Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAttorney General Alberto Gonzales has lied so many times and in so many circumstances that he now finds himself lying about the lies.
All of his deceptive statements have been uttered in an official capacity, many of them under oath.
But as lawless as his language has been, the actions of the attorney general may well be the more serious of his high crimes and misdemeanors. Indeed, the worst crime of Alberto Gonzales may be that -- with the revelations about his ghoulish visit to the sickbed of his Constitutionally-inclined predecessor -- this attorney general has actually forced millions of Americans to wrap their heads around the notion John Ashcroft may have been, at least by comparison, a good guy.
What this all adds up to is the most sordid circumstance of a sitting Cabinet member since Albert Bacon Fall, Warren's Harding's Secretary of the Interior, tried to talk his way out of the Teapot Dome scandal. Fall was notoriously "so crooked they had to screw him into the ground" when he died.
With Gonzales, it is hard to say whether he is crooked or delusional, or both.
But one thing is certain: The attorney general's determination to cling to his office at this point marks him as a man who poses a threat not merely to his own reputation but to the Department of Justice, which is degenerating into crisis as top administrators exit at an alarming rate, and to the rule of law in America.
George Bush, who has been linked to many if not all of the scandals that have so vexed Gonzales, is not about to ask his former White House counsel to vacate his current digs at Justice.
So it falls to Congress to act. And while a proposed Senate vote of "no confidence" might finally tip the balance against Gonzales, it is certainly appropriate to prepare for the next act of the sorry soap opera that the attorney general's tenure has become.
The founders established clear procedures for impeaching members of the Cabinet. "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," reads Article 2, Section 4, of the Constitution.
No serious scholar of the original intent of the authors of the essential document of the American experiment would question that the seemingly vague "high crimes and misdemeanors" section refers to precisely the sort of deceptive and destructive activities in which Gonzales has engaged. There is simply no question that lying to Congress is an impeachable offense, and there is every reason to believe that rendering the department you head fully dysfunctional should be.
The national activist group Democracy for America, working in conjunction with Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films operation, has launched a campaign to: "Impeach Gonzales and restore accountability and ethical leadership to the United States Justice Department." This is a classic "it's-about-time" development.
As Democracy for America chair Jim Dean says, "Americans around the country are standing up to voice opposition to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his politicization of the Department of Justice," Our message is clear: Impeach Gonzales."
Within a day of the launch of the campaign, more than 40,000 Americans had already signed the online petition to impeach Gonzales, which will eventually be forwarded to members of Congress. The number of signers will rise exponentially as Greenwald's devastating series of YouTube reviews of the attorney general's incredible explanations for his actions -- overlaid with the words "false" and "perjury" -- makes the rounds on the internet. The videos are debuting at the new www.impeachgonzales.org
As Democracy for America says: "Impeachment puts everything back on the table. Illegal domestic eavesdropping, illegally deleted government e-mails, voter suppression, signing statements, torture recommendations, you name it -- if Gonzales had his finger prints on it Congress will shine the spotlight at it."
The "on the table" reference is to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's declaration that impeachment is "off the table." Up to now, Pelosi's pronouncement has kept a lot of national groups from uttering the "I" word. But no more.
Democracy for America and Greenwald are not putting impeachment on the table; Alberto Gonzales did that when he lied to Congress and the American people. But Democracy for America and Greenwald are giving the American people an opportunity to demand that Congress get serious about holding an errant executive branch to account.
Greenwald recognizes the genius of impeachment when he says, "President Bush will not fire the Attorney General, but the American people can call for his Impeachment."
Impeachment was always intended to be an organic process of the American republic. The wisest of the founders, fresh from waging revolutionary war against a lawless King George, never imagined that the impeachment and trial of errant executives would be a dull bureaucratic procedure carried out in the cloistered halls of Congress. It was supposed to be an official response to a popular call for accountability.
The call is being issued. And the greater its volume, the greater will be the likelihood that this battered republic will be rescued not merely from the dark interregnum that is the Bush era but from the misguided notion that a president and his appointees can govern as regally as did the kings of old.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead 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.'"
The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Bingo.
We need two-thrids of the Senate -- so, 16 Republicans -- to convict on the Articles approved by the House. Keep up the pressure.
Meanwhile, the No Confidence vote is something that can be done without the two-thirds. Keep up the pressure.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/21/2007 @ 5:38pm
By the way, the Notion blog has what seems to be an inaccurate article stating that MoveOn failed to include habeas corpus as a survey item. According to the line provided in the artilce, the MoveOn survey does include "Campaign to restore Constitutional Rights and Liberties."
I cannot tell if the survey was corrected in response to pressure from The Nation or activists, or if the survey contained the Constitutional Rights language even before The Nation article was published.
If the latter, the Nation article needs to be retracted or corrected.
Posted by RLawrence at 05/21/2007 @ 5:40pm
I'll bet each time NICHOLS do an `Impeachment anybody, his books sale jumps a dozen or so. He sounds desperate that the Bush admin. will end before somebody gets impeached......otherwise, he'll have lost his load of "GENIUS"?
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2007 @ 5:58pm
Here's something from TruthOut on the Rove-White House part of the Obstruction of Justice story: missing e-mail.
"Missing Rove Emails Point to Violation of Records Act"
Rove Obstruction [truthout.org]
Posted by RLawrence at 05/21/2007 @ 6:36pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....
Posted by john maasch at 05/21/2007 @ 7:29pm
Let it go people. This is, and will always be a non-starter.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 7:32pm
"Up to now, Pelosi's pronouncement has kept a lot of national groups from uttering the "I" word."
It has?!?!??!?! What about all those groups and Vermontan towns you mention every other week, Mr Nichols!??!!?
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2007 @ 7:38pm
The Judiciary was supposed to be free of political influence...
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/21/2007 @ 6:23pm
No, FRANK! One top example: how Supreme Court Justices are hired on! A bottom example: Justice of the Peace elections! Want more? Clinton's firing of all US Attorneys and Bush's selective (& late) pruning of USAs. Do you suppose now, that what you just "supposed" may just be WRONG!?
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2007 @ 7:45pm
Excellent piece in The Guardian showing Bush's central role in the scandals, including the Gonzales scandal -- Bush's commitment to lawlessness, and to those who help him break the law.
"King George's Loyalty Oaths"
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sidney_blumenthal/2007/05/king_georg es_loyalty_oaths.html
"Under Bush, loyalty has become a law unto itself. Bush is loyal to those who break the rules but adhere to him. Avowing loyalty for the administration becomes a substitute for making difficult ethical and moral decisions."
Posted by RLawrence at 05/21/2007 @ 7:49pm
Ha! Non-starter! LOL. This has at least as much traction as Cheney's chief of staff Libby going down. And where is Libby serving his jail time, by the way?
Posted by lewwelge at 05/21/2007 @ 7:54pm
Yea, loyalty for your people. That really is a bad trait in a leader.
It appears you have never lead people; successfully that is.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 7:55pm
Happy USAPride. What a fittingly ironic binomial moniker for a pair of self-mocking "new cons" attempting to defend the utterly indefensible at this progressive site.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/21/2007 @ 8:00pm
The unintended irony just keeps flowing as the "lead" continues to fly and we are "led" further and further down the "rabbit hole" of rapacity.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/21/2007 @ 8:02pm
Sorry, not a "new Con". Been around these parts for a long time.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 8:05pm
Excuse me, again....didn't we have "more than 22,OOO Americans had already signed the online petition to impeach BUSH and CHENEY, which will eventually be forwarded to members of Congress"?
like a YEAR ago?
So at that rate, Gonzales should be fairly safe until January 20 (among others).
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2007 @ 8:06pm
Sorry, typo...
"So at that rate, Gonzales should be fairly safe until January 20, 2009! (among others).
Posted by MASK 05/21/2007 @ 8:06pm
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2007 @ 8:07pm
Well, well, challenged without rudeness. Thank you, USPride. Are you then a Goldwater Repub or a Tip O'Neil neo-liberal or what?
Posted by lewwelge at 05/21/2007 @ 8:30pm
Not a challenge. Unless you have a problem with reality.
I'm just another person who can't seem to find logic in what you proport to believe.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 8:38pm
One question, do you new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, bond with pure evil consensually or is it unconscious acquienscence?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/21/2007 @ 8:53pm
Ok so Frito (hsuB said it-- not Fredo) covers up as much as possible for hsuB, but then is forced out per impeachment, Rove the same. Then Cheney not far behind, but per health departs just up until it gets close. Think about all the evidence it took to get to that point and it all points to hsuB being a major partaker of each of the several dumps on the rule of law and subverting our constitution. Impeaching hsuB will be the easy part.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/21/2007 @ 9:04pm
I'm not smart enough to repond.
Is that you John Kerry?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 9:05pm
Rese - 'cause there isn't anything there.
This ain't rocket science.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 9:15pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 05/21/2007 @ 9:15pm
USA, RESE is our local conspiracy theorists (beyond the usual "9/11 was planned by Bush"...he thinks everything since the Lincoln assassination was....the JESUITS!)
Most (Left, Right, and Middle) put him on Ignore, to save space.
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2007 @ 9:24pm
Yawn...
See ya later. Take care and be well people.
Thanks for your time.
Pride in the "home team" is a virtue.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 9:25pm
Rese - then change teams.
Good luck to you.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 9:29pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Maaschy, that's my line.........
Posted by davebarlett at 05/21/2007 @ 9:30pm
Rese,
So now we know your wrist is in good shape.
Ever had a original thought?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 9:37pm
C'mon - wake up and breath some reality.
The world does not exist in a snow globe that can be made to look "pretty".
What it is will always be and has always been.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 9:45pm
Rese,
Good night... hope to talk again soon.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/21/2007 @ 10:02pm
So, the neo cons want to go take a nap again rather than face the fact that yet another Bush sycophant is a lying sack. Su-prise su-prise. That is how we got into Iraq, Libby-gate and the umpteen other indicted/convicted Bush cronies. Sleeping neo-cons who want the evil mysterious "left" to be crushed, damn the rule of law, personal responsibility or any other jingo they used to use. Now it is power for powers sake.
Libby-Guilty
Wolfewitz- incompetent, shady
Griles- guilty
Savafian- guilty
Woolridge- corrupt
Allen- guilty
Cooney, changed wording in official reports to echo oil company lingo, now works for Exxon
Keroack- resigned under a cloud of scandal
Armstrong- guilty of paid propaganda
Negroponte, guilty, pardoned, rehired
Abrams - guilty, pardoned, rehired
three repubs in AK indicted for taking bribes from , gasp!, oil companies.
Chevron did business with Saddam, while Condi was on the board.
allen Raymond- guilty
To the neo-con apologists, the only crime is getting caught.
shameful. I thought you conservatives were law and order types. Silly, naive me.
too much pride in the home team is called Nationalism. Pride is a sin. Hearing no evil, seeing no evil is blind loyalty.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/21/2007 @ 10:54pm
Lets not forget Dr. Hager. Sweet guy. Deserved to head the FDA.
Plus all the incompetent, naive, fools that were sent to Iraq because they were republican sweethearts. Experience not required. Look what a fine job they did creating a completely free mkt, unburdened by bothersome guvt and regulation.
Yep, the neos back the best.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/21/2007 @ 11:04pm
...at this progressive site.
Posted by LEWWELGE 05/21/2007 @ 8:00pm
I don't for sure know why but I just burst out laughing reading "at this progressive site"!
Like my binomial partner, I've been around a while....but not "at this progressive site".
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2007 @ 11:17pm
...I thought you conservatives were law and order types...
Posted by CRABWALK 05/21/2007 @ 10:54pm
We are, though I admit we just can't prove to you that if Dems were in power, it would be a whole lot worse!
BTW, your state has been running ads during No. 1's radio show several days in a row! Trying to talk up Michigan as a place for budding businesses. Timing was kinda good since Houston just reported a 3.9% unemployment rate and quality employees are getting scarce! Who knows, the next DeLorean maybe thinking of heading up your way to tap into that Bank of experienced auto hands!
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2007 @ 11:27pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/21/2007 @ 11:31pm
So, you didn't address my point that the Executive Branch is the defacto Hiring Manager of high level federal judges and US Attorneys while the legislative branch gets to `confirm' them. On the other hand, how many Congress folks depend on the Judicial Branch for job `opportunities'? How many Cabinet members, Presidents, VPs' have the Judicial Branch `hired' (don't bring Bush/Gore into this)?
Separate but from a practical standpoint, unequal! Look at Congress today, you Dems have the majority but are you `equal' to the Executive Branch? IF you could only control Congress or the WH, which one would you take? Now, consider yourself educated to the real world!
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2007 @ 11:59pm
Happy ran away like a wittle girl.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 05/21/2007 @ 11:52pm
FRANK,
Sorry to make you look so smallllll!
Posted by Happy at 05/22/2007 @ 12:00am
Now, to bed! Fire away, FRANK!
Posted by Happy at 05/22/2007 @ 12:00am
Gonzales: Hey Card, look who we got here, it's that Comey cocksucker, outta my way. Ashcroft. Wake the fucck up. C'mon.
Comey: Leave him alone. Can't you see the man's unconscious?
Gonzales: Sign the fuccken papers douchebag. C'mon, I know you can hear me. I know you aren't that sedated.
Card: Ashcroft, I got to tell you. There's talk of you being removed as Attorney General. You think you can lie there and pretend not to hear us. You think you're in power, well you're not. Now sign the fuccken papers. I KNOW YOU CAN HEAR ME.
Comey: I'm the Attorney General guys, I'll resign, I'll resign, I mean it I'll resign, I'll really resign...
Gonzales: Shut the fucck up Comey, you ain't gonna resign, you know you aren't going to resign, you're smarter than that, I know you aren't that stupid, you ain't gonna resign. ASHCROFT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS YOU JUST DONT WANNA BE ATTORNEY GENERAL ANYMORE.
Ashcroft: Whaaa, What, what. Hey, won't sign, I won't sign it. Please. What the fucck, leave me alone. That shhit? You guys know I'm not the type to sign that thing, didnt you see my music video, "Let the Eagle Soar"?
Gonzales: I guess you dont want to be Attorney General anymore. We'll have to find somebody else then. You're making a big mistake.
Comey: I am so offended. I'll resign, I really mean it.
Gonzales: Yeah, yeah, you two you're both the same, stupid - but not so stupid you would actually resign. I dare you to resign. We're going to remember this.
Posted by conshame at 05/22/2007 @ 08:01am
The partison political manuvering of the "kangaroo court circus" being held by the Demoncrat congress is not a branch of the Judiciary FRANK!
How do you explain away all the Republican members of Congress who are participating in this "Kangaroo Court Circus"?
Posted by Balrog at 05/22/2007 @ 08:23am
If this is a crime then HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON stood guilty on videotape at her most recent press conference when she all but denied signing Comrade Feingolds paper rag! Right FRANKGRITS!
If you expressed only half the outrage towards Republican transgressions as you do towards the Democrats, and particularly, The Clintons, then your attempts to take the moral higher ground might be taken more seriously.
As it is, you have shown yourself to be no more than a hypocritical cheerleader, who, when forced to face the stink of the current administration, churlishly screams "But what about Hillary? What about Hillary?"
Posted by Balrog at 05/22/2007 @ 08:27am
Admit it:
Republican shit stinks just as bad as Democrat shit.
Posted by Balrog at 05/22/2007 @ 08:29am
So the hsuB/heney/ove admin tried to subvert the DoJ into an extention of the GOP in order to secure the '08 elections via attacking dem candidates with bogus charges, allowing restrictive voting procedures in dem districts and not going after repub violations especially prior to any targetted elections. Ok, why? Why not-- it's a billion dollar return on the investment. GOP = MIC and its many feeders, pharm/med, energy, insurance, tech info... industries.
Bring down Frito, (hsuB's pet name for Gonzo, it never was Fredo), and it's another '04 election victory for the constitution and another crack in the hsuB dam holding back tons of corruption, unconstitutional back door no bid MIC/energy and pharm deals, kick backs into GOP members bank accounts, GOP funding, revolving door positions,...
This is why hsuB/heney/ove admin will do whatever it takes, gambling with congress in insolating/isolating Frito from the reality of what any kind of disclosure will do to citizenry/world relations confidence in US gov as a whole. How much congress willing to chance total collapse in confidence, determines their agressiveness. Too much to quick, equated to hsuB/heney/ove push for going into Iraq... But will it restore democracy to the constitution or create a quagmire without end?
Who to believe, indeed. Way to go-- hsuB!
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 09:21am
Hey HSUB,
If Congress capitulates and gives Bush a "clean" supplemental spending bill on Iraq (no timetables, no withdrawal dates, etc)...
is it more or LESS likely that they'll impeach the guy (or even Gonzales)?
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 09:24am
Why is it OK to lie in neo-con world?
Because the Clintons did it.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 09:31am
It does not matter if Chimpy hires/fires his attorneys for failure to be a good Attorney. It DOES matter if he fires them because they are not prosecuting the other party. It DOES matter if the AG lies to congress about why they were fired, or lies about not remembering. Once appointed, an UA should be safe from the political machinations of the WH.
Unless Clinton did it, then it is OK by the Clinton haters. Are ya'll following the neo-logic here?
Clinton =evil, but his precedents are ok.
Saddam=no threat, unless they feel afraid.
Civil war in Iraq= successful foreign policy.
Black is the new beige.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 09:35am
BTW, speaking of predicions...here's RESE's....20 months to go....
When, say, March-ish, maybe April 2008 rolls around and it becomes legislatively, much less politically, IMPOSSIBLE to impeach Bush and Cheney and they are inevitably going to finish out their 2nd terms and leave on Inauguration Day January 2009.....
what are you going to say about them and why will it matter? ----Posted by MASK 01/26/2007 @ 08:44am
"By then then will have Nuked and invaded Iran. The Draft will be in operation, probably Martial law too and no body will be able to say anthing against them, because all openents will be classified enemy combatants and shipped to work in the New Reich concentration camps" ----Posted by RESE 01/26/2007 @ 1:18pm
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 09:39am
MASK,
You have some explaining to do.
That is, beyond what we already know. Namely, that there are 2 people who use your account. One -- call him MASK -- is often perceptive and humorous and tuff-minded. The other -- FLASK -- is drunk on the idea that he carries out the lonely Socratic duty of avoiding extremes, minting weirdly strained claims in order to concoct equivalences between the postures of the right and left as equally extreme and alien to reality, evidence notwithstanding (again, that's according to the self-aggrandizing world view of FLASK).
To specifics:
How did my statement that clearly reads as follows:
... Or Cuba: I read a Wall Street Journal reporter's acount that described it as the only place he saw in Latin America during extensive tours where kids had shoes, everyone was fit and had access to a doctor, literacy was universal. These are defined as human rights as well in the UN's Declaration on Universal Human Rights. Rights are not just fanciful but practical. Compare with Iraq, right now: While some civil rights like voting have been opened up, is the human rights situation with regard to security and access to neccisities satisfactory there? What do you think? Which rights would you prioritize in the short term if you cared about these people: Voting (purple thumbs)? Or security and necessities? … Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/21/2007 @ 12:40pm
Become this vastly different statement in your conveniently fabricated FLASKIAN version of it:
Or Cuba: Which rights would you prioritize in the short term if you cared about these people: Voting (purple thumbs)? Or security and necessities?
In order to occasion this ersatz-indinant rejoinder to what OBVIOUSLY was NOT being said about CUBA but about IRAQ:
----"short term"? You mean 47 YEARS is "short term"? Okay, curious... how long would YOU accept a dictatorship in the United States for "literacy" and "free health care"? Let's keep it "short term" (30-40 years only), huh? Posted by MASK 05/21/2007 @ 2:25pm
This a grotesquely cheap stunt to put words in people's mouths when cornered because your arguments suck ass. Step us through your counterclaims without the deceptions entailed in your crude cut-and-paste ruses that would make even the primitive likes of RIO KORESH blush (via unconsious mechanisms, anyway).
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/22/2007 @ 09:42am
If only cops had guns, then 3 people would be alive in Idaho, so goes the logic of arming students.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 09:43am
RIO KORESH
LOL!!
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 09:45am
Masky (tm)
It's all about thwarting a bank heist in progress with civilians all around. High stakes confidence game. More war, more chaos, more money for them. Chess.
I do beleieve however that most of the US public already instinctively know what's going on and will side with the congress to bring the hsuB/heney/ove admin down. Most repubs in congress are beginning to understand this too.
Consider the funding as 'in negotiation', to buy a little time to maneuver the swat team marksmen around the bank robbers.
Wednesday will be in play.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 09:46am
Having attempted to pull the rabbit of out his ass, FLASK blunders on waving his arms wildly in an effort to prove he can really touch his nose:
---Polling showed he was behind, and he won. Among the Left in America, that kind of "suspicious polling" for Chavez is fine. Oddly, when it was exit polling in Ohio (or national polling) in Bush v Kerry....it's "proof" the election was stolen. Given Comrade Hugo's recent move to shut down an opposition TV station....I'm suspicious....Jimmy never was. Posted by MASK 05/21/2007 @ 2:25pm
We need to know where you came up with this assumption that polling "showed he (Chavez) was behind". That's totally at odds with what I recall reading. So show us a source, bring it on.
Put up – or shuddup.
As I recall the results in Venezuela where consistent with the polling and other trends – as they also where in the 2004 US election (which incidently is why I have never weighed in support of it has having been "stolen". 2000 is a different matter from the evidence that I have seen, however).
Also notice this feature of FLASK's version of fundamentalist pseudo moderation: reading the election results that squared with previous polls, and general sentiment in Venezuela that were, in turn, confirmed by international observers – abiding by the parameters of known reality, in other words – somehow enacts an equivalence with a freakshow creature like the Knee Timin´Holy Man LOVIE who brays for The Rapture, denies eveolution, and supports Falwell's line on the 9/11 attacks.
Who woulda' thunkit ??? FLASK, that's who, under the influence of fundementalist moderation where the turht always falls in what FLASK reifies as the middle !!!
We will leave further explaination of this blinkered fundamentalism that demands everyone but him is a deluded ideologue to ... to one who knows about it first hand: FLASK, a deluded ideologue on a crusade/jihad under the banner of immaculate moderation.
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/22/2007 @ 09:58am
The people who should be impeached are the president and vice president..yet the U.S. congress is silence. The is no longer a country of laws. Its a country ruled by corporate elites. All institutions of government, including congress and the courts are designed for that very purpose. The so called 'checks and balance' are not designed to ensure democracy but to prevent any change to the status quo.
Posted by kevin99999 at 05/22/2007 @ 10:03am
Me too.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 10:04am
Wait! There's more from the endless FLASK. Immaculate Moderationism, in his own immortal words:
MY point is that if you're a blindly romantic LEFT-wing idealogue...you'll forgive Al Gore, Rick Kahn, Hugo Chavez....even Fidel Castro....for hypocrisy....even if it's "short term"! And show that you don't care if somebody is lying to you, as long as they're on the "right side" of the issues. Just like RIO and LVLIBERTY do!
Let us just take the Gore part, partly becuase I don't know who the fuck Rick Kahn is: For the sake of the convenience of constructing his flimsy polemic, FLASK invents words of support for Gore out of whole cloth that I in fact have never uttered.
And FLASK knows this. He knows – because I told him so when he asked – that I never so much as voted for Gore in '92,'96, or in '00. But (???!!!) he is my totem now. According to FLASK.
So, now to the question of whether Gore (who is doing nice things with his documenatry) should reduce his carbon footprint as well. One word answer: Yes.
No shit. Obviously.
But the stern doctrines of Immaculate Moderationism would never have guessed that, part of what makes that ideological construction a shabby charade when FLASK indulges it ...
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/22/2007 @ 10:05am
I'll shut up if it doesn't happen!
Posted by RESE 05/22/2007 @ 09:58am
That'll sure save a lot of posting space.....hehe (if he means it, that is!)
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 10:05am
HAPPY
So, you didn't address my point that the Executive Branch is the defacto Hiring Manager of high level federal judges and US Attorneys while the legislative branch gets to `confirm' them.
Because the legislative branch also gets to not confirm them and to use the prospect of non-confirmation to stop an appointment (re Harriet Miers). You've also overlooked the fact that federal judges serve as long as they like unless impeached and that their salaries can't be lowered by Congress. In short, it's as non-political a branch as you can get. I would also point out that referring to JPs in discussion the Founding Fathers' intentions is totally off-base as those are state/local judges, which the FFs weren't dealing with in Philadelphia in 1787.
In addition to Frank's excellent point about an independent judiciary being one of our contributions to the theory of government, there is also the idea of a constitution as being a supreme law of the land as opposed to just a description of the structure of a government. This further enhances the judiciary's independence because of the difficulty in amending the constitution and the judiciary's role as its final arbiter.
USAPRIDE Yea, loyalty for your people. That really is a bad trait in a leader.
It is a bad trait when it blinds you to their unfitness for the job.
Having said all that, I find myself concurring with Mask that Gonzales' impeachment is unlikely. Unfortunately IMO.
Posted by brunowe at 05/22/2007 @ 10:07am
re, me too to impeaching hsuB/heney.
BTW, democracy via checks and balances, is to prevent mob rule not subvert democracy. It's a logical system. But like computers, if you put shit in...
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 10:08am
Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/22/2007 @ 09:42am
No, GLENN....HERE your statement clearly reads as follows...
Or Cuba: I read a Wall Street Journal reporter's acount that described it as the only place he saw in Latin America during extensive tours where kids had shoes, everyone was fit and had access to a doctor, literacy was universal. These are defined as human rights as well in the UN's Declaration on Universal Human Rights. Rights are not just fanciful but practical. Compare with Iraq, right now: While some civil rights like voting have been opened up, is the human rights situation with regard to security and access to neccisities satisfactory there? What do you think?
Which rights would you prioritize in the short term if you cared about these people: Voting (purple thumbs)? Or security and necessities? ---Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/21/2007 @ 12:40pm
So, your statement was on defending CUBA, you inserted Iraq into the mix as your "comparison", but YOU mentioned "short term" priorities.
Well, guess what? Castro hasn't been in power for a "short term", so a comparison to Iraq is false. If Castro had gone on for 40 years like al-Maliki and Cuba had remained a war-torn area with car bombs going off everyday or 3500 US GIs dying in 4 years...you'd have a comparison.
OR if al-Maliki had remained in power for 40 years and suppressed human rights, imprisoned dissidents, squelched a free press and opposition parties, and forced his people to escape by rafts to get away from him....you'd have a comparison.
No, you were trying to DEFEND Cuba by comparing it's "short term" (47+ years) oppression as somehow "okay" because they had "free health care" and a high literacy rate (great...they can read...what Castro approves!)....to Iraq and they aren't comparable...except as WORST CASE scenarios.
Tell ya what....let's compromise...Iraq is awful, Cuba is awful....agreed?
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 10:11am
Let us just take the Gore part, partly becuase I don't know who the fuck Rick Kahn is: ----Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/22/2007 @ 10:05am
?!?!?!?...but you know...
"I am also not convinced that they pass muster (kind of like rightwing hystericism over Wellstone's "Fascist Rally" funeral, an invention of the right's echoing hype machine."---Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/21/2007 @ 12:40pm
Let me help you out [en.wikipedia.org]
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 10:17am
HSUB, we have to wait 20 months (Jan 2009) for RESE's prediction to come true (or thankfully his claim that he'll "shut up")...
we only have to wait FIVE months for yours--
Comments for "Ford, Cheney, Checks and Balances" by John Nichols
Okay...translated.....you're calling for Bills of Impeachment out of the House of Reps by late October 2007? yes?---Posted by MASK 01/02/2007 @ 4:18pm
Sounds about right. Or is that left to you?---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/02/2007 @ 4:20pm
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 10:21am
FLASK,
Al-Maliki, or whatever that hopeless puppet gets called, will not endure for 40 years or even 40 weeks because he does not have even a kernal of popular support. Castro does, with a large assist from the embargo, dirty tricks, and assassination plots that -- surprise! -- occasion most people to rally around the leader.
But, lemme ask you then a couple of questions:
1. Do you believe that the embargo against Cuba is a good idea and serves any good interest? Or do you think it is a form of non-legally sanctioned fundementalism that, unsprisingly, generates a polarizing response in the targeted nation (itself smallish, largely unendowed with natural resources, sugar cane aside)?
2. Do you agree that provision of services and security -- health care, employment insurance, education -- are part of the human rights package (as claimed in human rights documents that have been ratiifed by about 200 nations, albeit further "upstream" from human rights that prevent against torture)?
3. You make the call: Would you rather be an "Ordinary Jamal" in Iraq -- or an "Ordinary José" in Cuba?
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/22/2007 @ 10:30am
Posted by MASK 05/22/2007 @ 10:21am
And your point is
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 10:31am
FLASK,
As for Rick Kahn: No, I don't know who he is.
That's why (he he, geez Louise) ... you gave me a link to findout!
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/22/2007 @ 10:32am
And your point is
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/22/2007 @ 10:31am
Well YOU step up as RESE has and lay a little action on YOUR prediction? He said he'd "shut up" if we're not nuking Iran and all in concentration camps by January 2009.
How about "Yep, MASK was right" (with no qualifiers or additional prepositional phrases), if no bills of impeachment out of the House by late October this year? And I'll do the same in reverse, if I'm wrong?
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 10:34am
Having said all that, I find myself concurring with Mask that Gonzales' impeachment is unlikely. Unfortunately IMO.
Posted by BRUNOWE 05/22/2007 @ 10:07am
BRUNO,
I'm not so sure since we have seen other dramas that we never thought we would see. The 2003 recall election, for example, and that was not in some obscure state but in Cali.
Or, it seems to me, somewhat more seats in play in elections whereas before an MC could more safely, sleepily hold on to the seat until he/she wanted to retire barring outlandish scandel.
These certainly can be good things if they become levers toward greater accountability with respect to performance by public officials.
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/22/2007 @ 10:36am
Masky (tm)
Bills are already drawn up, the prediction is that they will be voting on them by Oct, '07. If they don't, and it'll be for a very good reason, then I will be wrong.
Hows that?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 10:38am
Darin This is why the DoJ attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President" because he is the head of the executive branch.
That's true to a point, and Frank's argument that they are part of the judiciary overstates the case. However, prosecutors have an ethical duty to base prosecutions an objective judgement of the merits of the case, they aren't just advocates for the guy who pays them. The crux of the scandal is that these USAs were fired for doing exactly that (either investigating Republicans or refusing to go forward with spurious voter fraud cases). "At the pleasure of the President" notwithstanding, that is at the least morally corrupt and, at the most, obstruction of justice.
Posted by brunowe at 05/22/2007 @ 10:44am
How many here would prefer Miers to Alito
How many here want to drink the purple Kool-Aid over the orange?
how about a novel idea, chimpy nominates a centrist candidate!
Or, how about Goodling NOT asking who the favorite president of a nominee is as a qualification to be a UA? Because it don't matter. For that matter, how about gonzo NOT placing a 30 year old neophyte sycophant in charge of vetting UA's?
When we get down to brass tacks, how about chimpy appointing qualified candidates for positions, and NOT removing competent UA's for purely political reasons? Would that kill you neo-cons? Would it kill you to admit that when appearing before congress, witnesses should tell the truth? Cuz, like, dude, thats the law.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 10:45am
Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/22/2007 @ 10:30am
No, GLENN, before we go onto YOUR questions....let's clear this up.
You used the term "short term" as far as "security and necessities" go and its relationship to OTHER human rights (see below). Well, Castro has been in power for FORTY-EIGHT YEARS (no sane person would call that "short term") and he has refused those OTHER rights as well.
But that doesn't seem to matter to the Cuba apologists (like you)...just the "free health care" and "free education"....nor do you notice the OTHER rights outlined in the UN Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights.....such as-
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 10:45am
Oh, wait, Clinton did something like this, or that. so, its' OK by the neo-cons.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 10:49am
the prediction is that they will be voting on them by Oct, '07. If they don't, and it'll be for a very good reason, then I will be wrong.
Hows that?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/22/2007 @ 10:38am
Sure, and if they are voted out of the House, sent to the Senate....how would you like my apology to read?
(careful, I'll simply reverse it for YOU!...hehe)
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 10:49am
Posted by MASK 05/22/2007 @ 10:45am
ahhh, yes. Pre 9/11 America.
I remember it well.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 10:52am
And why, pray tell, does China get MFN status when Cuba does not? As I read the UN declaration, china sure seems to be in violation.
could it be that the Chinese are perfectly happy slaving out their labor pool?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 10:55am
FLASK,
Indeed, you have accurately quoted the Declaration -- an occasion of some surprise since that is more than can be said for your cut-and-paste on my own statement from yesterday as has already been demonstrated.
So, now that we have a clearer idea of what human rights conventions actually say, I'll ask you again: One way ticket for the rest of your life, and with consideration of the human rights environment, do you want go to CUBA or do you want to IRAQ? This is a thought experiment -- something you like! -- and a generous one at that since most people don't have a choice of where they end up ...
A one word answer will suffice.
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/22/2007 @ 10:57am
Glenn, good question for ALL the neo-cons, the lovers of false choices.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 10:59am
And if the guvt of Iraq fails to live up the the UN declaration, will the neo-cons support a decades long embargo of Iraq?
Neo-cons?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/22/2007 @ 11:00am
FLASK,
More questions:
Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
In light of the recent Ann Owers report in the UK, among other evidence of abuse there, should the human rights champion Bush admin embargo or attempt Bay of Pigs style regime change in the UK (that is beyond, the Blair-for-Brown change)?
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
In your opinion, is Michael Moore being harrassed by our gov't given what Article 19 says? This includes the possibility that the law on the books is unjust and that civil disobedience is actually the high road (as in the campaigns against Jim Crow).
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Let me guess: inspired by this article and the free, widely observed elections in Nicaragua (Nov 1984) that featured levels of participation far greater than that same week's US election, you hung a black and red FSLN banner from your college dorm window to celebrate the succesful implementation of elections in what had been a Samozaist dictatorship. You are equally inspired when experienced monitors judge elections in Venezuela to be fair, more recently -- even when the candidate you do not favor prevails?!.
Just askin' ...
Posted by MASK 05/22/2007 @ 10:45am |
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 05/22/2007 @ 11:07am
No, FRANK! One top example: how Supreme Court Justices are hired on! A bottom example: Justice of the Peace elections! Want more? Clinton's firing of all US Attorneys and Bush's selective (& late) pruning of USAs. Do you suppose now, that what you just "supposed" may just be WRONG!?
Posted by HAPPY 05/21/2007
Pure talking points.
Boy, you righties must be really desperate when you think Nichols' article is all about book sales. Why is it then that the Senate (by a bi-partisan vote) is going to send a declaration of no-confidence to the Attorney General?
You are so partisan you would stand behind so incompetent an attorney general. And for what, exactly?
Posted by hhemwm at 05/22/2007 @ 11:46am
That line that Clinton fired all those U.S. attorneys is false: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150010
Posted by hhemwm at 05/22/2007 @ 11:49am
This is why the DoJ attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President" because he is the head of the executive branch.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007
They do serve at the pleasure of the president. The problem here is that it has become abundantly clear that the White House plays politics with absolutely everything. They want politically motivated investigations undertaken by Dept. of Justice attorneys. Those attorneys were fired for resisting this approach and the Attorney General, the man in charge of the department, could not seem to remember when, why and how they were fired.
It was classical Gonzalez: he couldn't remember anything.
What you are seeing is objections across the political spectrum not only to the incompetence of Gonzalez, but to the way politics is being played within the walls of the bureaucracy.
Posted by hhemwm at 05/22/2007 @ 11:53am
Oh I'm sure Gonzo knows exactly what's going on and he's just one of the obstructions circling the wagons around the corruption.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 12:08pm
Thanks Frankgrits, hsubfools, and especially unexpurgated Rese for taking the time to challenge and condemn the new cons whose bloody hands are only made invisible to them by their misanthropically willful blindness and/or alcohol induced anesthesia. Impeach!!!
Posted by lewwelge at 05/22/2007 @ 12:16pm
Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/22/2007 @ 10:57am
I'm sorry GLENN, see I didn't realize that Castro could pretty much do anything he wants for the last FORTY-EIGHT years, because of how rotten Iraq has been for the last three ("short term") and my ONLY choice is to accept Fidel's oppression and dictatorship and of course the "free education" and "free health care"....because my ONLY OTHER choice is the crap-hole that Iraq is.
Okay....so "yes" I'll take Cuba. Just as YOU will accept endless control of the White House and Congress by Republican neo-cons, over living in Castro's Cuba, right?....
a one word answer will suffice
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 1:00pm
BTW, on this....
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
In your opinion, is Michael Moore being harrassed by our gov't given what Article 19 says? This includes the possibility that the law on the books is unjust and that civil disobedience is actually the high road (as in the campaigns against Jim Crow).
Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/22/2007 @ 11:07am
I LOVE the fact that you think that Michael Moore, who is in Cannes right now, and will come back to the United States, show his little flick in 1500 theatres nation-wide...and will enrich his already volumenous multi-million dollar bank account....
is the equivalent of "campaigning against Jim Crow", much less the political oppression of Cuba (which you have YET to criticize).
I never thought of a rich white guy living in a penthouse in New York as being the same as James Meredith or Martha Beatriz Roque.
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 1:06pm
The problem here is that it has become abundantly clear that the White House plays politics with absolutely everything.
Posted by HHEMWM 05/22/2007 @ 11:53am
Do you think there has ever been a time in American history when the opposition didn't believe this statement to be true?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 12:46pm
Wow. Will the blindness never cease to amaze!
It's one thing to research, find/nominate, get consent and hope the people one picks are 'honest' and also being in ones party-- in order to 'rule out' partisonship against one's own party. It's totally another to corruptly quid pro quo require that the people one picks for these responsible positions be highly partison to the point of dishonestly dispencing what no longer is justice-- in order to politicize the system of checks and balances, thwarting our constitution and obstructing justice. There's a majorly big big difference.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 1:17pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 1:25pm
And when the proof is on the table for all to see and impeachments begin and repubs vote with the dems-- will you still be blind?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 1:28pm
Funny thing about 'oversight'-- don't need to be in the process of impeachment to be gathering evidence via supeanas.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 1:30pm
I'm just another person who can't seem to find logic in what you proport to believe.
Posted by USAPRIDE 05/21/2007 @ 8:38pm
Ignorance is bliss. Willful igorance is stupidity.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/22/2007 @ 1:31pm
Proof of the hsuB crimes will be the stake, justice will be the hammer.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 1:32pm
They can be fired at any time for any reason.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 1:34pm
No they can't. Not if it's obstruction of justice. Or to create crimes, conspire to, violate their oath,...
Or I suppose you're going for the Cheney defence.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 1:38pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 1:22pm
Well, the next time E.J. Dionne is on the "Diane Rehm Show" on NPR, I'll call in and ask him why we ALL can't just solve the climate change problem the way that his beloved Al....
namely buy off our "carbon footprint" by paying into a "carbon credits" company that WE founded and still living as lavishly as we did before!
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 1:57pm
MBB,
Oh sarcastic one, the new con 'supporter', servicer of dic'tator philosophy. May you live in your grand dillusional permenant bases in the firery sands of time... wish away.
I believe in truth and just and the US of A constitutional way.
Another big difference in you and I, and there are multitude I'm sure, but for matters of this discussion, let me be clear-- I never try to be wishful-- especially in a petty way. I am simply waiting. And I know exactly what I am waiting for. I've seen the evidence that has already been discovered, and waiting for the supeanas to pile more 'evidence' on. No illusions nor in your area of dillusions.
It has very little to do with wishfuliness.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 2:04pm
Wishfuliness can't be used in a court of law or congress, evidence of wrong doing-- is.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 2:09pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 1:14pm
Rich Lowry is a slack jawed moron. Try someone else if you want to be taken seriously.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 05/22/2007 @ 2:52pm
my ONLY choice is to accept Fidel's oppression and dictatorship and of course the "free education" and "free health care"....because my ONLY OTHER choice is the crap-hole that Iraq is.
Posted by MASK 05/22/2007 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person
BRILLIANT! That is of course it, eloquently and succinctly stated. Cubans understand that Conservative Republican Americans like George Bush and Dick Cheney, are WORSE than Saddam Hussein, WORSE than Fidel Castro.
Why should Cubans want Al Qaida insurgents running around their country blowing up cars, and Shiite militias drilling holes in people - LIKE THEY ARE IN GEORGE BUSHS IRAQ.
I agree with Mask.
Posted by conshame at 05/22/2007 @ 2:57pm
Cuba: NO car bombs blowing up every day
Iraq: TONS car bombs every day
Which should intelligent Cubans prefer?
Posted by conshame at 05/22/2007 @ 2:59pm
Posted by CONSHAME 05/22/2007 @ 2:57pm
Are you being sardonic, or do you really NOT understand what you're agreeing to?!?!?!?
My point was GLENN's false choice premise, whereby he tolerates no critique (or even defends) Castro's Cuba by saying "Oh, well, it's not as bad as Iraq...so shut up about how bad it is, cuz it's not...cuz it's not as bad as Iraq!"
It's the same idiocy whereby leftists used to say "Sure, Castro's not perfect...but he's much better than Batista" 20-30-40 years ago...as if that was the ONLY choice for the Cuban people....a brutal fascist dictator who enriched himself or a brutal socialist dictator who emPOWERED himself, but gave away "free health care".
Maybe the Cuban people would like ALL the rights enumerated in the United Nations Fundamental Declaration....instead of waiting "short term" (48 years) and getting a few of them!
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 3:05pm
Which should intelligent Cubans prefer?
Posted by CONSHAME 05/22/2007 @ 2:59pm
Ahhh....gotcha now. Another one as dim as GL.
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 3:06pm
Troop Supporters: How many died this week? Don't know?
Posted by conshame at 05/22/2007 @ 3:07pm
What are you talking about Gotcha, I was agreeing with you, you were right.
Posted by conshame at 05/22/2007 @ 3:08pm
Yes it is a stark choice. Cubans can EITHER live their present lifestyle - OR they can get invaded by Americans based on lies, and suffer American occupation like the Iraqis.
Iraq before Americans came: ZERO car bombs
Iraq after Americans came: TONS car bombs
Posted by conshame at 05/22/2007 @ 3:12pm
MBB sounds a bit like a born-again who has seen the error of his ways.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/22/2007 @ 3:15pm
Oh, BTW, why wouldn't hsuB want a 'real' AG in DoJ now... er, supeanas coming out the wazoo, evidence of obstruction of justice out the wazoo, violations of the secrecy act, all linked to hsuB/heney/ove... A majorly weak DoJ to impede whatever it can on that side for the exec, is what they'd rather have I do suppose-- not a real impartial AG doing inquiries, investigating wrong doing in the WH!!!
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 3:15pm
Cuba has electicity. NeoCons want to get rid of electricity, like they did in Iraq. Cuba has safe roads. NeoCons want to get rid of safe roads, like they did in Iraq. Cuba has health care. NeoCons want to get rid of health care, like they did in Iraq. Cuba has sanitation. NeoCons want to get rid of sanitation, like they did in Iraq.
Conservative Republicans are never going to stop trying to overthrow the Cuban government until their vision is fulfilled - to steal the sugar cane fields, get the plantations back up and running, and create chaos - like they are doing in Iraq.
Posted by conshame at 05/22/2007 @ 3:16pm
Then, after Conservative Republicans make an Iraq out of Cuba, their apologists will all come here, saying "How could we have known there was no benign intention".
Posted by conshame at 05/22/2007 @ 3:19pm
Some say Cubans are "living under Castro". Actually, they are "living their own lives free from American liberators." They are "living in their own country". They are "living their own lives". They are "not needing to be liberated by US".
Posted by conshame at 05/22/2007 @ 3:22pm
So speaking of Iraq, what's the overall new con score card look like?
Total Deaths
Terrorists _____________________5,351
Iraqi insurgents________________52,893
Iraqi civilians_________________769,328
Maimed for life_____________25,672,982
DU contaminated/dying_____135,478,365
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 3:33pm
Number of people saved by new cons?
5
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 3:36pm
Number of people saved by new cons?
5
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/22/2007 @ 3:36pm
Surely there are more than that saved by new cons for the millions of people sacreficed?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 3:47pm
162 million people sacrificed so that
1. hsuB
2. Cheney
3. Rove
4. Condi
5. Chertoff
could have an office in a good location?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 3:57pm
Ok ok, so they could service new con MIC/GOP into billions.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 3:58pm
MBB,
Total Deaths after US invassion:
Terrorists _____________________5,351
Iraqi insurgents________________52,893
Iraqi civilians_________________769,328
Maimed for life_____________25,672,982
DU contaminated/dying_____135,478,365
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 4:00pm
MBB,
I do think there's a good case to be made that 90% of the 162 million est dead and dying today in Iraq and the one thousand mile radius of DU contamination are on solely on the bloody hands of hsuB and the new con 'supporters'/servicers of dic'tator phylosophy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 4:04pm
Post-America Iraq: Hundreds of thousands murdered by foreign Islamic terrorists Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 3:47pm
MBB, did you mean to type this? I'd like the citation for this assertion, please.
Posted by nathanhale at 05/22/2007 @ 4:10pm
Posted by CONSHAME 05/22/2007 @ 3:16pm
Posted by CONSHAME 05/22/2007 @ 3:22pm
If there any SANE Castro apologists....you have my deepest sympathies that this insane zealot is "on your side"!
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2007 @ 4:20pm
MaryBretBrad-according to the military the foreign Islamic terrorists are the least of their problems and have not killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/22/2007 @ 4:32pm
Apparently Gore has not spent enough time on his marvelous invention to visit The Nation's website.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 1:22pm
He never said he invented it, Darin. That myth is easily disproved for anyone who cares to look up the original quote, but your side likes to just take bullshit and paint the house with it. Read a book or search the actual internet sometime before you open your ignorant mouth again and continue to propogate myths that have been repeatedly disproved.
By the by, how's that killing-kids-to-prevent-an-alien-invasion thing going for you, and why did you bother coming back here after every ounce of credibility you ever had was shredded? Do you realize how badly you insult the memories and intelligence of the other posters here?
Eh, you probably do - but then, look at your heroes. You probably think that's a badge of honor.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 4:55pm
After 76 months of this crap, is anyone full yet?
I mean, there really isn't much to write about concerning the Attorney General. He's an unqualified joke as is nearly everyone that has been placed into position--with or without the witheringly thoughtful deliberations of the Senate--by this administration. Cries about personal attacks not being valid forms of argumentation miss the point: the nicest things that can be said of these people are personal attacks. To attack them on the grounds of their professional activities would be too disturbing to conceive.
Never a big fan of Clinton. Never a big fan of Janet Reno. But dear lord wasn't it refreshing to have something of an adversarial relationship between the White House and DoJ? While goof-ups abounded in the 90s, at least they were in the open. And at least Reno, for all of her many flaws, did not waste her time concocting plans for the long-term politicization of the "enforcement" of federal law. Just imagine an AG with actual nerve, someone who might actually spend his time looking at the many ways in which the administration rewrites or ignores the law to do whatever it wants.
"Pleasure of the president"? For crying out loud, isn't it supposed to come back to "pleasure of The People"? Underachieving little toadie. Somewhere he's got a blue dress of his own with a little stain.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/22/2007 @ 4:56pm
Don't expect Republicans to vote to impeach because they suddenly, miraculously agree with you.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 1:34pm
Translation: Don't expect Republicans like MBB to suddenly have a crisis of conscience over their lack of ethics.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 4:57pm
Post-America Iraq: Hundreds of thousands murdered by foreign Islamic terrorists
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 3:47pm
Prove it.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 5:03pm
MARYBRETBRAD seems to have run along now... These people sure are slippery...gonna have to start calling them eel-o-cons.
"pleasure of The People" Posted by TJBEHRENS1... Bravo!
Posted by nathanhale at 05/22/2007 @ 5:03pm
Eel-o-cons.
Love it.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 5:06pm
I used to wish that Kenneth Star would find the amature video that Clinton shot of his trysts with Monica. I guess that was wishful thinking.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 1:48pm
So here's how I imagine that the fellatio chain is oriented in this case: Alberto pleasures Karl. Karl pleasures Dick (and giggles slightly regarding the irony). Dick pleasures George. George pleasures Satan.
At various times it is time for Alberto to catch a breather at which point any number of others might step in to make certain that the Big Four running the show receive constant attention.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/22/2007 @ 5:07pm
Post-America Iraq: Hundreds of thousands murdered by foreign Islamic terrorists
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 3:47pm
Prove it.
Posted by NEW DAWN 05/22/2007 @ 5:03pm
You think he was calling our troops Islamic terrorists? Well he the foriegn part right.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 5:14pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/22/2007 @ 5:07pm
Actually I do believe they were all facing the other direction and doing more of a slow motion, gauze over the lens effect, leap frog-type activity. Except that Cheney just bends over and grunts a lot.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 5:20pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/22/2007 @ 5:07pm
I'm going to have to icepick my eardrum and pour in drain cleaner to scrub that image out of my head.
Thanks a lot, TJ.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 5:30pm
Yea, MBB's moral outrage about Clinton's hypocrisy has, now, 8 years down the (h)eel infested slippery slope of "new con" war profiteering, opened her(? - Darlin "Darin"?) to reconstructed cynicism about putatively public, as opposed to perversely private servants.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/22/2007 @ 5:32pm
Oh, wait, it's corporals who become dictators; privates, dick-tasters.
No, no, no! These "new cons" and their slime is effecting me entirely wrongly, so that even ideals of oral sex within consensual erotic, ostensibly beautiful couplings is degraded. Mea culpa.
It's like the Spanish Inquisitors comprise the government's executive branch and project their venom outwards upon we lefty heretics. IMPEACH!!!
Posted by lewwelge at 05/22/2007 @ 5:42pm
Hey, GOP don't go do the fight'in in Iraq and they don't go to Falwell's funeral, suuuurrprriiiissse!
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 6:00pm
Susan Ralston, the former executive assistant to top White House adviser Karl Rove, invoked her rights against self-incrimination while she was being asked to answer questions by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee's Chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, announced in a memo Tuesday. The deposition for which she sat concerned contacts between convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Rove, as well as the White House more broadly.
According to Waxman's memo, which was sent to Oversight Committee members, Ralston is seeking immunity from prosecution.
And then there's:
Monica Goodling, the Justice Department's former liaison to the White House, testifies before the House Judiciary Committee this Wednesday.
And then there's:
House Judiciary Committee is prepared to use subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove and other White House officials, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcomittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) warned White House counsel Fred Fielding today.
And does Gonzo go up the hill to lie some more? Like that really helps.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 6:10pm
MBB:
I don't know to whom you were referring with the following comment,
"These "crimes" are only a big deal if you already hate the guy and need and excuse to try to get rid of him."
but I for one think it's a big deal when anyone of ANY political persuasion perpetuate such crimes. It serves to cheapen our political process and undermine everyone's faith in it erstwhile legitimacy. It's people like yourself who allow moral relativism to hold sway over rational responses to reasoned critiques of proper and appropriate behavior of our political officials. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds...
Posted by jorcheim at 05/22/2007 @ 6:28pm
Dawn, everybody knows Gore never said he invented the Internet. It's just fun to pretend he did to watch people start foaming at the mouth.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 6:19pm
No, Darin.
I don't believe for one moment that you "knew" that Gore never said that. I think the truth of the matter is that you are a clueless fool.
And just to show my non-partisan side, I'll bet that you also didn't know it's a myth that George Bush, Sr. was "amazed" by a grocery scanner.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 6:39pm
Translation: Don't expect Republicans like MBB to suddenly have a crisis of conscience over their lack of ethics.
Posted by NEW DAWN 05/22/2007 @ 4:57pm
You guys talk about oral sex a lot. How come you never mention the words perjury or obstruction of justice. I'm just saying expecting Republican Senators to have a sudden crisis of conscience over firing people who serve at the pleasure of the President is like expecting Democrat Senators to have a sudden crisis of conscience over perjury and obstruction of justice (which Clinton admitted to and surrendered his law license.)
These "crimes" are only a big deal if you already hate the guy and need and excuse to try to get rid of him.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 6:23pm
Again, you clueless waste of skin and oxygen, you say stupid shit with nothing to back it up.
Please find a recent post of mine where I have mentioned oral sex. Good luck with your fruitless search.
And as far as perjury and obstruction of justice, everyone who's read my posts knows that I have called Bill Clinton a liar and a perjurer just about every time his name has come up.
So, tell me, Darin, why exactly would I hate Gonzales (or Bush or Cheney or "We know exactly where the WMD's are" Rumsfeld) beyond their lies?
Be specific and provide references and links if you're going to try to portray me as something I'm not.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 6:43pm
These "crimes" are only a big deal if you already hate the guy and need and excuse to try to get rid of him.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 6:23pm
It does matter a great deal what it is that you're lying about. Lying about an embarresment that only affects yourself and family is one thing, not a good thing but not affecting the work of our government that much. Does it really matter to the citizenry if it's Monica or Hillery that's giving Bill a bj? Repubs were the ones that made it a big deal and thus basically gave licence to teens all around the world to have more sex... well ok one good thing came out that.
But to equate that to lying about perverting our constitution, lying about a coup to transform our government to a one party rule per making the DoJ into the hsuB Kastopo opposition attack dogs. Not to mention lying us into a war with hundreds of thousands dead and dying with millions more dying from the DU exposure for years to come. Oh there are lts more lies, but I'll stop there.
So lets qualify what the lies are about, it makes a great deal of a difference. A spoonfull/few million sperm + $50 dress vs a few million lives + the best 230-something year old constitutional way of life. See a slight difference?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 6:49pm
I for one believe Clinton was guilty of impeachable offenses (albeit not necessarily the ones for which he ended up being impeached). But that is another issue.
My calling you a hypocrite was referring to your general positions on numerous issues which I have had the misfortune of reading for over a year, and how on so many occasions you hold to double standards. It wasn't in reference to this specific issue, but rather your general overall attitude toward those of differing political persuasions vis-a-vis your own.
Posted by jorcheim at 05/22/2007 @ 6:51pm
Translation: Don't expect Republicans like MBB to suddenly have a crisis of conscience over their lack of ethics.
Posted by NEW DAWN 05/22/2007 @ 4:57pm
One other thing there, MBB - I said a "lack of ethics". It is highly unethical to remove USA's mid-term strictly because you don't like their politics.
I notice that you never once said such actions are ethical. Shall we assume that you agree that the Bush administration acted unethically, if not strictly "illegally"?
As for the rest of you neo-cons - try letting Darrin answer for himself - he opened his mouth, he can back it up without your help.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 6:52pm
the most plausible explaination is that your political opponents are evil slime so one will imagine the "missing evidence" and simply believe it exists.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 6:49pm
Are talking about WH missing email? That's crime in itself. You do know that right?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 6:58pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/22/2007 @ 6:49pm
Oh, Liberty, you're so easy. Still the unintentional clown prince with most of the stuff you C&P.
We all know that you only skim the articles you paste for things you think support your position... But did you notice this little gem in your pasted article? It's the next sentence after the one you bolded.
But unlike Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization in Pakistan, U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts believe, the Iraqi branch poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland.
Well, then, that's settled - George W. Bush is a liar every time he says that we are fighting Al-Quaeda in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them here.
Thanks, Libby!
And by the by, neither of your articles attributes Darin's "hundreds of thousands murdered by foreign Islamic terrorists" to Al-Quaeda, Liberty, but you knew that.
Truth of the matter is that bombing campaigns, sanctions, and the war in Iraq have killed more people than Al-Quaeda could ever dream of killing.
But you knew that, too.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 7:05pm
One other thing there, MBB - I said a "lack of ethics". It is highly unethical to remove USA's mid-term strictly because you don't like their politics.
Posted by NEW DAWN 05/22/2007 @ 6:52pm
If their politics get in the way of performing the job you hired them to do, firing them isn't unethical. You may disagree, but I hardly thing a disagreement of ethics rises to the level of impeachment. High crimes and misdemeanors
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 7:02pm
Nice dodge.
Please explain how the politics of ANY of the fired USA's "got in the way of them performing their jobs".
We should all assume that you have evidence of same
OR
that you are just talking out of your ass and willing, in your blatant partisanship, to let the administration off of the hook with a shrug and the blind faith that they would NEVER do anything unethical...
In other words, that you are EXACTLY the kind of hypocrite you try to appear to be railing against...
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 7:08pm
STILL UNANSWERED:
So, tell me, Darin, why exactly would I hate Gonzales (or Bush or Cheney or "We know exactly where the WMD's are" Rumsfeld) beyond their lies?
Be specific and provide references and links if you're going to try to portray me as something I'm not.
Posted by NEW DAWN 05/22/2007 @ 6:43pm
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 7:08pm
It does matter a great deal what it is that you're lying about.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 05/22/2007 @ 6:49pm
Not really. When you are consumed by irrational hate, like I was with Clinton, one convinces oneself that any "lie" will destroy the county. Even a non-lie like relying on incorrect intelligence.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 6:57pm
Again I am not talking about wishfuliness, I talking about factual evidence affecting the function of or obstruction of our government and judicial system. All the intel was there, both favorable to going to war and against needing to go to war-- but only the intel that favored going to war was used. Those are facts. The facts are that we were lied into a war. The hsuB/heney admin lied to congress, to us and the world. It matters little whether I hate liars, impeachment will happen either way-- because of the cold hard facts. No wishfuliness allowed.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 7:11pm
Wrong as usual ND and other than some anti-war resource whose numbers are conjecture, you have nothing to substantiate your claim.
As to Bush being wrong Al Qaeda, you are more intelligent than to grasp at that straw you posted. Bush was not referring only to Al Qaeda in Iraq and anyone who studies terrorism knows that. Only someone wanting to make a uneducated partisan snipe would do as you have done.
BTW, how goes the cancer issue you were facing?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/22/2007 @ 7:11pm
Last things first. The cancer scare is over - looks like I will still have to wait several years before I die of that. Thanks for asking - that part of your Christianity, I never question. I think you honestly asked because you give something of a damn.
However, please explain how I am "wrong as usual", a highly backhanded comment. Where else am I "usually" wrong, Liberty? This should be good.
And I have no idea what the hell you are talking about with the rest of yor post, accusing me of partisan sniping - if Bush was a Democrat, I would still think he was a lying, useful idiot.
Please tell us exactly who in Iraq we have to fear here in mainland America.
I have an answer ready for yours, so make it good.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 7:16pm
Hey, Liberty?
RE: Deaths in Iraq to date from sanctions ("conservative" estimate:)
DEATH STATISTICS IN IRAQ
The UN-imposed economic sanctions have been in place since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. While the sanctions have had little effect on the policies of the Iraqi Government, they have taken a chilling toll on the civilian population.
During the (first) Gulf War, US-led Coalition forces dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq, more than were dropped on Europe during WWII. Targets included electrical generating plants, water treatment facilities, and sewage treatment plants. Because of the sanctions, Iraq has been unable to repair or replace these facilities which are vital to the health of the entire civilian population. As a result, disease has been rampant.
The Iraqi Ministry of Health estimates that 109,720 persons have died annually between August 1990 and March 1994 as a direct result of the sanctions.
>From The Children are Dying: Reports by UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Since August 1990, 567,000 children in Iraq have died as a consequence of the sanctions.
THE LANCET, Volume 346 Number 8988. Saturday December 2, 1995.
After the sanctions, there was a two-fold increase in infant mortality and a five-fold increase in under-5 mortality.
The LANCET Volume 346, Number 8988. Saturday December 2, 1995.
There are 4,500 children under the age of 5 dying each month from hunger and disease. In Central/Southern Iraq, 27.5 percent of Iraq's three million children (some 900,000) are now at risk of acute malnutrition.
UNICEF Report
Due to the hazards of the water supply, government statistical office figures show 1,819 cases of typhoid fever in 1989 and 24,436 cases in 1994. Similarly, there were no reported cases of cholera in 1989, but 1,345 cases in 1994.
>From "The Children are Dying": Reports by UN Food and Agricultural Organization.
Fifty percent of rural people have no access to potable water.
Waste-water treatment facilities have stopped functioning in most urban areas.
UN Department ot Humanitarian Affairs
In rural areas, only half the people have access to a water supply from a network, public tap, or well, and only 34 percent have a sanitary type of latrine.
UNICEF Report
Article 48 of the Geneva Convention reads: It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensible to the survival of the civilian population such as food, livestock, agricultural areas and drinking water installations.
"Whatever the intent of these sanctions, the means violates the most basic tenets of Catholic Moral Theology moreover, they violate international law by targeting civilians and the infrastructure necessary for their existence."
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton & Catholic Bishops
--------------------------------
Now, these are OLD statistics and stories, most from the late 90's, outdated ones (like the kind you often post), that have been supplanted since by newer and more accurate statistics.
And these are also only statistics about the SANCTIONS, not even including the decade of bombing campaigns, or the "Iraq war" as it stands today WITHOUT Al-Queada-related deaths.
So, if anything, these numbers have likely gone UP since the 90's, wouldn't you agree?
That said, I CHALLENGE you to convince this board that Al-Quaeda has killed more people than the sanctions, bombing campaigns, and "Iraq war".
PLEASE PROVE how I am "wrong" when I say Al-Quaeda's body count doesn't even come CLOSE (including 9/11).
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 8:30pm
I love you, New Dawn.
Both literally as an effective refuter, and figuratively as a forceful female.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/22/2007 @ 8:50pm
Hey ND,
I bet the numbers will look something like this:
Total Deaths after US invassion:
Terrorists _____________________5,351
Iraqi insurgents________________52,893
Iraqi civilians_________________769,328
Maimed for life_____________25,672,982
DU contaminated/dying_____135,478,365
True, won't see the majority of the DU deaths for another 2-5 years, espicially if one counts all the still born autrosities, and also unfortunately-- this is what is really following our troops back here to their families and us. So that we can fight insurance co's and military health system here and not over there...?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 9:22pm
Posted by LEWWELGE 05/22/2007 @ 8:50pm
He is one sexy dude.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 05/22/2007 @ 9:26pm
When you are consumed by irrational hate, like I was with Clinton, one convinces oneself that any "lie" will destroy the county. Even a non-lie like relying on incorrect intelligence.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 6:57pm
No one in this room is filled with any "irrational hate" of Alberto Gonzales (or George W). It's completely rational.
Right there is your disconnect from the glaring reality of your own double standard.
I think Clinton LIED about the BJ's, Darin, just like you would to your wife if you got a little something-something-on-the-side-from-the-cute-fat-chick at your day job (maybe not, but probably). I also think that he lied under oath and that that was unforgiveable, and illegal.
Full disclosure? To tell you the truth, I think ol' Bill probably did a lot more that never made it on the record. I think a reasonable person could assume that Bill took it as far as he could (especially if you listen to the rabid right, forever frothing about what a "slick willy" philanderer he is), ad nauseam. The assumptions run rampant, and from appearances, rightfully so. Your guys assume that Clinton probably did a hundred other worse things, too. I've heard that a lot, right here on this board. I've seen him accused of murder. And the hate for him is palpable. Clearly. I get it.
But suddenly, when you put the shoe on the other foot and say, let's examine Gonzales or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or Bush or the current, in-power-right-now Administration's activities; their secrecy; their expansions of power and recess appointments while the other branches are sleeping; their back-slapping-favor political appointments (who needs competence, right?); all the things they all conveniently forget under oath (if you even can get them to testify under oath, or to do it without the VP holding your hand) - let's look at how many "misstatements" and "signing statements" and "we were never stay the course"'s we've seen roll out of this misadministration...
Suddenly ---- "Well, yeah, but your hatred is partisan, too".
But, no, Darin. No, it isn't. And it wasn't when Clinton lied under oath, either. It was all-inclusive, unbiased, and didn't discriminate by political party. I hate liberal Democratic liars and thieves every bit as much as I hate your side's. I want them ALL to be honest (fat chance, but they should shoot for something in at least the same sport, if not the same ballpark). I want BOTH sides "in power", a more even field than the one-party state that the right is hoping for, with plenty of dissent and differing opinions and animated discussions about what's best for the entire country, and least of all, about the debaters or the parties.
Gonzales strikes me a lying bastard. A shyster lawyer with a convenient memory. However, unlike ol' man Clinton, who holds no political office, Gonzales is the current AG of the United States of America.
Which lying bastard should I be bothered by more, now, really? Really?
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 9:30pm
I don't believe for one moment that you "knew" that Gore never said that. I think the truth of the matter is that you are a clueless fool.
Posted by NEW DAWN 05/22/2007 @ 6:39pm
This is my point about wishful thinking. I've written in this space before that everyone knows he didn't claim to invent the Internet. It's just that he exaggerates so it's fun to exaggerate his exaggerations.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/22/2007 @ 6:49pm
Oh, I get it now. You weren't a lying, clueless fool, you were just being an asshole to rile people up. My bad - I missed that the first time around.
Thanks for explaining it to me.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 9:37pm
I love you, New Dawn.
Both literally as an effective refuter, and figuratively as a forceful female.
Posted by LEWWELGE 05/22/2007 @ 8:50pm
I am all man, pal.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 9:43pm
Thanks, Mal.
Posted by New Dawn at 05/22/2007 @ 9:46pm
Gender ambiguous, or now defined, you are the ONE,
New Dawn's divine.
Don't worry, ND, heterosexuals like us RULE!
Posted by lewwelge at 05/22/2007 @ 10:34pm
In fact, your maleness makes KvH seem all the better/hotter. Just wish the women comprised a more equal percentage of contributors here on the Left.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/22/2007 @ 10:36pm
http://impeachgonzales.org/
President Bush won't fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales... but YOU can!
We, The Undersigned, urge the House Judiciary Committee to begin the process of impeachment of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in accordance with Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides for removal of the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States. We believe the process will prove that Atty. General Gonzales has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, including the abuse of power and violation of the public trust, both impeachable offenses.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 10:38pm
What exactly is impeaching Gonzo going to do? The government is already infested with hamsters mindless to the chimp. We are stuck with this bullshit for the duration.
However if you can't get impeachment out of your mind, consider that a better, more effective solution might be flame thrower
Posted by Will C. at 05/22/2007 @ 10:46pm
because after all this bullshit is over, the country just might be interested in throwing a little flame into the heart of hamsterland
Posted by Will C. at 05/22/2007 @ 10:47pm
and then it also might be interested in throwing a lot of flame into the heart of hamsterland.
we should keep our options open
Posted by Will C. at 05/22/2007 @ 10:48pm
Frito, then cHeney, then hsuB.
Think of it as moving through the gears in a car that was in reverse for about 12 years. We got it to brake in Nov'06, got into 1st gear in Jan w/oversight started, 2nd gear impeach Frito, 3rd gear cHeney, 4th gear hsuB, 5th gear... you get the idea.
Or sure, you can blow up the car and start from scatch.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/22/2007 @ 11:06pm
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.
"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.
"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said.
Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams.
"The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it."
Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.
He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.
In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 12:22am
"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 12:26am
May 23, 2007
In Iraq, nobody is accountable By Ali al-Fadhily
BAGHDAD - Killings, crime, lack of medical care, the collapse of education - the list goes on. But with the occupation by US-led forces now into its fifth year, and a supposedly democratic government in place, no one knows whom to hold accountable for all that is going wrong.
It is the occupation forces, particularly the United States and Britain, that must be held accountable, many Iraqis say.
"It is good of these people to discuss accountability for theft, but
the most important thing to account for is Iraqi blood," said Numan Ahmed, a human-rights activist from the Adhamiya neighborhood in Baghdad.
The British medical journal Lancet has reported that by last July, 655,000 people had died as "a consequence of the war". It has reported that the risk of death among civilians is now 58 times as high as before the US-led invasion in March 2003.
"By now a million Iraqis have been killed for no reason, and many millions disabled or badly injured just because of some thieves in Baghdad and Washington," Ahmed said. "We are prepared to reveal the documents to condemn them even if takes us a lifetime."
But Iraqis have no means to take action against the occupiers.
The US has not accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has the power to investigate complaints of genocide. The United States took the view that the court could conduct "politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of US military and political officials and personnel".
US opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the court by most of America's closest allies.
With no doors of justice open to them, many Iraqis are taking to unlawful ways to hit back at occupation forces and government targets.
"The only way to do it is at gunpoint," said Ali Aziz, 32, from Ramadi, 100 kilometers west of Baghdad. "They invaded us at gunpoint, and we find it ridiculous to talk about any other way of getting back what belongs to us."
Aziz said he had lost several friends in attacks by US soldiers. "The whole world is dealing with this in a hypocritical way, and there is only us to claim our rights the way we find proper."
Human-rights group al-Raya filed a case in a court in Fallujah against US forces in 2004, after a massive military crackdown. About three-quarters of all buildings in the city were destroyed or heavily damaged during the US assault that November.
But US-backed Iraqi security forces have targeted the rights group. "The secretary general for the organization has now been arrested by Fallujah police for reasons that we are not aware of, and the organization is not functioning anymore," said a senior member of the group, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"It is not the right time to talk about accountability when daily killings by US and Iraqi soldiers are still ongoing. God knows if it will ever be possible."
A case for accountability could well be made. A judge from the United States wrote at the time of the trial of Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg, Germany, in 1946: "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
The US-led invasion of Iraq was judged by then-United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan on September 16, 2004, as "an illegal act that contravened the UN Charter".
The lack of accountability appears now to be leading to greater support for armed resistance against occupation forces.
"What accountability are you talking about, sir?" said Abu Jassim of Fallujah, who lost four members of his family when a US bomb destroyed his home during the first US offensive against the city in April 2004. "Americans are criminals, and the whole world is covering up for their crimes." They will be held accountable, he said, by Allah and by "the heroes of the Iraqi resistance".
Iraqis are also angry over destruction of their civilian infrastructure, for which no one has been held responsible.
"The US crime of deliberately crushing Iraqi infrastructure must be looked at as a crime against humanity," said chief engineer Jalal Abdulla at Baghdad's Ministry of Electricity. "They did not have to do this to support their military effort, but they did it just to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths for no reason but cruelty."
Others vent their frustration against what they see as an impotent United Nations. "The UN should be the place for asking those Americans why they committed so many crimes in Iraq," said Baghdad resident Malik Hammad.
Ali al-Fadhily, the IPS correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, a US-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE23Ak02.html
(Inter Press Service)
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 12:37am
Don't worry, ND, heterosexuals like us RULE!
Posted by LEWWELGE 05/22/2007 @ 10:34pm
I know it's part of an on-going conversation, but...what the heck did LEW mean by that?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 07:43am
BTW, I asked on Mr Nichols' latest on "No Compromise, Blank Check" on "Notion"....
how does the Democratic leadership who SURRENDERED to Bush on Iraq war funding....
turn around and impeach him?
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 07:45am
May 23, 2007
Quote of the Day
"We must dare to think "unthinkable" thoughts. We must learn to explore all the options and possibilities that confront us in a complex and rapidly changing world." – James William Fulbright
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/23/2007 @ 08:06am
Scarey. It's like a pyramid scheme of corruption. Bush I's puking in the Japanese Prime Minister's lap years ago now seems an apt metaphor for this country's sick state.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/23/2007 @ 09:04am
Bush hatred.
Yes, I hate it when Chimpy lies, whether it be n a SOTU speech, a speech in Ohio, or a press conference.
Yes, I hate it when he uses jingoes and platitudes to divide the country.
Yes, I hate it when he conflates Al Qeada and Iraq.
Yes, I hate it when he hires unqualified people to run our country, and Iraq.
Yes, I hate iYes, i hate it when his subordinates lie to congress, the press and their employers
when he uses jingoes and platitudes to divide the country.
YEs, I hated it when he let Rummy stay on the job years longer than he should have.
Yes, I hate it when, as Commando Guy in Chief, he fails to win 2 wars in 2 countries.
So, fine, I hate chimpy.
Worst Potus ever.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2007 @ 09:12am
ooh, bad editing.
I hate that.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2007 @ 09:13am
So, Darin, YOur claim that there have been "Tons of elections" in Iraq.
what does this mean? Do they have a functioning guvt because of these elections? Is the guvt helping the people? They elected 2 PM's that have fled the country with your money, does that equal good government by/for the people? Has this guvt assembled a functioning police and military?
Elections are a good thing, but if not followed by real governing, they are just a big show.
PS, wrong about "foreign fighters". According to OUR military, foreign fighters account for 5-10% of the insurgency. To disagree one must not support the troops.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2007 @ 09:20am
Hint for the neo-cons:
chimpy has been wrong about almost everything related to Iraq. Maybe you guys should take what he says with boxes of salt instead of miming his words. It's getting real old.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2007 @ 09:22am
how does the Democratic leadership who SURRENDERED to Bush on Iraq war funding....
turn around and impeach him?
Posted by MASK 05/23/2007 @ 07:45am
How sugar buns? The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority.
get back to me if you have any more questions k
Posted by Will C. at 05/23/2007 @ 09:23am
get back to me if you have any more questions k
Posted by WILL C. 05/23/2007 @ 09:23am |
Well, I got two for you, Wilber.
1. If the House of Reps just surrendered to Bush on supplemental funding for Iraq...why will they "go after him" and pass impeachment bills?!??!?
2. Shouldn't you be sleeping?...you got to go back to work at 3pm!
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 10:43am
Goodling admitted to considering applicants for career positions based on their political affiliations.
That is a violation of the law.
she also denied being the one that drew up the list. What we have here is a bunch of moral republicans blaming everybody else for this fiasco. same ol' same ol'.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2007 @ 11:48am
More good guvt from ChimpCo: By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott Higham The Washington Post
Wednesday 23 May 2007
Taxpayers overcharged millions in Sun Deal, auditor says.
In February 2005, an auditor at the General Services Administration presented evidence to agency leaders that one of the government's top technology contractors was overcharging taxpayers.
GSA auditor James M. Corcoran reported that Sun Microsystems had billed the government millions more for computer software and technical support than it charged its commercial customers.
If true, the allegation was grounds to terminate the contract and launch a fraud investigation. Instead, senior GSA officials pressed last summer to renew the contract.
That decision meant the government's leading contracting agency would be able to continue collecting millions of dollars in what are called industrial funding fees from Sun under rules that permit the GSA to take a percentage of every sale made to the government. It also meant that taxpayers would pay millions more than necessary, according to congressional investigators.
"We thought of ourselves as being, not a part of the government, but as being a business, and we looked to profit on our customers," said GSA contracting officer Herman S. Caldwell Jr., who warned his superiors against renewing the Sun contract. "When a government buying office becomes a profit center, then bad things are likely to happen."
Posted by crabwalk at 05/23/2007 @ 11:52am
Indeed. Thanks for providing "first source" writings Crab. Profiteering is the "new cons" "raison d'etre" (reason for being). Principled public service has been an increasingly scarce virtue since Reagan, IMHO.
Posted by lewwelge at 05/23/2007 @ 1:08pm
Principled public service has been an increasingly scarce virtue since Reagan, IMHO.
Posted by LEWWELGE 05/23/2007 @ 1:08pm
Including the Clinton years?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 05/23/2007 @ 1:30pm