in prison.

    Tyrone Brown was 17 when he and a friend pulled a gun on a man in Dallas and demanded his wallet. They took $2 and gave the wallet back. The pair were soon caught and Brown was sentenced to 10 years' probation. When he tested positive for marijuana the same year the judge, Keith Dean, changed the original sentence to life in prison, commenting: "Good luck, Mr Brown." The court-appointed defence lawyer failed to object.

    The jailing of Brown, who is African-American, became notorious after it emerged how lenient the same judge was with a well-connected white man who was given probation for murder. The man repeatedly breached probation, including by using cocaine, but Dean sent him to a private treatment centre rather than jail and gave him "postcard" probation whereby he wrote to the court once a year.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 03/21/2007 @ 4:18pm

  122. JLSOLLEY - Last I recall, the Marshals serve at the pleasure of the President. That is the law. Bottom line is, that's the end of the story. You may not like it, but try living in the real world, not fantasy land.

    Posted by BILL SANFORD 03/21/2007 @ 4:07pm | ignore this person

    Sorry, but you're the one that is apparently uneducated and living in a brainwashed fantasy land. They are appointed and removed by the President. Until the revision to the Patriot act, their replacements required approval of the Senate (which revision is now in the process of being reversed). The unfortunate part of this argument, for you, is that neither the President nor his subordinates may obstruct justice, by whatever means, including removal of the prosecutor. If it is found that the justices were removed because they were prosecuting criminal acts committed by administration cronies and were replaced by administration cronies that were instructed to drop those investigations/prosecutions, that would be illegal. No, the story does not drop at the mere fact that the President appoints justices. Sorry. Please come back to earth. Quit listening to Bill O'Reilly's spin.

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/21/2007 @ 4:20pm

  123. And RCMC, since you brought up Clinton in 1993, do you recall what Republicans were saying about THAT back then?

    Texas Rep. Dick Armey: "[Janet Reno] fired all the U.S. attorneys in a very political fashion . . . one that reeks of politics, undermining the public's confidence in the Department of Justice." Robert Dole asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate.

    Bob Dole issued a statement criticizing the "March Massacre" and compared the actions to those of President Nixon during Watergate.

    Orrin Hatch: "[the firings were a] severe blow to the administration of justice in this country."

    Rush Limbaugh: "Why, that's an obstruction of justice.' And this may end up being the same thing. … But it is suspicious; very suspicious looking. The appearance of impropriety … I think we have it here. I think we have a pretty huge appearance of impropriety, and I just want to call your attention to it."

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 4:26pm

  124. Posted by BILL SANFORD 03/21/2007 @ 4:15pm

    What does that have to do with our discussion??? Do you want me to equate your postion with LOONEYLIBERALS or one of the other obnoxious righty posters here?

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/21/2007 @ 4:29pm

  125. HMAN23 - John Conyers has been around a long time. If you choose to base you understanding of what is the law, and what is not, on his committee report, please go ahead. Also understand that a reasonable person can do the same, only on other elected persons findings... Again, it's a "he said, she said" in this case.

    It's funny, but I've been blogging a long time... I can recall back in the beginning of bush's admin having a dialoge with a liberal who was convinced, absolutely convinced, that Bush would declare marshal law and take over the country by 2003. And of course he made his statements with complete certainty, and a lot of four-letter words. Lots of other liberal bloggers echoed the same... Those hate sentiments were wrong then, and they are just as wrong now. Think about it.

    Posted by BILL SANFORD 03/21/2007 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person

    We've all been bloggin a long time. Many of us have done extensive research to arrive at the positions we've taken. After research, some predict possible outcomes and do everything we can to prevent disastrous ones. Sometimes we succeed. Unfortunately, those of us who said that Bush et. al. were lying and manipulating intelligence, torturing detainees, illegally collecting intelligence on U.S. citizens, etc. weren't able to convince the less-than-informed. Only now, when most of the defend-the-POTUS-and-his-party lemmings have been shoved off the cliff are our voices being heard and investigations begun. We have an opportunity to reverse disastrous decisions and policies that have taken this Republic to the brink of destruction. You and your spin-brothers can swim against the tide for as long as you'd like, but you will eventually be swept away. Though our window of opportunity may be short, we are determined to bring this country back from the precipice. Your arguments are hollow and baseless. Take your defeat like a man, join hands with the 70% of America that disagrees with you, and help us to rebuild.

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/21/2007 @ 4:32pm

  126. Posted by GLENN LEMON 03/21/2007 @ 3:53pm

    GLENN, specifics. What has Bush done that is "equivalent" to Robert Mugabe?

    (can of worms alert!)

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 4:38pm

  127. Dear Dave Barlett and looneylefties,

    I agree with you. Of course we need to talk about lunatic asylum, traitors and kooks when it comes to Dennis Kucinich. Damn, he does not even have the Israeli password! He is against violence. If this is not enough he is vegan!

    I know that gawd already blessed you, so I skip that too.

    Posted by J.Hus at 03/21/2007 @ 4:45pm

  128. So, let me understand this. You want to launch a "pre-emptive" impeachmnet against the president because you have "intelligence" that says he's planning on attacking Iran?

    Posted by rcglad at 03/21/2007 @ 5:01pm

  129. I don't know about impeachment now that the hsuB new Iraq surge strategy is changing everyones opinion about his war skills....

    Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 14-15, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    ". . . Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

    Date__________Approve___Disapprove___Unsure

    3/14-15/07________27________69__________4

    2/28 - 3/1/07______27________67__________6

    1/17-18/07________24________70__________6

    What a loser. What historic losses for our nation.

    If the dem congress impeach hsuB/heney, congress will be know for more than removing a shady dimly lit low watt light from a high wattage socket, but for renderring a timely service to our great masses needing the inspiration and hope required of a fully lit bulb. In order to navigate a future full of pit falls, not self inflicted due to darkness, we need a real executive with the right skill set, honesty, courage, to work within the laws that bind our nation and us together.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/21/2007 @ 5:15pm

  130. Ahh, JLSOLLEY: See you in 2008. I am going to check my 401K (doing fine), go home (doing fine), and look at the big picture of the world (haven't been attacked lately). I don't see any precipice down the road. I do see Social Security as a problem, but if we insist on chasing pseudo problems, we won't get around to tackling it.

    Extensive Research? Ya better keep on trying... I don't see evidence of it. You make a lot of accusations, but no substantiation. Republic on the Brink? LOL! I don't have time to explore that one with you. I recall the Cuban Missile crises clearly - 10/22/1962 - that was a brink! Vietnam? been there done that one. Russian madd? Lived thru those years. Whatever you think is "the Brink" nowadays is actually pretty tame. Our best bet for handling problems is to avoid hate-politics, and focus on real facts - not invented ones.

    So have a good one - good night.

    Posted by Bill Sanford at 03/21/2007 @ 5:17pm

  131. Jrolf,

    Sorry about my response time. Of course, you are right in that impeachment is a political process rather than an enumerated right. However, I think from a POLITICAL standpoint Pelosi has indeed overstepped her authority by taking impeachment "off the table".

    Because in so doing, she has made it political suicide for committee's and sub-committee's to start investigations and hearings of the crimes of the administration. As to hold hearings on things that literally (in some cases) transpired years ago when impeachment is "off the table", regardless of the evidence uncovered would indeed be a partisan waste of congressional resources.

    Pelosi's act is not criminal as she could indeed "change her mind", however, her act is very political and is designed to maintain Democratic Party control at the expense of excercising the powers granted in the Constitution.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2007 @ 5:17pm

  132. Pelosi saying impeachment is off the table-- does in no way give hsuB immunity-- this not a 'wash. surviver' episode. Any wrong doing, by hsuB/heney/ove,congressional oversight discovers-- very easily puts impeachment right back on the table.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/21/2007 @ 5:31pm

  133. Hsub,

    Tell that to Nancy.

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/21/2007 @ 5:34pm

  134. Congressional oversight does not need a crime for it to function. It is ongoing, never ceasing to question whether it should probe, it does, and as it should be. Impeachment need not be on the table for investigations/oversight to take place. It's oversight, overseeing what the exec does, did, should do. Passes laws, impeaches if they're broken or ignored... And yes, obstruction of justice, is a biggy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/21/2007 @ 5:40pm

  135. Ahh, JLSOLLEY: See you in 2008. I am going to check my 401K (doing fine), go home (doing fine), and look at the big picture of the world (haven't been attacked lately). I don't see any precipice down the road. I do see Social Security as a problem, but if we insist on chasing pseudo problems, we won't get around to tackling it.

    Extensive Research? Ya better keep on trying... I don't see evidence of it. You make a lot of accusations, but no substantiation. Republic on the Brink? LOL! I don't have time to explore that one with you. I recall the Cuban Missile crises clearly - 10/22/1962 - that was a brink! Vietnam? been there done that one. Russian madd? Lived thru those years. Whatever you think is "the Brink" nowadays is actually pretty tame. Our best bet for handling problems is to avoid hate-politics, and focus on real facts - not invented ones.

    So have a good one - good night.

    Posted by BILL SANFORD 03/21/2007 @ 5:17pm | ignore this person

    You haven't been attacked lately because your govt hasn't decided it was expedient to allow someone to attack us. Your 401(k) provides no solace to the 16 million Americans living in severe or deep poverty (a 32-year high, defined by a family of four living on less than $10k/year or an individual making $5080/year), the 46.6 million people without health insurance in this country, the 4.5 million gay people in this country that don't enjoy the simple rights and respect that they should be entitled to, the hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis that are dead because the administration you so vehemently defend decided to take over the Middle East for its oil and to line its cronies' pockets, our children and grandchildren who will pay the cost for the disastrous policies of this administration, or the rest of the world, which is fed up with this administration and its party, its policies, its threats and imperialism. Are you telling me that these people and facts aren't researched or aren't real? Or do they just not exist in your fantasy world where everything's hunky dory?

    It may be easy for you to retreat to your comfy home and watch American Idol or NFL football and swill your beer and crunch your corn nuts and not think of any of these people in your 'big picture of the world'. For those of us who attempt to live by the principles that Jesus Christ taught us, they are impossible to ignore. We fight for them.

    God have mercy on your soul.

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/21/2007 @ 5:47pm

  136. It won't be just me telling Pelosi to put impeachment on the table, it'll be the chairs of the committees and the overwhelming evidence that rears it's ugly head saying 'I dare you' to cut me off. Which will be answerred with a "sure, if that is what you wish", lob. Nothing better than a criminal getting up in your face daring you to pull the trigger while he's standing over his crime, the gutted constitution at his feet, with the weapon in hand . " Look at me Paw, on top of the world..." BAM.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/21/2007 @ 5:53pm

  137. Just saying 'impeachment is off the table' has gotten dems cart blanche to oversight/investigate. Everyone has got to understand the dem's 'grown up' strategy of 'having to' impeach hsuB because of the 'overwhelming evidence' per just doing their duty of oversight -- and not because dems simply HATE HSUB. That was the BIG error of the repubs push to impeach Bill. Now take what happened to Nixon and why. Biggest landslide pres victory just happened, but because of the overwhelming evidence-- that changed very quickly... Now look at hsuB, his numbers and his hiding from oversight. Same difference. Only because hsuB doesn't have anywhere close to the poll numbers Nixon had, the impeachment will be viewed by the masses as a relief and no burden. Faux noose will commit hairy Kerry.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/21/2007 @ 6:12pm

  138. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed...Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united- and they can only be united against other people.

    Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right- the right of the superior to rule over the inferior... The people are told what they need to know and no more."

    Leo Strauss (philosophical father of the Neo-clown chessmasters determined to rule the globe)

    There is far too much discontinuity of understanding between the idol and idolaters; the minions of Bush remain impressive in their ignorance of the ideological actions and goals of this gang of radicalized sociopaths. It might be prudent for these 30%ers to self-educate or familiarize themselves with the published writings of these policy planners who designed this ongoing tragedy. Is there no intellectual curiosity among those willing to so boldly sacrifice their fellow Americans in this bloody epic?

    "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic event- like a new Pearl Harbor.

    From an American perspective, the value of such bases [in Iraq] would endure even should Saddam Hussein pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should US-Iranian interests improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in US security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."

    -Project for a New American Century (PNAC), "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century," 2000

    I don't recall this language being used as the pretext for war in Iraq; mushroom cloud images and phony links between Hussein and Bin Laden and other McFacts were perceived to the safest and most easily digested dish served to the masses, apparently.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/21/2007 @ 6:12pm

  139. Of course Nancy Pelosi won't attempt impeachment of Bush/Cheney alone. This would effectively make her the next President and her motives would be obviously questioned. Now this grass-roots thing....If that gets enough steam it might force the issue.

    Posted by Dan McGrew at 03/21/2007 @ 6:40pm

  140. "Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power."

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/21/2007 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/21/2007 @ 6:43pm

  141. LvLiberty-You forgot,again,that when it comes to the Iraq war it isn't just leftists you're referring to.Remembering that would give your views more credibility.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/21/2007 @ 7:15pm

  142. Personally, I think it's time for us to start talking about the lunatic asylum for congressman Dennis Kucinich... I wish I were joking, but I'm dead serious.

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 03/20/2007 @ 10:20pm

    You don't think, if it weren't for family and connections, George W. Bush wouldn't be sitting in a ward in a place like Bellevue right now, incessantly whining, "You can't do this to me! I'm the Commissioner of Baseball"???

    Posted by w_m_bear at 03/21/2007 @ 8:03pm

  143. No Oaths For His Petulance

    War Mouth I is attempting to hide behind the doctrine of executive privilege, an extra-Constitutional notion of historically dubious merits to the courts. Constitutionally challenged, the best His Pugnacity can do is spew an ill-drawn platitude about the separation of powers.

    See the Petulant Infant, the Puer Aeternus, salivating contempt for the People who would question his pet Dobermans Rove and Miers.

    See Peter Pan turn Chucky as his narcissistic sense of entitlement is punctured by the inquiring minds of Congress whose responsibility is to find out and to represent us -- the People for whom War Mouth drools contempt.

    See Congress question, under oath and on the record, the ethics and practices of the Attorney General, the head of the United States Department of Justice concerned with legal affairs.

    Boys and girls, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States Government is not above the law.

    Fellow citizens, as I indicated in my post last night, I saw the video of the speech, just like you did. Those facial antics are reminiscent of the wincing histrionics of OJ Simpson. I now think exactly what I thought then: He's lying through his teeth. For my part --to represent my interests as an American -- those flaccidities in Congress must, a long last, get it on and do their job.

    Posted by Ticia at 03/21/2007 @ 8:19pm

  144. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/21/2007 @ 8:13pm

    Which means LL, if you do the math...that like 90+ percent of EVERYONE ELSE who is not a Republican (plus all the GOP "non-believers") believe otherwise.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/21/2007 @ 8:28pm

  145. LV "liberty"

    When I read your rants, I can't help but wonder what the hell you were huffing as a child. Do you even have a clue?

    Open your eyes man! How far are you willing to go in support of "your party"? What about America? What about the Constitution? What about the rule of law?

    If you can't see how this idiot president of ours (yes, I can call him whatever I want since I help pay his salary) has absolutely destroyed our country, please jump in front of the nearest bus.

    But alas, in your mind I am merely some "librul" because I strongly protest the violation of my civil liberties, the wrecking of our reputation in the world, the plundering of our treasury, the perverting of his supposed religion, etc, etc, etc.

    Won't you please explain to me what it is you stand for and what you think conservative means.

    Posted by IndyMinded at 03/21/2007 @ 8:55pm

  146. The facts are much different.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/21/2007 @ 8:13pm

    Lotta talk about Republicans, LL....but explain, in DETAIL, what you think the general public percentages are and what they "want" about Iraq.

    Posted by Mask at 03/21/2007 @ 9:06pm

  147. As indicated correctly by the President in his address to the nation on 3/17/03, Saddam was in Material Breach both technically and in the spirit of international law. Any nation who was party to the cease fire negotiated with Saddam is a party to the Material Breach formally acknowledged by UN Resolution 1441. Even without that resolution under international law, the US, the UK, and Kuwait specifically are entitled to resume hostilities with Iraq and force compliance to the UN resolutions 678 and 687.

    But as you conveniently leave out, clause 14 of 1441 explicitly stated that the Security Council "Decide[ed] to remain seized of the matter." That meant that it was up to the Security Council to decide whether or not to give member nations permission to go forward. Indeed, the only reason the "Coalition of the Willing" went forward unilaterally was that they weren't going to get that permission. Further, since 1441 was a follow-up to the cease-fire covered under 678 and 687, their enforcement also remains under the auspices of the Security Council.

    Note the distinction SCOTUS made on warrant vs warrantless searches in Veronica School District v Acton

    That's a red herring, since the issue isn't the Fourth Amendment but the FISA statute.

    look at the big picture of the world (haven't been attacked lately).

    You haven't been attacked lately because your govt hasn't decided it was expedient to allow someone to attack us.

    POWELL, we hadn't been attacked in the 8 years prior to 9/11 either. Certainly the attack on Afghanistan has disrupted al-Qaida but neither the attack on Iraq nor any prospective attack on Iran will do so. SOLLEY, we already have our quota of conspiracy-mongers on this site, thank you.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/21/2007 @ 9:14pm

  148. "POWELL, we hadn't been attacked in the 8 years prior to 9/11 either. Certainly the attack on Afghanistan has disrupted al-Qaida but neither the attack on Iraq nor any prospective attack on Iran will do so. SOLLEY, we already have our quota of conspiracy-mongers on this site, thank you."

    Posted by BRUNOWE 03/21/2007 @ 9:14pm

    Correction, yes we have. The first WTC bombing in 1993, the USS Cole in 1999, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Kobar Tower bombing in 1996. Now, last time I checked any attack on our interests or territories is the same as being attacked on the mainland.

    Posted by ACook at 03/21/2007 @ 10:12pm

  149. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/21/2007 @ 8:13pm

    Just posted this over at Rothberg's "Students Against the War" thread...figured I'd put it here too.

    As I just noted on Nichols Kucinich thread, the 70% anti-war polling figure is very misleading. Bush still enjoys the support of nearly 3 out of 4 Republicans.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/21/2007 @ 8:23pm

    OK...simple math lesson. LVLIBERTY states that 3/4 of Republicans still (for reasons unknown and unfathomable) support Bush's Iraq policy. Let us assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the US population consists of roughly 40% Republican; 40% Democrat; 20% Independent/Other. If 3/4 Republicans support the war; damn near 0 Democrats support the war; and (I'm being generous here) 1/4 Independents/Others support the war...that puts the level of support for the war at precisely 35%; the level of anti-war at 65%. Damn close to 70%.

    The fact that 3/4 Republicans support Bush's war is meaningless. The fact that virtually nobody in the WORLD outside of these 3/4 US Republicans supports the war speaks volumes!

    Posted by liveeasy at 03/21/2007 @ 10:17pm

  150. look at the big picture of the world (haven't been attacked lately).

    Correction, yes we have. The first WTC bombing in 1993, the USS Cole in 1999, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Kobar Tower bombing in 1996. Now, last time I checked any attack on our interests or territories is the same as being attacked on the mainland.

    Well then so would all those attacks on our forces in Iraq. Since he said that we hadn't been attacked lately, he is either not counting those (in which case he disagrees with your equivalency argument) or he meant attacked on the mainland.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/21/2007 @ 10:45pm

  151. Now, ahem, about them laws being broken by the prez... ? Posted by BILL SANFORD 03/21/2007 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

    Here's a good one.

    Illegal Domestic Spying, which he confessed to having committed.

    "In violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [50 U.S.C. Chapter 36], George Walker Bush did clandestinely direct the National Security Agency and various other intelligence agencies, in secret and outside the lawful scope of their mandates, for purposes unrelated to any lawful function of his offices, to conduct electronic surveillance of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant, thereby subverting the powers of the Congress and the Judiciary by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal (ACLU vs. NSA); he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit as on April 20, 2004, when he told an audience in Buffalo, New York: `any time you hear the United States Government talking about wiretap, it requires . . . a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so', whereby said George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

    In all of this, George Walker Bush has repeatedly and unapologetically misled the American people and has sought to undermine the system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, and in the interest of saving our Constitution and our democracy from the threat of arbitrary government, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

    He should be impeached for just having said this....

    "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000 George Bush

    itmfa....

    Posted by COProgressive at 03/22/2007 @ 12:30am

  152. We really admire this down-home guy from the Flats of Cleveland, and can hardly wait to see if we can meet him at Pickle Bills. Go get 'em Dennis - we love you

    Posted by tucanofulano at 03/22/2007 @ 12:35am

  153. We really admire this down-home guy from the Flats of Cleveland, and can hardly wait to see if we can meet him at Pickle Bills. Go get 'em Dennis - we love you

    Posted by tucanofulano at 03/22/2007 @ 12:36am

  154. Just a simple question for all of you...Does anyone else believe it's better to fight them over there, with trained military troops, than over here with cops and firefighters? Just a simple question.

    Now remember...If you answer "Yes," then it's not an illegal war, so make sure you keep your preconceived notions at the forefront of your minds.

    Posted by rcmc at 03/22/2007 @ 01:29am

  155. Just a simple question for all of you...Does anyone else believe it's better to fight them over there, with trained military troops, than over here with cops and firefighters? Just a simple question. Posted by RCMC 03/22/2007 @ 01:29am

    Hell ya! It's perfect man. We can send all the "undesirables" with no education and now (finally) those with criminal records somewhere far away to thin the population of those evil, freedom-hating Arabs. At the same time our glorious corporate Gods get huge contracts for doing damn near nothing so that my 401k fattens up (you know how we like things big and fat in this country). All I have to do is buy a yellow ribbon that was made in China from Wally World and throw it on my SUV. Oh yeah, we lost those civil liberties, but I wasn't using them anyway.

    The only thing standing in the way are those pesky Liberals. You know who you are! You are everyone that tries those Commy ideas like common sense and "reality". It doesn't matter who you are or what you believe, you are now a Liberal!!

    Hail Bush!

    Posted by IndyMinded at 03/22/2007 @ 07:28am

  156. Consider for a moment the broader implications of the Bushco intransigence where the testimony of Rove, Miers, et.al. is concerned:

    Under the broad brush of 'executive privelege,' there is a subtle ulterior motive which can be discerned, that being the attempt to forestall testimony of the (current) AG and CIA Director into the machinations leading to the inception of the program of spying on Americans, euphamistically referred to as the 'domestic survellience' program.

    The chucking under the bus of 8 US attorneys is chump change to these people; they are choosing this particular hill to die on as a way of trying to limit investigation of their real crimes. Real Americans recognize this and must not allow the machinations of these people to succeed.

    Be an ICER:

    Impeach Convict Evict Repeat

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/22/2007 @ 08:53am

  157. Or, if you like, quoting the one hit wonder of the early 90's

    ICE, ICE, Baby

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/22/2007 @ 08:56am

  158. Just a simple question for all of you...Does anyone else believe it's better to fight them over there, with trained military troops, than over here with cops and firefighters? Just a simple question.

    But based on a false premise. Most (90-95%) of the insurgents we're fighting in Iraq are Iraqis, so we wouldn't have been fighting them at all if we hadn't invaded. Given that the invasion has served as a recruiting plus of Islamist militant groups, it seems unlikely we would've been dealing with any additional militants outside of Iraq if we hadn't invaded.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/22/2007 @ 09:16am

  159. Just a simple question for all of you...Does anyone else believe it's better to fight them over there, with trained military troops, than over here with cops and firefighters? Just a simple question.

    Mr. Spock would scoff at your feeble attempt to employ logic (or he would, if he expressed emotion).

    There are more variables in the current world situation than can be reduced to a simplistic 'if P, then Q' statement, as your post implies.

    For myself, I would rather not be fighting 'them' at all (whoever 'they' might be at any given time); it is self evident that most neoconistas/PNACoblasts lack the capability for introspection.

    If they did, fools such as William Kristol would not be clamoring for an attack on Iran and Richard Perle would not be blaming others for screwing up his 'perfect' plan for invading Iraq. Sadly, the current occupant of the White House is in the thrall of such persons, with his chief leash holder being one of the principles of this failed world view.

    Like a spoiled child who blames everyone else for his anger, so too are the neoconistas/PNACoblasts.

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/22/2007 @ 09:34am

  160. RCMC-The people we're fighting in Iraq have no desire to come here to fight us nor do they have the ability to do so.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/22/2007 @ 09:42am

  161. SOLLEY, we already have our quota of conspiracy-mongers on this site, thank you.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 03/21/2007 @ 9:14pm | ignore this person

    Until you've burrowed into the inconsistencies and apparent cover-up in the govts version of the 9/11 events and have come up with reasonable explanations for the contradictions and omissions (those that jive with the laws of physics and chronology), don't play the fascist and try to suppress others views. We don't need any more of those on this site, either. I'm not bombarding you with cuts and pastes from other sites like Rese and Plunger, so I'd appreciate it if you'd not attempt to suppress my views.

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/22/2007 @ 10:10am

  162. Posted by RCMC 03/21/2007 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person

    why would you parade your ignorance in that way?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 10:40am

  163. Socialism may not start off totalitarian, although it's inevitable result will be. Its basic principles fly in the face of human nature, so it eventually becomes necessary to hold a gun to ones head in order to make it work.

    unsupported assertions and nonsense. the fact that the commies and the nazis called themselves socialists does not make it so. as I have pointed out many times, most industrialized nations have quite a bit of socialism, including the US, without any signs of totalitarianism.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 10:46am

  164. JSOLLEY

    I won't, I'll just put you in the ignore bin along with the rest of the conspiracy-mongers. I've spent plenty of time dealing with you types over on Alternet (and done plenty of burrowing), so I don't have to waste my time with you people here.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/22/2007 @ 11:10am

  165. one most tragic/comic feature of this blog is that well meaning thoughtful people spend their time refuting the banal slogans of brain dead Tories.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 11:10am

  166. I have pointed out many times, most industrialized nations have quite a bit of socialism, including the US, without any signs of totalitarianism. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/22/2007 @ 10:46am | ignore this person

    Those positive socialistic influences/programs in our government are being eroded and there are attempts to eradicate them completely, primarily by Republicans. Regardless of ideology, we need to be talking about programs that WORK. If a process isn't working (achieving the stated goal), fix it. Fixing it may involve completely scrapping it and starting over. But potential solutions shouldn't be discarded due to ideology.

    I would submit that this nation is no longer governed as a Constitutional Republic with elements of democracy thrown in. We have evolved into a plutocracy, rife with corruption, manipulation and deceit. Those in charge of the plutocracy have given enough power to the administrators that elements of totalitarianism have begun to creep in. The individual seldom matters and the election process has been subverted. The Constitution has been rendered ineffective. These are serious matters that go to the core of who we are as a people, and need to be addressed before we can even begin to talk about more superficial issues.

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/22/2007 @ 11:22am

  167. I won't, I'll just put you in the ignore bin along with the rest of the conspiracy-mongers. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/22/2007 @ 11:10am | ignore this person

    I'd rather be on your ignore list than to be told that my views can't be expressed. I'm satisfied with that.

    Posted by jlsolley at 03/22/2007 @ 11:25am

  168. Solley, you are correct in your analysis. we have far more to fear from right wing totalitarianism than from the left.the socialism of the new deal, which did much to lift the country out of the depression, has been under greater attack recently.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 11:31am

  169. Chip, I don't think you are in any position to lecture me on human nature, especially without any facts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 11:32am

  170. Chip, the above seems a bit harsh. let me tell you about human nature. it is in our nature to band together, and it is equally our nature to protect the weakest among us, and to share our abundance.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 11:52am

  171. John Edwards is a classy guy.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 1:22pm

  172. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/22/2007 @ 11:52am

    Do you have a theory on why some prey on the weak and seek to further disenfranchise those at the margins of society?

    This isn't intended to be a throwing down of the gauntlet, but a serious question. I do agree that some - perhaps even most - have the instinct to care for the weak. I can't explain the tendency of some among the strong to rob the weak of the little they have.

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/22/2007 @ 3:14pm

  173. I cannot fathom the why of anti social actions, or social ones. I can however describe an arc that has taken us to be more humane, from human sacrifice and trial by fire, to the homeless shelter and trial by jury.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/22/2007 @ 4:43pm

John Nichols John Nichols

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

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin | The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL." But 60 senators decided to follow the real leader.
John Nichols
18 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
135 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
79 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
207 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
65 Comments