Censure and Impeachment

There is every reason to be enthusiastic about U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold's decision to ask the Senate to consider a pair of censure resolutions condemning the President, Vice President and other administration officials for misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law.

Indeed, as the movement to impeach Bush and Cheney attracts more support with each passing day, Feingold's resolutions should be seen as evidence that the essential American principle of presidential accountability is finally being put back on the table by responsible members of Congress.

Feingold is renewing and extending a call for censure that that the Wisconsin Democrat initially made in March, 2006. The senator now proposes one resolution censuring the president, the vice president and their aides for overstating the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, particularly nuclear weapons, and falsely implying a relationship with al Qaeda and links to 9/11; for failing to plan for the civil conflict and humanitarian problems that the intelligence community predicted; for over-stretching the Army, Marine Corps and Guard with prolonged deployments and for justifying U.S. military involvement in Iraq by repeatedly distorting the situation on the ground there. A second resolution would censure the administration for approving the illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping program, for promoting extreme policies on torture, the Geneva Conventions, and detainees at Guantanamo; and for refusing to recognize legitimate congressional oversight into the improper firings of U.S. Attorneys.

Feingold, a Constitutional scholar, is well aware that these misdeeds of the George Bush, Dick Cheney and their minions fall, as the senator has suggested, "right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors." He has frequently suggested that he "would not rule out any form of accountability," including an impeachment inquiry beginning with proper investigation and hearings.

But, as a senator, Feingold cannot initiate an impeachment.

The founders, wisely, rested that power with members of the U.S. House.

The drafters of the Constitution feared that the Senate -- which was initially conceived of as an appointed chamber, more akin to the British House of Lords than the elected body it has become -- would be too formal and cautious about holding presidents and vice presidents to account.

So they gave the authority to impeach members of the executive branch to the House, which was elected from districts and, as a result, more closely in tune with the ebbs and flows of popular sentiment. James Madison, George Mason and the other essential authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wanted impeachment to be a popular process. And the House was the more populist chamber.

That said, they did not intend for senators to sit idly by while high crimes and misdemeanors were committed.

Feingold is right to describe his censure motions as "a relatively modest response." But they are precisely the response that a senator can and should propose.

"Censure is about holding the administration accountable," says Feingold. "Congress needs to formally condemn the President and members of the administration for misconduct before and during the Iraq war, and for undermining the rule of law at home. Censure is not a cure for the devastating toll this administration's actions have taken on this country. But when future generations look back at the terrible misconduct of this administration, they need to see that a co-equal branch of government stood up and held to account those who violated the principles on which this nation was founded."

Censure is not the cure. Impeachment is. But censuring Bush and Cheney ought not be seen as a compromise, or an insufficient response to the crisis. It is a senatorial compliment to the burgeoning movement for impeachment -- a movement that today delivered petitions with more than 1,000,000 signatures to Congressman John Conyers appealing to him to begin impeachment proceedings. Conyers, it should be noted, indicated at a recent meeting in California with members of Progressive Democrats of America that he would be receptive to appeals from other members of the House to develop a game-plan for considering serious impeachment proposals.

Supporting Feingold's censure resolutions should not distract from nor negate the push for impeachment. Rather, moves to get the Senate to censure Bush and Cheney ought to be seen as vital pieces of the broader struggle to hold this administration to account.

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

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

Comments (187)

1. John Nichols ODDLY failed to note that Feingold JUST LAST WEEK poo-poo'ed impeachment on Daily Kos....and incurred the wrath of the left-wing Blogosphere (and likely came up with "censure" over the weekend to try to put out some fires). I wonder if he called him up Friday night and said "Russ? It's John Nichols, your biggest fan. You GOTTA give me something to redeem you over at 'The Nation'! and fend off the impeachment dogs with some red meat!"

   Meanwhile, the Majority Leader of the Senate, Mr. Reid said this...

   WASHINGTON (AP) -

   "....Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Feingold's proposals showed the nation's frustration. But Reid said he would not go along with them and said the Senate needs to focus on finishing spending bills on defense and homeland security.

   "We have a lot of work to do," Reid said. "The president already has the mark of the American people - he's the worst president we ever had. I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."

   Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 12:34pm

2. Let's hope that enough Repubs in the House and Senate will want to put so much space between them and the Pres when the campaigning season arrives that they will do the right thing and side with the Constitution. Impeach this scum! It's not about politics. Our government expects us to follow the law; it should serve as the example and do the right thing.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 07/23/2007 @ 12:59pm

3. Maskerina gave up on saying that mobs of Russ' constituency made him change his tune as it makes no sense that they too would've influenced Reid. Russ Feingold has already stated that censure is the first step to impeachment and that means not jumping the gun and statrting with step number 2. Makes real sense him being in the senate and all:

   Demanding Accountability by Senator Russ Feingold

   Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:28:42 AM PDT

   The last time I posted on Daily Kos, it certainly generated a lot of interest, even though many people disagreed with what I had to say. I read all of the comments and I know many of you disagreed with me. As always, I appreciate how honest and passionate the Daily Kos community is about the issues that matter and even when we don't agree it was important to have the civil exchange that we did.

   After that last post, you really got me thinking. While I still am not convinced that Congress should pursue impeachment, you made some great points about how important it is to hold this administration accountable for its terrible misconduct. That includes tough oversight by Congress, but we should do more than that. The history books should show that Congress formally condemned this President, and others in the administration who have so brazenly misled the American people and undercut the rule of law.

   http://senator-russ-feingold.dailykos.com/

   As for Reid, the rest of the story:

   SCHIEFFER: So you're not going along with it?

   REID: Well, at this stage, Russ is going to have to make his case as to why we should do that rather than do our appropriation bills, finish the defense authorization bill, Homeland Security appropriation bill.

   (Doesn't quite sound like he's ruling it totally out, but like everything else, it needs to be justified on the floor. I know it is, but Maskerina, well anything to protect hsuB...

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 1:11pm

4. Oh boy!

   Like I said on the other Russ Feingold cheerleading thread....

   There is no way that 15-20 Senate Republican's are going to vote to impeach EITHER Cheney or Bush.

   Jeepers, Democrats can't even make a god dammed case against Cheney Bush, because they are too timid with knocking down the roadblocks that the Executive branch is errecting to thwart them.

   You want impeachment? Then build a case.

   You want a case? Then compel witnesses to testify.

   You want testimony? Then use Inherent Contempt charges against recalcitrant witnesses.

   Posted by freedomplease at 07/23/2007 @ 1:12pm

5. Whatever the outcome, the drama that is occurring in slow motion before our eyes will go a long way in determining the direction of the American experiment with constitutional democracy.

   Whether our experiment succeeds or fails, the current crisis is undoubtedly the most severe one since the nation was formed.

   Impeachment is just the first step in the right direction if we wish to salvage our constitutional government.

   Let's support the impeachment process.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/23/2007 @ 1:25pm

6. Censure is not the cure. Impeachment is. But censuring Bush and Cheney ought not be seen as a compromise, or an insufficient response to the crisis.

   Censure doesn't give you a 'trial' in which all of the facts concerning the deception and fraud that got us into Iraq get aired.

   We all know that the Republicans (plus Lieberman) in the Senate will not vote to impeach, so the only good that will come out of impeachment is airing the facts in a trial and holding Republicans and Lieberman (AIPAC sponsors) types to account and use that against them in '08.

   Conyers says he needs 3 more sponsors of 333 and he will start impeachment, but Emmanuel and his corrupt AIPAC group are lobbying the Democrats very hard to stop the impeachment push. Emmanuel is just trying to cover his butt because he knows an impeachment trial will shed light on AIPAC's lies and deception as well in getting us into Iraq and he, more than any other Democrat was responsible for the lies!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 1:33pm

7. Let's try it with the HSUBFOOLS Translator/Editor dialed to "reality" (a rarely used setting)---

   After that last post, you really got me thinking. While I still am not convinced that Congress should pursue impeachment, you made some great points about how important it is to hold this administration accountable for its terrible misconduct. That includes tough oversight by Congress, but we should do more than that. The history books should show that Congress formally condemned this President, and others in the administration who have so brazenly misled the American people and undercut the rule of law.

   (Doesn't quite sound like he's ruling it totally out, but like everything else, it needs to be justified on the floor. I know it is, but Maskerina, well anything to protect hsuB...

   Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/23/2007 @ 1:11pm

   (Doesn't sound at all like he's supporting impeachment, but like everything else, it'll die before it reaches on the Senate floor. I know it is, but HSUB, wIll anything to keep his fantasy alive...)

   (BTW, why is Russ "not convinced"? Never do get a full explanation of why he still needs convincing, HSUB???)

   Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 1:38pm

8. David Brooks/Times, says that there's 30 repub senators that want to jump the hsuB ship, but only if they don't have to do anything too appropriate...

   MR. RUSSERT: And now a Democratic senator's going to introduce a resolution to censure him for his conduct in the war.

   MR. BROOKS: I think a big tactical mistake from a Democratic perspective. There are 30 Republican senators who are desperate to get away from President Bush. They've been pushed back toward President Bush by, one, Harry Reid making this more partisan, and a censure resolution would make it hyper- partisan. So I think it would be huge for the whole political landscape if those Republicans drifted away from Bush. But it's not going to happen if there's censure resolutions, if it's a partisan debate.

   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 1:41pm

9. (BTW, why is Russ "not convinced"? Never do get a full explanation of why he still needs convincing, HSUB???)

   Posted by MASK 07/23/2007 @ 1:38pm

   Well Maskerina, hsuB supporter, it's up to the reps to bring it to the senate. That will obviously convince him. Maybe not you, as your blind, love blind...

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 1:44pm

10. I think a big tactical mistake from a Democratic perspective. There are 30 Republican senators who are desperate to get away from President Bush. They've been pushed back toward President Bush by, one, Harry Reid making this more partisan, and a censure resolution would make it hyper- partisan. So I think it would be huge for the whole political landscape if those Republicans drifted away from Bush.

    Brooks is missing th point. Reid WANTS the Republicans to stay with Bush so they get killed in the '08 election! Political tactics must be viewed in a broader and longer-term context than what Brooks has done.

    This isn't about 'winning' a censure vote or impeachment trial, it is about 'winning' in '08!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 1:47pm

11. Call Congress Today for Impeachment

    On Monday, July 23rd, the fifth anniversary of the meeting that produced the Downing Street Minutes, Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Ann Wright, Debra Sweet, Dave Lindorff, David Swanson, Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Kevin Zeese, and Tina Richards will lead a march to Chairman Conyers office and not leave until he agrees to begin impeachment proceedings.

    If you cannot be there, you can take two minutes on Monday and do two things: phone Chairman Conyers at 202-225-5126 and ask him to start the impeachment of Dick Cheney; and phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and ask them to immediately call Conyers' office to express their support for impeachment. Your Congress Member might be one of the three needed, not just to keep impeachment activists out of jail but to keep this nation from devolving into dictatorship.

    Also email your Representatives: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/23/2007 @ 1:53pm

12. There will be no impeachment because the dems want to hang on to power in 08, as their grip is slippery at best. The nation does not want or need impeachment ...the repubs running for office in 08 will distance themselves from Bush but not from defence of the nation...

    and they know they must be conservative in order to win..and not be a rino...

    It is going to be interesting, as the public is already bored with the dems according to the reports on drudge and other headlines groups..fatique with the process already doesn't bode well for either party.

    Gonna be fun and filled with surprises..for all of us..

    Posted by john maasch at 07/23/2007 @ 2:05pm

13. for overstating the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, particularly nuclear weapons, and falsely implying a relationship with al Qaeda and links to 9/11

    And for bombing Iraqi cities on the basis of these lies, a trial in the Hague is in order, I should think.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 07/23/2007 @ 2:06pm

14. On Monday, July 23rd, the fifth anniversary of the meeting that produced the Downing Street Minutes, Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Ann Wright, Debra Sweet, Dave Lindorff, David Swanson, Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Kevin Zeese, and Tina Richards will lead a march to Chairman Conyers office and not leave until he agrees to begin impeachment proceedings.

    This highlights the political inexperience and naivety of Sheenan and her activists. If she really wants a breakthrough in the impeachment push, she and her groups should camp out in front of Rahm Emmanuels's office, not Conyer's!

    That would really be something because even the mainstream press would have to ask her why she is camping out in Emmanuel's office and report the truth of her response that he is lobbying Democrats 'against' impeachment to cover up AIPAC lies!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 2:17pm

15. Mette-Is there anything that the Jews aren't to be blamed for?Bush/Cheney don't care about Israel in the slightest and did not start the war to protect Israel.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 2:21pm

16. Mette-Is there anything that the Jews aren't to be blamed for?Bush/Cheney don't care about Israel in the slightest and did not start the war to protect Israel.

    This isn't about blaming Jews, it is about the political corruption of Democrats caused by one group, AIPAC. This corruption caused the Democrats to side with Bush and Cheney in this stupid war in Iraq, and now Iran.

    But don't take my word for it, as your Congressperson! Ask them if Rahm Emmanuel refused to fund any congressional Democrat in '06 unless they supported the war in Iraq and the new war AIPAC has planned for us in Iran. Ask him about the 'AIPAC questionare' he has every prospective congressional candidate fill out if they want financial support, and why he doesn't fund candidates that don't fill out this questionare in a manner that gives blank check support to AIPAC!

    Rahm Emmanuel and AIPAC is a cancer in the Democratic party, that pushes the party far to the right in supporting unnecessary wars. These wars take up all of our tax dollars so we have none left over for social programs and other programs that most Democrats want. So why not use impeachment as chemotherapy to get rid of this cancer as well as stick it to the Republicans in '08?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 2:34pm

17. Keep trying JOHN.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/23/2007 @ 2:43pm

18. Metteyya,

    I had wanted to further discuss reparations with you although by this morning I saw that JR's post was the last uner that story, going back to Sat, so I figured no one else would pick it up. A little off topic on this story but if you want to discuss I'm around

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/23/2007 @ 2:45pm

19. Metteyya,

    I had wanted to further discuss reparations with you although by this morning I saw that JR's post was the last uner that story, going back to Sat, so I figured no one else would pick it up. A little off topic on this story but if you want to discuss I'm around

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/23/2007 @ 2:45pm

    Sounds like an interesting money grab...may I join the discussion?

    Posted by john maasch at 07/23/2007 @ 2:49pm

20. Posted by B_KOOL_66 07/23/2007 @ 1:53pm

    You left out the IMPORTANT part of Ms Sheehan's visit, B_KOOL.

    Two weeks ago, she was on the Randi Rhodes Show on Air America and said that if Nancy Pelosi hadn't "put impeachment back on the table" by the time she and her team arrived in DC (today)....that she would mount a challenge to Pelosi in the 8th District of Calif.

    Quite oddly, Pelosi has yet (as of 2:55pm EST) failed to cower in fear of Ms Sheehan or her threat and publicly announce that impeachment was back on the table. Which of course is very odd, given her choice is....A. Become President upon removal of both Bush and Cheney in a few months or B. Lose her seat in Congress.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 2:50pm

21. Quite oddly, Pelosi has yet (as of 2:55pm EST) failed to cower in fear of Ms Sheehan or her threat and publicly announce that impeachment was back on the table. Which of course is very odd, given her choice is....A. Become President upon removal of both Bush and Cheney in a few months or B. Lose her seat in Congress.

    Mask,

    You know the REAL reason Pelosi is not putting impeachment back on the table and it has nothing to do with Sheenan, and has everything to do with AIPAC and Rahm Emmanuel!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 2:53pm

22. Mette-Is there anything you don't blame the Jews for?I noticed that you avoided the question,but did go on to blame the Jews for political corruption,but I have bad news for you.Politicians were corrupt before Israel became a new country and Jews didn't cause them to be corrupt.Democrats who did not support the war got voted in in 2006.Guess AIPAC has little power.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 2:55pm

23. Mette-So, now no impeachment is the fault of the Jews and not because they don't have enough evidence.Did the Jews hide the evidence?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 2:57pm

24. I had wanted to further discuss reparations with you although by this morning I saw that JR's post was the last uner that story, going back to Sat, so I figured no one else would pick it up. A little off topic on this story but if you want to discuss I'm around

    Not sure where the thread went - I think it was about General Colin Powell saying we should talk to Hamas, and Hamas saying that the US can't be an 'honest' broker in the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians because the US has also taken land by force from the Native Americans and have yet to make amends through reparations.

    Did I get that right?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 2:57pm

25. It confounds me that Americans (USA) that GREAT bastion of democracy is now falling blind to those very same elements that began the unraveling of other great empires. Regardless of whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Liberterian, Independent, Green or whatever else, I honestly believe that as an American, your first and foremost priority and loyalty should be to the Constitution of the USA.

    As a US Marine, I took an oath to lay my life down for this country -- meaning, I would die to defend this country. As American citizens, is it not time to put aside petty differences and acknowledge that both George Bush and Dick Cheney as well as their 'buddies' have basically used the constitution as SH*T paper. I honestly doubt (I may be wrong) whether in the history of US president's, there has ever been any who has so blatantly violated the US Constitution with a huge smirk on their face. Cheney's attitude seems to be "I do what I want to do; what are you going to do about it".

    Remember, there was a time it was thought the Roman empire would never collapse, the Russian empire (USSR) would never collapse. Many other empires which were assumed to be infallible, have now gone by the wayside. What makes you think the US is different. Bush and Cheney want to be dictators -- and they are damn close to it. All the while, the American public is drugged on pharmaceuticals, 400 channels of TV, endless channels of XM radio; all manner of reality TV. Does anyone not realize the precedent being established?

    For the sake of the country, forget your affiliations and realize the dangerous path these two morons have now placed this country on. I say Impeach them, and then try them for treason and send them to Guatanamo Bay for 50 years.

    Posted by mansa at 07/23/2007 @ 3:00pm

26. Speaker Pelosi has no right to remove Constitutional remedies for abuse of power from "We the People".

    There is a growing number of moderate people in our country who are starting to believe that nothing is positive is going to be allowed to be accomplished because of this president vetoing bills sent to him to sign, or the filibuster republicans in the Senate blocking bills being sent to the president for his veto.

    This president does not want to be impeached. If this president and the filibuster republicans in the Senate persist, the only remedy to gain the attention of the the president and the obstructionist republicans is to generate articles of impeachment in the House. A simple majority in the House, where the obstructionist republicans can't filibuster, will force an impeachment trial in the Senate.

    To those who will say it is a waste of time, I say, nothing productive is being done anyway, so impeach and let George W. Bush wear a big RED toe tag through history saying "IMPEACHED".

    If the Senate does not convict, at least history will know that "We the People" demanded his impeachment for taking our country to war based on ideologically interpretation of intelligence data. It wasn't faulty data, it was data that was interpreted by a startup intelligence group in the White House for the purpose of justifying going to war in Iraq for their oil.

    "In Europe public men do resign. But here it's a lost art. You have to impeach 'em." - Will Rogers

    icf itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 07/23/2007 @ 3:04pm

27. So, now no impeachment is the fault of the Jews and not because they don't have enough evidence.Did the Jews hide the evidence?

    Evidence? Have you read HR 333? Are you saying that none of these allegations could be proven?

    AIPAC does not equal American Jews, as most American Jews do NOT support the group.

    And sure Congress has been corrupt, but this form of corruption has much more serious consequences because it creates a vacuum in Washington in which their is no Democratic agenda being pursued by the Democrats because all of the money is going to these wars that AIPAC lobbyied for.

    And you suggestion that AIPAC doesn't have any power over the Democrats is baseless. 60% of 'all' funding for Democrat congressional races comes from AIPAC. 60 PERCENT!!!

    Are you suggesting that AIPAC doesn't want anything in exchange for this money?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 3:04pm

28. Mette-I see that you're contradicting yourself.According to you American Jews own the media and conspire to make Israel look good and Hamas look bad.If AIPAC has the power over Democrats, as you claim, then Clinton would have attacked Iraq,but he didn't.Bush did and he doesn't care about Israel.Why do you sound more like Hitler than Buddha?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 3:10pm

29. This isn't about blaming Jews, it is about the political corruption of Democrats caused by one group, AIPAC. This corruption caused the Democrats to side with Bush and Cheney in this stupid war in Iraq, and now Iran.

    The Democrats will not side with Bush in attacking Iran.

    But don't take my word for it, as[k] your Congressperson! Ask them if Rahm Emmanuel refused to fund any congressional Democrat in '06 unless they supported the war in Iraq and the new war AIPAC has planned for us in Iran. Ask him about the 'AIPAC questionare' he has every prospective congressional candidate fill out if they want financial support, and why he doesn't fund candidates that don't fill out this questionare in a manner that gives blank check support to AIPAC!

    Many groups that lobby Congress have these questionnaires, and determine funding based on the answers. No surprise there. The fact that you are so fixated (in post after post after post) with one particular lobbying effort, when even a cursory glance at the run-up to the Iraq War shows that the war was the result of a confluence of interests of many kinds, makes me consider that perhaps you really do dislike Jews as such.

    The main reason the Dems backed the war resolultion is simple: fear. They didn't want to be on the outside if it turned out that Bush was right about Iraq, and they had no basis for determining for sure if he was or not.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 07/23/2007 @ 3:13pm

30. I'M NOBODY,

    I am going to try to find one of these AIPAC questionnaires so you can see how extreme AIPAC corruption has become.

    McNerty was the only candidate that I know of that didn't fill out the AIPAC questionnaire 'correctly', didn't get a dime of AIPAC money, and was still elected. He is now paying a huge price and must spend most of his days raising money since he has been shut out of the Democratic congressional campaign funds, thanks to Rahm Emmanuel!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 3:13pm

31. For the sake of the country, forget your affiliations and realize the dangerous path these two morons have now placed this country on. I say Impeach them, and then try them for treason and send them to Guatanamo Bay for 50 years.

    Posted by MANSA 07/23/2007 @ 3:00pm

    I'm with you. Right on!

    "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

    What will we leave for our kids?

    icf itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 07/23/2007 @ 3:14pm

32. Why do you sound more like Hitler than Buddha?

    Why doesn't political corruption bother you if Jews practice it?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 3:15pm

33. Mette-Is there anything you don't blame the Jews for?I noticed that you avoided the question,but did go on to blame the Jews for political corruption,but I have bad news for you.Politicians were corrupt before Israel became a new country and Jews didn't cause them to be corrupt.Democrats who did not support the war got voted in in 2006.Guess AIPAC has little power.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/23/2007 @ 2:55pm

    WOW, NOBODY!

    Hell of a good slap-down of one-track Mette! I don't think MASK could've done much better!

    Guess even some Libs are getting tired of his anti-Jew/AIPAC gibberish! Join the Club! I think he is a plant by some ARAB outfit! Me, I am a plant by Wall St.......Hahahaha....

    Posted by Happy at 07/23/2007 @ 3:17pm

34. The main reason the Dems backed the war resolultion is simple: fear. They didn't want to be on the outside if it turned out that Bush was right about Iraq, and they had no basis for determining for sure if he was or not.

    Bluespark,

    Your views are not an insider's perspective, but someone looking from the outside and guessing.

    Go ask your Congressperson whether AIPAC had anything to do with Democrats supporting the war in Iraq, and now this push to go to war with Iran? Ask THEM, not me!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 3:19pm

35. 60% of 'all' funding for Democrat congressional races comes from AIPAC. 60 PERCENT!!!

    Unless the scare quotes around "all" are meant to imply that you don't really mean all, you have made a false claim.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 07/23/2007 @ 3:20pm

36. Poll: Should AIPAC Register as the Agent of a Foreign Government? The Question: A tax-exempt organization that lobbies Congress on behalf of Israel, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (also known as AIPAC), has been under investigation by the FBI for allegedly receiving classified information from a Pentagon official and using this information on behalf of the government of Israel. In view of this investigation, do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that AIPAC should be asked to register as an agent of a foreign government and lose its tax-exempt status?

    Method: Conducted by Zogby International of 1,004 likely voters from 9/8/04 through 9/9/04.

    The Results:

    Strongly agree 44% Agree 61% Somewhat agree 17% Somewhat disagree 6% Disagree 12% Strongly disagree 6% Not sure 27%

    Comments:

    The poll found 61% "strongly or somewhat agree" that AIPAC should be asked to register as a foreign agent and lose its tax exempt status, while only 12% strongly or somewhat disagree that it should. 27% were unsure on the issue.

    A majority of people within almost every subgroup agrees. This includes 77% of 18-29-year-olds, 72% of Hispanics, and approximately two-thirds of independent voters, 50-64-year-olds, residents of the West region, Catholics, single adults, parents of children under 17, and men.

    15% of Jewish Americans "strongly agreed" and 15% "strongly disagreed" with the statement that AIPAC should register as an agent of a foreign government and thereby lose its tax exempt status. However, 60% were unsure. Three times as many "Born Again Christians" agreed with the results than disagreed, with almost one-third unsure. These are the traditional pro-Israel bases of the Republican Party.

    On August 30, it was reported that the FBI interviewed members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in connection with the passing of classified material to the government of Israel by a Pentagon analyst working in the office of the Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) subsequently called for opening hearings into the leak to investigate whether the Larry Franklin, the Pentagon analyst, was "acting at the behest of his superiors" and whether a "rogue element in the American government may have been working with a foreign government."

    Said Eugene Bird, president of CNI, "The poll shows serious doubts that Americans have about the activities of AIPAC. They strongly endorse the position that we have long held, that AIPAC should register as an agent of a foreign government and lose its tax-exempt status. For years, Congress has been duped by their illegal activities."

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 3:22pm

37. Happy-There is no doubt that he is a plant.No Buddhist would have his views.My views are far more consistent with the teachings of Buddha than his are.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 3:22pm

38. Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/23/2007 @ 2:57pm

    I'M, you gotta just keep pushing METTE. He keeps using his code-words like "AIPAC", but he lets slip a "Jews" (generic) every now and then and reveals his true colors. Rather difficult to slice the kosher deli meat so thin (as he wants to) where he thinks AIPAC runs the Govt. and "Jews" run the Media...but he doesn't haven anything "personal against Jews in general".

    Guarenteed, away from here, like Farrakhan when he's preaching to some black audience in an inner city, the REAL Metteya comes out and it's not just "AIPAC" or "Media controlling Jews" but "that guy Greenberg or Greenstein or whatever Hymie name, who screwed me over for that job I wanted" stuff.

    He's an anti-Semite, period.

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 3:22pm

39. April 17, 2007 Capuano and Kucinich Come Clean About the Lobby Why is the Peace Movement Silent About AIPAC?

    By JOHN WALSH

    "AIPAC!" was the forceful one-word answer of Congressman Michael Capuano when we asked him, "Why was the Iran clause forbidding war on Iran without Congressional approval taken out of the recent supplemental for the Iraq war funding?" I nearly fell out of my chair at his reply - not because this was news but because of who had just said it. Capuano is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi, her fixer and enforcer. That was last Friday morning when a small delegation from Cambridge and Somerville, MA, were visiting the Congressman, known for his bluntness, as part of the nationwide UFPJ (United For Peace and Justice) home lobbying effort during the Congressional recess.

    Later that day, Dennis Kucinich made an appearance at Harvard, where he was asked the same question, the reason for removing the Iran provision. "AIPAC," I volunteered out loud. Kucinich looked my way and said, "Exactly." Again my chair almost failed to contain me.

    A few weeks earlier we had gone to the offices of Senators Kennedy and then Kerry to discuss the war. (My intention was to call their attention to www.FilibusterForPeace.org to which the Kennedy aide was sympathetic and the Kerry aide predictably hostile.) I raised the question of AIPAC directly with Kerry's aide, inquiring about its hawkish influence on Kerry and other Senators. Suddenly the aide was quite engaged. Leaning forward, he said: "That will never be discussed publicly. That will never be discussed publicly." Clearly even Kerry's office is unhappy with the pressure that comes from AIPAC.

    It is widely acknowledged that the reps and senators are ticked at AIPAC, and their hostility seems to be growing these days. With upwards of 60% of their campaign contributions coming directly or indirectly from the Israel Lobby, the Democratic congressmen are not free to respond to their antiwar base. This opens them to an antiwar electoral challenge on the Left or Right from forces not subservient to AIPAC. And that could cost them their next election, a little thing which has them very worked up. Capuano's cry of "AIPAC" was no simple outburst of candor but a cri de coeur for his career.

    So here we have even Congressmen and Senator's aides complaining publicly about AIPAC. AIPAC is being outed all over the mainstream media, largely thanks to the door opening work of Mearsheimer and Walt. AIPAC is skewered routinely by Justin Raimondo on Antiwar.com and by Alex Cockburn and many others here on CounterPunch. But there remains no anti-AIPAC campaign within the mainstream antiwar organizations, like UFPJ or Peace Action. (Even one supposed Congressional ally of the peace movement was announced as a celebrity guest at the recent colossal AIPAC meeting in Washington, where half the Congress shows up and Dick Cheney is a regular speaker. What gives?)

    I have been told by leaders of the peace movement that AIPAC is a distraction from the main thrust of the antiwar movement. And so we should not engage it; AIPAC is to be immune. But with all due respect to the sentiments of that leadership, immunity for AIPAC is a prescription for disaster. To use a military analogy, which I do not especially like, suppose that we were trying to take a hill in Germany in 1944. And suppose we said that we would not attack one pillbox, which kept devastating our forces. Leave just that one pillbox alone! The result would be devastating; we would be cut down with every succeeding attempt at advance. So it is with AIPAC which campaigns relentlessly for war on Iraq, war on Iran, war on Syria, war on Lebanon and the slow genocide of the Palestinian people. AIPAC constantly puts the peace movement on the defensive while it is free to be on the offensive all the time.

    AIPAC is not just an issue for Jewish Americans or the Jewish wing of the peace movement like Jewish Voice for Peace; it is a major force, although not the only one, driving the U.S. to wars in the Middle East. AIPAC is no less a force for war than is the Republican National Committee. In fact it is worse, because it sinks its teeth into the foreign policy establishment of both parties, perhaps the Dems more so than the Republicans. If the peace movement is to be worth its salt, then it must take action against AIPAC. (It is marathon season here in Boston and my friend, Israeli expatriate Joshua Ashenberg, tells me that the foregoing thought harbors a logical error. As he says: "A 'movement' that does not work against AIPAC is NOT a peace movement by definition. It will not help if I call myself a marathon runner, while I never ran a marathon.")

    In the Boston area, AIPAC appears to be especially powerful, and so we have a special responsibility to take it on. At the recent AIPAC conference in Washington, the delegates from Boston/New England were the most hawkish toward Iran. Just before the last election a notorious ad in the Boston Globe, cheering on the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, was engineered by the Jewish Community Relations Council, an arm of AIPAC here. Every major political figure in MA signed the ad, including our "liberal" governor, Deval Patrick, and supposed peacenik Congressman Jim McGovern. Only Conressmen Capuano and Delahunt withheld their signatures. In addition AIPAC appears to raise a lot of money in our neck of the woods.

    So I have a modest suggestion. On Sunday, April 29, beginning at 6 pm, AIPAC has its annual fundraising dinner at the Westin Hotel in Copley Square in Boston. (Last year a good table for 10 went for a modest $10,000.) Show up at 5 pm to protest the machinations of AIPAC. Which peace organizations in our area will be there? Which ones will promote the rally? And which will maintain their silence?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 3:24pm

40. Mette-There are many powerful groups and individuals that like these wars,but you only mention one and one only.Your hatred has blinded you to reality.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 3:24pm

41. Sure, John, although I don't think she's (Metteyya, I mean) interested, or can't right now. Havn't heard back.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/23/2007 @ 3:26pm

42. Poll: Forty percent of American voters believe the Israel Lobby has been a key factor in going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran

    Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran?

    Method: Conducted by Zogby International of 1,036 likely voters from 10/10/06 through 10/12/06.

    The Results:

    Strongly agree 16% Agree 39% Somewhat agree 23% Somewhat disagree 18% Disagree 40% Strongly disagree 22% Not sure 22%

    Comments:

    A new poll commissioned by the Council for the National Interest Foundation shows that a significant number of Americans are wary of the power of the Israel lobby, and believe it is behind the invasion of Iraq and the current belligerent tone of the White House and Congress toward Iran.

    The poll, which was carried out by Zogby International, reveals that 39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." However, a similar number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this position. Some 20% of the public, or more than one in five, were not sure.

    The poll suggests that the espionage charges against two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the publicity given to a new study of the power of the Israel lobby by two mainstream academic professors has had an affect on people's awareness of the lobby.

    The academic study, done by Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard University, was published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, and was the subject of a recent debate at Peter Cooper Union that included Professor Mearsheimer, Prof. Rashid Khalidi (Columbia University), and Prof. Tony Judt (New York University) and three influential pro-Zionists, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, and Shlomo Ben-Ami.

    The poll's details show that 46% of Democrats tended to believe that the lobby was influential in the decision to go to war in Iraq while 45% of Republicans tended to believe it was not.

    Along religious lines, while Protestants tended to be evenly divided on the role of the Israel Lobby in the Iraq invasion, 49% of Catholics tended to see the lobby's hand in the invasion, while 77% of Jewish Americans overwhelming disagreed with the premise. Among ethnic groups, Hispanics (53%) believed that the lobby's role was influential.

    Among age groups, 50% of those between the ages of 18 and 29 agreed that the Israel lobby had a hand in forming the current pro-war policy. As one might expect, those who call themselves progressive (49%) or liberal (52%) also agreed in the role of the lobby, while "moderates" (42%) and "very conservative" (44%) people disagreed with the idea, as did a significant percentage of college graduates (44%).

    Eugene Bird, president of CNI Foundation, commented about the poll, "It demonstrates the need for widening the circulation of information about the role of the Neocons and the pro-Israel lobby in the corridors of power during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 3:27pm

43. Posted by MANSA 07/23/2007 @ 3:00pm

    Hmmm...let's see. You dimwits on the left want to impeach Bush/Cheney because they're 'dictators', but you know you have to do it quick because the 'dictators' are scheduled to leave office in 18 months, presumably when the new 'dictators' get elected. Have you guys decided yet whether Bush is the stupidest president in history, or the leader of the most sinister, far-reaching, and all-powerful conspiracy ever created? Or is it still either one or both as the situation demands?

    Orwell stated that in order to be a leftist one must have the ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time. I see what he meant now, although it's astonishing that it's even possible.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 3:28pm

44. Posted by BLUESPARK 07/23/2007 @ 3:20pm

    Interesting to see where he GOT that information?

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 3:29pm

45. If I am an anti-Semite for merely pointing out the corruption of the Democrats by AIPAC in getting us into the war in Iraq, then half of America are anti-Semites as well?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 3:30pm

46. Havn't heard back from HIM, rather.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/23/2007 @ 3:31pm

47. Mask-But don't forget that he has "Jewish" friends just like the ones who came up when I googled Jewish friends, as you suggested.My guess is that he is a Muslim playing on the anti Israel sentiment that is hip these days.A Buddhist would view the situation in Israel in the same way I do.Condemn the violence on both sides, don't take sides,and call for a peaceful solution,but he doesn't.He promotes Hamas.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 3:32pm

48. Your views are not an insider's perspective, but someone looking from the outside and guessing.

    Go ask your Congressperson whether AIPAC had anything to do with Democrats supporting the war in Iraq, and now this push to go to war with Iran? Ask THEM, not me!

    I didn't say that AIPAC had nothing to do with the political result, only that they were one of many groups whose interests came together in the decision to invade Iraq. As far as this "insider/outsider" nonsense goes, I have just as much access as you do, and it doesn't take long to figure out that there were many forces at play in the run-up to the war. If the Dems thought that there was a fair chance that Bush was wrong about Iraq they would not have supported him, AIPAC nothwithstanding.

    And your "60%" claim is a lie (either yours or someone else's): AIPAC spends a few million dollars a year in lobbying efforts, so even if we assume (against all sense) that every single penny of that effort goes towards Congressional races, that would mean that, nationwide, the Dems spent less than $10 million on Congressional races. Zat seem likely to you?

    Posted by BlueSpark at 07/23/2007 @ 3:32pm

49. Mette-Bush/Cheney started the war and they don't care about AIPAC or Israel.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 3:33pm

50. Brooks is missing th point. Reid WANTS the Republicans to stay with Bush so they get killed in the '08 election! Political tactics must be viewed in a broader and longer-term context than what Brooks has done.

    This isn't about 'winning' a censure vote or impeachment trial, it is about 'winning' in '08!

    Posted by METTEYYA 07/23/2007 @ 1:47pm

    You mean all the dems have to do 'is the right thing' and what the constitution calls for and no matter what the repubs do-- short of going along with the dems on impeaching the hsuB/cHeney criminals, the repubs lose. What a spot to be in...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 3:33pm

51. Havn't heard back from HIM, rather.

    Chip,

    Have you responded on the Hamas thread, or do you want to continue the discussion here?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 3:33pm

52. Posted by B_KOOL_66 07/23/2007 @ 1:53pm

    Hey B_KOOL, I'm just curious, what are you impeaching Bush/Cheney for today?

    Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 3:34pm

53. Interesting to see where he GOT that information?

    Yes, Mask, I think I would be afraid to follow any link he provides. The last thing I need is "Triumph of the Will" playing on the library computer.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 07/23/2007 @ 3:35pm

54. Metteyya,

    Thanks for posting YOUR source of information of AIPAC's providing 60% of the funding for Democrats. Unfortuanately your source doesn't name its source for this information.

    I don't think it is right.

    My research suggests that AIPAC funding is important but dwarfed by ABA funding and Corporate funding.

    Nevertheless, your basic premise that relatively small amounts of money thrown into our election process yields ENORMOUS returns.

    I'm sure we can all agree that it would be nice if the taxpayer could be the one that would be the beneficiary of that largess instead of narrow lobby groups.

    Did you know that when Reagan can to power there were less than 50 registered lobbyists in DC. Now there are more than 35,000.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/23/2007 @ 3:39pm

55. There are times when it is necessary to continue to pound a subject into the ground on these blogs because there are those that are apparently paid to distract or 'dumb down' the salient points being made. I believe that Metteya's point is that AIPAC supports U.S. wars against Muslim countries and candidates that support those wars. Now, if you feel that AIPAC does NOT support these wars, please provide some evidence to support that opinion. I believe that Metteya has provided some evidence to support her claim (statements by Kucinich and Capuano). Otherwise, the name-calling is simply a diversionary tactic from the subject at hand.

    Posted by jlsolley at 07/23/2007 @ 3:42pm

56. JLS,

    Good point. AIPAC is absolutely commited to maintaining a militarized US presence in the Middle East to deflect cost (both financial and diplomatic) from Israel.

    I join you in exposing that fact.

    However, I do get a bit uneasy when we rely on questionable data about the extent of their financial involvement in the electoral process.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/23/2007 @ 3:50pm

57. JLSolley-The evidence provided by Mette is lacking and can't be verified.Mette's point is that Israel and Israel only is causing these wars because Israel has almost complete power,but that claim can't be backed up with facts.No one has said that Israel does not support the wars just that they are hardly the only ones.If Israel had the kind of power Mette claims then these wars would have started before Bush came into power and we would certainly already be at war with Iran.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 3:52pm

58. Metteyya,

    No, I only responded here. Unfortunately, I'm off to a meeting now and then home. If your on here enough I'm sure we'll have the opportunity. Sorry I missed you. John may still be out there

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/23/2007 @ 3:53pm

59. Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/23/2007 @ 3:32pm

    Muslim is possible, though he tried (in his first postings on 6/05/07 where he noted "I'm not a big Farrahkan fan, but his statement about the Jews controlling the mainstream press appears to be accurate.") to try to distance himself (sort of) from the Nation of Islam, while agreeing with Farrakhan of course.

    History is forgotten....like this from the PBS special on blacks and Jews and their early alliance for civil rights--

    "The unique relationship that developed between these teachers and their students was in some ways a microcosm of what was beginning to happen in other parts of the United States. The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League were central to the campaign against racial prejudice."

    "Jews made substantial financial contributions to many civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Urban League, the Congress of Racial Equality, and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. About 50 percent of the civil rights attorneys in the South during the 1960s were Jews, as were over 50 percent of the Whites who went to Mississippi in 1964 to challenge Jim Crow Laws."

    Now it's Farrakhan, Crown Heights, and the old civil rights alliance has been broken....part of the reason Jesse Jackson felt comfortable calling New York "Hymietown" in 1988.

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 3:57pm

60. Well, at least we're now in agreement that AIPAC supports spending U.S. taxpayer dollars on these illegal and bankrupting wars. Now, can we agree that we oppose AIPAC's influence on that basis? And any other organization that does so?

    Posted by jlsolley at 07/23/2007 @ 3:57pm

61. The last thing I need is "Triumph of the Will" playing on the library computer.

    Posted by BLUESPARK 07/23/2007 @ 3:35pm

    Won't be "Triumph of the Will"....it'll be the Fruit of Islam homepage!...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 4:01pm

62. If Israel had the kind of power Mette claims then these wars would have started before Bush came into power and we would certainly already be at war with Iran.

    AIPAC power has been building, and is now out of control! We know this when we see an unnamed congressperson going to Nancy Pelosi and demanding a particular chair because 'AIPAC favors her'!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 4:03pm

63. Mask-Farrahkan and his bunch aren't seen as real Muslims by many in the Arab Muslim community.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 4:04pm

64. Mette-An unnamed congressperson?Your "facts" vary from stuff you made up to the unnamed.Wow.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 4:06pm

65. "Jews made substantial financial contributions to many civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Urban League, the Congress of Racial Equality, and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. About 50 percent of the civil rights attorneys in the South during the 1960s were Jews, as were over 50 percent of the Whites who went to Mississippi in 1964 to challenge Jim Crow Laws."

    Mask, thanks for bringing this up, as this highlights what I have implying all along: Powerful Jews have flipped the script and are now the same ugly oppressors that they died fighting against!

    Does power and money make one oppressive?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 4:08pm

66. Jane Harmon is the name!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 4:08pm

67. AIPAC was WRONG, about Bush, about Iraq, and everybody KNOWS.

    Posted by conshame at 07/23/2007 @ 4:10pm

68. I think repubs have every right and inclination to impeach the hsuB/cHeney admin as being tied to them is worse than being apposed to it.

    July 23, 2007

    Bush Hits 25% Approval

    According to a new American Research Group poll, just 25% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. These are record lows for the survey.

    When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove. Categories: White House

    http://tinyurl.com/2wn6ed

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 4:12pm

69. From Time Magazine:

    Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government.

    The sources tell TIME that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has simmered out of sight since about the middle of last year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf. Harman said Thursday in a voicemail message that any investigation of -- or allegation of improper conduct by -- her would be "irresponsible, laughable and scurrilous." On Friday, Washington GOP super lawyer Ted Olson left voicemail messages underscoring that Harman has no knowledge of any investigation. "Congresswoman Harman has asked me to follow up on calls you've had," Olson said. "She is not aware of any such investigation, does not believe that it is occurring, and wanted to make sure that you and your editors knew that as far as she knows, that's not true... . No one from the Justice Department has contacted her." It is not, however, a given that Harman would know that she is under investigation. In a follow-up phone call from California, Olson said Harman hired him this morning because she takes seriously the possibility of a media report about an investigation of her, even though she does not believe it herself.

    A spokesman for AIPAC, a powerful Washington-based organization with more than 100,000 members across the U.S., denied any wrongdoing by the group and stressed that it is not taking sides in regards to the committee assignment. Spokespersons for Justice and the FBI declined to comment.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 4:12pm

70. JLS-I'm one of those who was against this war from the beginning and oppose any person or group who favors it,but I prefer living in reality because only opposing this one group won't end the war.Nor will just blaming AIPAC or stopping AIPAC end this war or prevent another war.Bush/Cheney would have attacked Iraq even if AIPAC did not exist.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 4:12pm

71. One day, American history books will say:

    "Not every American was fooled by George Bush. There were some GREAT PATRIOTIC Americans, called Liberals, who understood Bush and Iraq from the very beginning, and we told you so."

    Posted by conshame at 07/23/2007 @ 4:13pm

72. Mette-Did you read that?No proof of anything there.Yes,they are a powerful lobby group.There are many such groups,but you only obsess on this one.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 4:15pm

73. When AIPAC can get its own people appointed to chairs of key committees that 'could' investigate their lies and fraud that got us into Iraq, then AIPAC power is way out of control!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 4:16pm

74. Why is AIPAC 'lobbying' (having donors call Pelosi) to get Harmon as chair of intelligence?

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 4:17pm

75. Hitler could walk the streets of Tel Aviv for 1.3 seconds and survive.

    Bush could walk the streets of Baghdad for 0.2.

    Posted by conshame at 07/23/2007 @ 4:19pm

76. I'm one of those who was against this war from the beginning and oppose any person or group who favors it,but I prefer living in reality because only opposing this one group won't end the war.Nor will just blaming AIPAC or stopping AIPAC end this war or prevent another war.Bush/Cheney would have attacked Iraq even if AIPAC did not exist.

    You are correct, both AIPAC on the Democratic side AND defense and oil lobbies on the Republican side 'bought' this war in Iraq, and are doing the same in Iran.

    You are incorrect in saying that if we can rid ourselves of this AIPAC cancer that we wouldn't be in Iraq and Iran. The Democrats can't check the Republican push for war if they are being bought off by AIPAC!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 4:20pm

77. Posted by CONSHAME 07/23/2007 @ 4:13pm

    "Not every American was fooled by George Bush. There were some GREAT PATRIOTIC Americans, called Liberals, who understood Bush and Iraq from the very beginning, and we told you so."

    The same idiot liberals who detested Ronald Reagan, calling him a warmonger and every other name in the book? You guys were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and you always will be.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 4:21pm

78. There were some GREAT PATRIOTIC Americans, called Liberals, who understood Bush and Iraq from the very beginning, and we told you so."

    Posted by CONSHAME 07/23/2007 @ 4:13pm

    So what do you call the Democrats who voted for the war in 2002, CS?

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 4:28pm

79. I believe my post said "And any other organization that does so?" The point is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Either you're for peace or you're not. If there are groups that support these wars and influence our Congresspeople in efforts to thwart the peace movement, we must oppose them. I believe Metteya has made his/her point. We know that Bush/Cheney aren't going to voluntarily put an end to the bloodshed. They'd like to expand it to Iran and Syria. Cheney is relentless and has already started the misinformation campaign in a run-up to an attack on Iran, and/or a false flag operation to galvanize support for it. If AIPAC is supporting these efforts, it doesn't really matter what their historic role in the civil rights movement has been. Those efforts weren't entirely selfless. It would be like saying "The NAACP played a huge part in the civil rights movement, so if they support the war now we should just ignore it." Of course, simply stating that you oppose this war has now been made a criminal offense by the latest executive order. Who will now stand and say that they now unequivocally support this administration that has shredded our Constitution? Those that do so I name either dullards or traitors to the United States of America, and the Constitution FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

    Posted by jlsolley at 07/23/2007 @ 4:29pm

80. Mette-We would be in Iraq and soon Iran even if AIPAC didn't exist.Neither Bush/Cheney care about them.It was easy,following 9/11,to scare America which put the Democrats in a position of having to vote for the war or appear weak.Your desperation to only point the finger at Israel and Israel only is pathetic.People from all over the political spectrum who have read all your stuff have pretty much arrived at the same conclusion.You seem a little too desperate to point the finger at Israel.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 4:33pm

81. Posted by CONSHAME 07/23/2007 @ 4:13pm

    "Not every American was fooled by George Bush. There were some GREAT PATRIOTIC Americans, called Liberals, who understood Bush and Iraq from the very beginning, and we told you so."

    Yep. You liberals sure have a great track record. Not in the real world, though, just in your own minds. Check out Ted Kennedy's record with the Soviets when Reagan was in office. Of course, many of you folks don't choose to remember that the left hated Reagan at least as much as they now hate Bush, including the same frantic and desperate calls for impeachment. How about a little walk down memory lane?

    KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy's Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says By Kevin Mooney CNSNews.com Staff Writer October 20, 2006

    (CNSNews.com) - The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.

    "We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism."

    In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

    The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.

    In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy's offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.

    At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

    "There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."

    It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.

    Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.

    "Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor said. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

    In Kennedy's view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan's unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.

    "Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war," Kengor said. "He hoped to counter Reagan's polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects."

    As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow -- to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.

    In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.

    But Kennedy's attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.

    In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor's estimation.

    "If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can't imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "Things could have gotten ugly."

    In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan's policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a "gracious concession" after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 4:41pm

82. When AIPAC can get its own people appointed to chairs of key committees that 'could' investigate their lies and fraud that got us into Iraq, then AIPAC power is way out of control!

    And NO other lobbying group has ever done that? Rather than substantiate any of your arguments, you just go from accusation to accusation.

    For example, your argument re AIPAC provding 60% of funding for Democrats. The only problem is that AIPAC lobbies but isn't registered as a PAC and mak es [opensecrets.org] no campaign contributions as an organization. Certainly constituent organizations and members can contribute but the fact that you attribute contributions to AIPAC suggests you aren't checking things out. John Walsh, who used the figure in his Counterpunch article, didn't footnote or otherwise support the claim. They do spend much more on lobbying than most groups, but pro-Israel contributions are generally from local PACs. According to the opensecrets.org website, the Democrats raised just over $700 million for the Senate and House races in the 2006 election cycle. $1.7 million was donated to Democracts from organizations marked as pro-Israel. During that period, AIPAC spent just over $1 million on lobbying.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/23/2007 @ 4:43pm

83. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/23/2007 @ 4:12pm

    Bush Hits 25% Approval

    According to a new American Research Group poll, just 25% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. These are record lows for the survey.

    Hey SHUBBY, how's Congress' approval ratings? Should we impeach them too?

    When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove. Categories: White House

    Certainly a testament to the non-stop left-wing bias in the MSM, considering that today's economy is booming, and by every measure equals or exceeds the best years under Clinton. This is just confirmation of the bad information that the MSM is providing.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 4:44pm

84. This isn't about blaming Jews, it is about the political corruption of Democrats caused by one group, AIPAC. This corruption caused the Democrats to side with Bush and Cheney in this stupid war in Iraq,

    Posted by METTEYYA 07/23/2007 @ 2:34pm

    FYI: I'm not interested in getting into the Jews running the world thing, but just sharing a little insight.

    "What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?

    The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense...... By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach.....

    Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots."

    Excerpted from Neocon101 [csmonitor.com]

    Might there be another group that share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region that are working the liberal side of the fence, just as the Neo-Nuts are working with the .....ehrrrr Neo-Nut side, with both sides pushing the US into war to fight to weaken Israel's enemies and insure Israel's survival?

    Just a thought....

    Moses dragged us for 40 years through the desert to bring us to the one place in the Middle East where there was no oil." - Golda Meir

    icf itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 07/23/2007 @ 4:46pm

85. So one liberal Senator ended up being on the wrong side of an issue in history (and admitted it? Something Bush would rather eat shit than do?) and all liberal thinkers are always wrong about every subject? I think I'll be putting you on ignore as you obviously have nothing to contribute to the subjects at hand.

    Posted by jlsolley at 07/23/2007 @ 4:48pm

86. Mette-We managed to have ourselves a Viet Nam without the help of AIPAC and I have complete faith that we could start another one without the help of AIPAC.That's not to say that they haven't helped because they have,but our history says that AIPAC isn't needed for us to get ourselves into a mess.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 4:55pm

87. Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/23/2007 @ 4:50pm

    FRANK, what IS it with you and political "celebrities"...from Hillary to Michael Moore...to even Limbaugh?

    You have this "cult of personality" personality whereby whoever you see a lot in the Media is "important" to you, with issues coming second, and promoting & DEFENDING said "super-stars" coming first.

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 4:56pm

88. Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/23/2007 @ 4:55pm

    I'M, you DO realize what (not who) you're debating with, with METTE, don't you? He may sound like an "ally" on Iraq, Bush, etc. but it's a Molotov-von Ribbentrop alliance!

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 4:57pm

89. Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/23/2007 @ 4:57pm

    Heheh....oh, sorry...forgot Bill Maher in that list!

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 4:57pm

90. Might there be another group that share unwavering support for Israel?

    Neo-Libs?

    "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, speaking to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

    icf itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 07/23/2007 @ 5:02pm

91. Posted by JLSOLLEY 07/23/2007 @ 4:48pm

    So one liberal Senator ended up being on the wrong side of an issue in history (and admitted it?Something Bush would rather eat shit than do?)

    Since when did Kennedy or any other liberal Senator admit that he/they were wrong and Reagan was right? I can't think of a single one.

    and all liberal thinkers are always wrong about every subject?

    There's nothing wrong with being wrong. But anyone who lived through the 80's and recalls the left's hatred of Reagan then knows that it was every bit as intense as their hatred today of Bush today. History has vindicated Reagan completely; it has shown that the left was dead wrong when it came to Reagan, and virtually none of them have admitted it. Moreover, today's Bush hatred indicated that they have learned nothing. Being wrong is human; refusing to learn from it is catastrophic.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 5:07pm

92. considering that today's economy is booming, and by every measure equals or exceeds the best years under Clinton. This is just confirmation of the bad information that the MSM is providing.

    Or maybe it's a product of the fact that median income was $46,236 in 1999 and was only $46,326 in 2005. You think that prices have only gone up .2% since Bush took office? Or because unemployment was 4.2% in January 2001, is 4.5% now and has been higher than 4.2% during the entire period of the Bush administration (also consider that there are 1.4 million more unemployed on average in 2006 than in 2000). The poverty rate in 2000 was 11.3% and it was 12.6% in 2005.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/23/2007 @ 5:08pm

93. Certainly a testament to the non-stop left-wing bias in the MSM, considering that today's economy is booming, and by every measure equals or exceeds the best years under Clinton. This is just confirmation of the bad information that the MSM is providing.

    Posted by PONTILICUS 07/23/2007 @ 6:66bm

    Bwwaaahhahahahah.

    Science and reality certainly does have a bias, you bet. Just not the repub new con lying kind of bias, boo hoo, how sad for you. No one believes your crap no more but the 20% of you that have problems with evolution...

    Clinton still has more states listed at their record low unemployment than hsuB and hsuB has done every kind of manipulation known to sway those numbers, no can do. What a sorry ass. The richest are certainly more rich, the poor more poorer and in greater amounts, we still have more children in proverty, higher enfant mortality, lower life spand, than some 2nd-3rd world nations. What's up with that Pun?!?!

    Plus Clinton didn't have a MIC war machine gobbling up all our taxes to pay for their profiteering off our dead brother and sister soldiers. Not to mention all the cHeney secret deals with the energy and pharm bosses to eat the rest of our taxes up as profiteering on our misery. Nice job evil one keeping the economy running off our debt-- all for the supporters of new cons, servicers of dic'tator philosophy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 5:10pm

94. Mask-Good comparison.Not an alliance I'm good with.I'm picky about who I'll fight for a cause with.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 5:12pm

95. In Stephen F. Hayes' new biography -- "Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President" -- we learn a few more interesting nuggets about America's favorite hunting partner.

    cHeney once confused Jessica Simpson with Jessica Lynch. Hayes details how, when the vice president threw out the first pitch before a 2003 game between the Cincinnati Reds and Chicago Cubs, Cheney was first informed that "Nick Lachey -- a native of Cincinnati -- would sing the national anthem before the game and would be accompanied by his girlfriend, Jessica Simpson. Cheney thought Simpson's name sounded familiar. He asked his staff: ‘Is that the soldier who was captured in Iraq?' " (That would be Jessica Lynch).

    http://tinyurl.com/2fcwuv

    Yeah, well I'm also bad with names, but then again I'm not the VP and simply just 'bad'...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 5:27pm

96. I'M, you DO realize what (not who) you're debating with, with METTE, don't you? He may sound like an "ally" on Iraq, Bush, etc. but it's a Molotov-von Ribbentrop alliance!

    Mask,

    You should know better than that!

    The plain fact is that Jew2s like you need to get off your butts and challenge AIPAC, or us non-Jews are going to do it for you!

    We are NOT going to let the Democratic party fall into the hands of a few rich right-wing Jews at the expense of everything the Democratic party stands for!

    It is not Farrakhan, it is not David Duke, it is MAINSTREAM Democrats that are fed up with AIPAC bullshit, so you need to wake up and smell the coffee before "all" Jews become the target of our wrath!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 5:29pm

97. History has vindicated Reagan completely; it has shown that the left was dead wrong when it came to Reagan, and virtually none of them have admitted it. Moreover, today's Bush hatred indicated that they have learned nothing. Being wrong is human; refusing to learn from it is catastrophic.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS

    Depends on which history you've been reading.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/23/2007 @ 5:31pm

98. And one more thing...

    The REAL Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is between AIPAC and the Neocons!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 5:37pm

99. http://tinyurl.com/2hc96c

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 5:42pm

100. During that period, AIPAC spent just over $1 million on lobbying.

     Are you guys on this board really that naive?

     AIPAC wouldn't have any interest in 'disguising' its influence, would it?

     If I, as executive director of AIPAC, call on my 'top' donors to contribute to whatever, how are these contributions recorded in opensecrets.org?

     Gee, that wasn't so hard, was it?

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 5:51pm

101. Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/23/2007 @ 3:28pm

     Still waitin' Ponti.

     got anything for me proving Plame was not covert?

     Anything?

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/23/2007 @ 5:57pm

102. History has vindicated Reagan completely; PONTIFICUS

     Catsup is a vegetable.

     Reagan solely, one handed, with no outside influence, crushed the Soviet empire. The Pope had nothing to do with it. The Afghans had no input. The German, Polish and others did nothing. All the while Reagan was doing it his way.

     Borrowing.

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/23/2007 @ 6:04pm

103. Posted by METTEYYA 07/23/2007 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person

     do not confuse Jews and Israelis. they are not one and the same.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/23/2007 @ 6:06pm

104. do not confuse Jews and Israelis. they are not one and the same.

     JR,

     Mask and I have had this ongoing thing where he believes that 'any' organization ostensibly representing Jews are simply looking our for the average Jew, so attacking any jewish group makes you an anti-Semite.

     I, and many Americans, if not most, recognize that AIPAC is a special case, and started off as a mainstream Jewish organization but as they gained power they gradually shifted to the far right and are now antithetical to mainstream Democratic party values, and are actually 'oppressing' people and views in the Democratic party that question their pro-war policies.

     So when I say "a few powerful Jews have now flipped the script and are now the ugly oppressors that they died fighting against", Mask knows that I am referring to the few rich right-wing Jews that control AIPAC, not the mainstream American Jew who doesn't even seem to know or care about their corrupting influence on the Democratic party.

     And, yes, Mask is an AIPAC-oriented Jew, despite his attempts to hide this fact.

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 6:22pm

105. The fact that Dick Cheney shows up at an AIPAC gathering and pats Rahm Emmanuel on the back should let you know that AIPAC and Neocons are on 'exactly' the same page!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 6:30pm

106. The fact that Dick Cheney shows up at an AIPAC gathering and pats Rahm Emmanuel on the back should let you know that AIPAC and Neocons are on 'exactly' the same page!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 6:33pm

107. Posted by BRUNOWE 07/23/2007 @ 5:08pm

     Or maybe it's a product of the fact that median income was $46,236 in 1999 and was only $46,326 in 2005. You think that prices have only gone up .2% since Bush took office? Or because unemployment was 4.2% in January 2001, is 4.5% now and has been higher than 4.2% during the entire period of the Bush administration (also consider that there are 1.4 million more unemployed on average in 2006 than in 2000). The poverty rate in 2000 was 11.3% and it was 12.6% in 2005.

     You know quite well BRUNOWE that if one has an agenda to prove a pre-ordained conclusion, any set of economic statistics can be cherry-picked to support the case. I think most economists would say that our economy is doing tremendously well, and that contrary to the leftist mantra, the rich are getting richer, and everyone else is too. The idea that America has any problem with joblessness is laughable if you walk down the street in my area, where employers are begging for help. Sure, many of these jobs are low level but I know that anyone with any sense and any character is quite capable of doing much better than a service job. I used to work with high school graduates who were making $65k a year doing numbnuts jobs. This is in the growing (red) areas of the country, not those declining and stagnant blue areas like Michigan and New England.

     At least you do better than those leftists who, when after the toe-to-toe statistics game is played to prove that they are wrong, simply state 'yeah but Americans FEEL the eoonomy is bad, so it must be so." As I said before, the fact that Americans feel the economy is bad in an age of unprecedented prosperity is more a testament to the distorted reporting on the economy than anything else.

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 6:35pm

108. Met, stop using every thread here as a platform for your anti israel anti jewish rants.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/23/2007 @ 6:37pm

109. Posted by CRABWALK 07/23/2007 @ 6:04pm

     CRABBIE, I knew I could count on you to fulfill my expectations for someone to play the role of the unreconstructed, unrepentant Reagan-hater, now resurrected as a knee-jerk Bush hater whose entire adult life has been lived for the purpose of learning nothing. You're a living fossil, dude! Thanks!

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 6:38pm

110. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/23/2007 @ 6:37pm

     If you substitute the word 'Jews' for 'AIPAC' in MET's posts I think you get a good feel for where MET is coming from. Anti-semitism is alive and well on both sides of the ideological divide I see.

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 6:42pm

111. Met, stop using every thread here as a platform for your anti israel anti jewish rants.

     Only threads 'related' to Iraq, Iran, and the Palestinian question, do I bring up the corrupting influence of AIPAC, and unfortunately that has been far too many threads which is another indication of how our political agenda is being controlled by them!

     Impeachment is related to Iraq, because the lies Cheney told were also told by AIPAC to shore up Democratic support for the war. Lies are lies, and I will not limit my attack on lies to non-Jews!

     If that bothers you JR, you should try one of the mainstream press blogs!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 6:45pm

112. If you substitute the word 'Jews' for 'AIPAC' in MET's posts I think you get a good feel for where MET is coming from. Anti-semitism is alive and well on both sides of the ideological divide I see.

     AIPAC=Neocon!

     Remember this, Pontificus, when I attack AIPAC and AIPAC-like Neocons like you!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 6:49pm

113. Posted by CRABWALK 07/23/2007 @ 5:57pm

     got anything for me proving Plame was not covert?

     Anything?

     If she was covert, how come no-one was ever charged with outing her identity?

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 6:50pm

114. Posted by METTEYYA 07/23/2007 @ 6:49pm

     AIPAC=Neocon!

     Remember this, Pontificus, when I attack AIPAC and AIPAC-like Neocons like you!

     I'm not Jewish..if I dispute your points, does that make me a jew-lover? Are there any neocons who aren't jews?

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 6:52pm

115. Did you get that, Pontificus: substitute the word Neocon when you see AIPAC in Mett's post, and then you will see where he is really coming from!

     Neocons may have right to control the Republicans, but they don't have a right to control the Democrats!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 6:55pm

116. I'm not Jewish..if I dispute your points, does that make me a jew-lover? Are there any neocons who aren't jews?

     Gee, you really are missing the point.

     AIPAC posts are not about Jews, they are about right-wing control of the Democratic party!!!

     Did you get the point now?

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 6:57pm

117. Mette-I think that most everyone has figured out the real "point" you're trying to make so you don't need to bother coming up with claims of new points.I have bad news.Polls show that support for Israel has grown considerably so I don't think all Jews need to worry much about peoples wrath concerning Iraq or anything else.There isn't enough wrath going on to get a good anti war demonstration going let alone enough wrath for the Jews to be concerned.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/23/2007 @ 7:12pm

118. Terrible precedent being set----lose an election and then try to get even later by impeachment. We may be creating a political environment that will make this country ungovernable---all this gotcha politics and nothing getting done. If Obama or Clinton get elected how long will it take radical republicans to start digging up dirt to start calling for censure or impeachment? Too much demonizing going on. Neither Liberals or Conservatives have all the answers and both have proven this many times.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/23/2007 @ 7:15pm

119. Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/23/2007 @ 7:15pm

     Terrible precedent being set----lose an election and then try to get even later by impeachment. We may be creating a political environment that will make this country ungovernable---all this gotcha politics and nothing getting done.

     It all got started when the Republicans went after Bill Clinton - the only trouble was, Clinton actually DID commit an impeachable offense - perjury!

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 7:26pm

120. I have bad news.Polls show that support for Israel has grown considerably so I don't think all Jews need to worry much about peoples wrath concerning Iraq or anything else.There isn't enough wrath going on to get a good anti war demonstration going let alone enough wrath for the Jews to be concerned.

     The poll in my previous post showed nearly half of America believes AIPAC was one of the main influences in us getting into the war in Iraq, and 72% oppose that war. Hmmm....correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like America blaming AIPAC for the Iraq war and the Democrats inability to extricate us from it is right around the corner!

     And there is no 'new' point, just the same old point about peace-loving Democrats should be proud to be Democrats and war-mongering Republicans should stay in the Republican party, and the idea of a war-mongering Democrat should continue to be an oxymoron!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 7:28pm

121. the only trouble was, Clinton actually DID commit an impeachable offense - perjury!

     And Cheney has committed the impeachable offense of Major Fraud against the United States!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 7:34pm

122. Posted by METTEYYA 07/23/2007 @ 7:34pm

     And Cheney has committed the impeachable offense of Major Fraud against the United States!

     I was under the impression that impeachable offenses had to be real, not made up.

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 7:35pm

123. I was under the impression that impeachable offenses had to be real, not made up.

     18 United States Code, Section 1031(a)(1) is VERY REAL!!! - and no you do not have to personally gain from your fraud to be found guilty, America just has to lose large sums of money which is kind of what a a half a trillion dollars in US taxpayer money is, right?

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 7:40pm

124. Posted by METTEYYA 07/23/2007 @ 7:40pm

     18 United States Code, Section 1031(a)(1) is VERY REAL!!!

     Reminds me of that old joke about what the innkeeper said when someone questioned whether George Washington had actually slept in his inn...

     "If you want proof, THERE'S THE BED!!!"

     LOL!

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 7:48pm

125. "If you want proof, THERE'S THE BED!!!"

     The proof is not the loss of $500,000,000,000 of US taxpayer money; the proof is Cheney's own statements and actions, particularly with respect to the Niger forgeries in which he and Libby tried to convince CIA analysts to change their findings to show they weren't forgeries!

     This can be proven! And the result of this fraud was that Bush uses the Niger forgeries under the guise of British intelligence in his speech to the nation to convince us to support his invasion of Iraq! Cheney and Libby knew the forgeries were forgeries, but let the President use them anyway because they wanted to invade Iraq EVEN IF HE DID NOT HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!

     This is an easy case if you had an impartial judge and jury, but senate Republicans won't convict even if the proof was plastered on their noses!!! But demonstrating Republican disregard for the rule of law with an impeachment trial will be good for the Americans to see, and virtually destroys any chance of Republicans winning in '08.

     Go, Conyers, Go! Go, Conyers, Go! Go, Conyers, Go! Go, Conyers, Go!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/23/2007 @ 8:02pm

126. Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/23/2007 @ 6:15pm

     FRANK, I didn't realize you were a "top-down" thinker about the national dialogue. Do us humble peons have no role...or must we follow the lead of Hillary, Mikey Moore, and Rush?

     Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 8:42pm

127. I questioned my original Ignoring of METTEYA for what I felt was blatent bigotry in the form of anti-Semitism.

     I thought, oh well, it's no worse than CONSHAME and his endless "Right-wingers are evil....EVVILLLLL!" rants and I don't ignore him....I kind of like him.

     But after this thread, I feel vindicated in keeping this virulently anti-Jewish conspiracy theorist off my radar. Heck, RESE is anti-Catholic Church but not anti-Catholic. METTEYA is a chip off the Farrakhan brick though.

     Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 8:45pm

128. PONTIFICUS The idea that America has any problem with joblessness is laughable if you walk down the street in my area, where employers are begging for help. Sure, many of these jobs are low level but I know that anyone with any sense and any character is quite capable of doing much better than a service job.

     In short, rather than try to back your argument with facts on the economic fate of the non-rich in this country, you'll simply say "facts, shmatcs!" and try to prove your point with isolated anecdotal evidence and an unsupported assumption about what most economists might say. I can see why you're such a big Reagan fan.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/23/2007 @ 9:00pm

129. Are you guys on this board really that naive?

     AIPAC wouldn't have any interest in 'disguising' its influence, would it?

     Of course, you have no actual proof and haven't offered anything to substantiate the 60% claim you parroted before. You've gone off into Rese/Plunger-style cloud-cuckoo land with this conspiracy-mongering.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/23/2007 @ 9:03pm

130. "BTW, when someone like Rush Limbaugh goes on national radio and lies to the country and I can prove it, I feel a duty to do so. Now, whether you choose to listen or not, that I can't control. But I can lead a horse to water.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/23/2007 @ 6:17pm

     I would like to see your "proof" of Limbaugh lies...one has to do research, have sources to back up what one says and a staff to do the ground work...plus, Limbaugh , if he lies, has an audience that will pounce on him....

     ....you have none of these listed..and when you lie..no one hears or cares because you are just you...another Hillary ball licker.

     Posted by john maasch at 07/23/2007 @ 9:13pm

131. Posted by BRUNOWE 07/23/2007 @ 9:00pm

     In short, rather than try to back your argument with facts on the economic fate of the non-rich in this country, you'll simply say "facts, shmatcs!" and try to prove your point with isolated anecdotal evidence and an unsupported assumption about what most economists might say. I can see why you're such a big Reagan fan.

     Don't be silly, BRUNOWE, of course there are plenty of facts which document the excellent financial health of this country. It's not that I can't find any, it's just that don't think facts will do any good with you. I can't reason you out of a position you weren't reasoned into to begin with. It's an article of faith with you that Bush's economy is no good because he's a Republican, just as I'm sure you believe Reagan does not deserve credit for the tremendous economic recovery after Carter and the end of the Cold War after Reagan's term. Thanks, but I'll save my arguments for someone with a mind that's more open.

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 9:26pm

132. ....you have none of these listed..and when you lie..no one hears or cares because you are just you...another Hillary ball licker.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/23/2007 @ 9:13pm

     profound maasch. Since you are just you also...

     Posted by Will C. at 07/23/2007 @ 9:35pm

133. I'll save my arguments for someone with a mind that's more open.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/23/2007 @ 9:26pm

     You'll find your congregation in hamsterland. Just turn right into the pit

     Posted by Will C. at 07/23/2007 @ 9:38pm

134. "If you want proof, THERE'S THE BED!!!"

     LOL!

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/23/2007 @ 7:48pm

     that reminds me of an old joke in which the president told us he wasn't responsible for the economy.

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Posted by Will C. at 07/23/2007 @ 9:42pm

135. It all got started when the Republicans went after Bill Clinton - the only trouble was, Clinton actually DID commit an impeachable offense - perjury!

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/23/2007 @ 7:26pm

     yup, lying about a blow job... what'll the kids think

     Posted by Will C. at 07/23/2007 @ 9:44pm

136. Had to peek....METTEYA thinks I'm a Jew because I think he's an anti-Semite (and no, MET, it's NOT just because you're anti-AIPAC...lotta folks are...it's because you're anti-Jewish)...and no, I'm not Jewish. Anymore than I'm gay because I support gay rights....or Palestinian because I support their right to a homeland....or a woman because I'm pro-choice, despite your fellow "guy with a problem" WILL's opinion.

     You don't have to "be in some group" to oppose bigotry towards that group!

     Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 10:39pm

137. One more reason for The Nation readers to hate Christopher Hitchens! You can tell the quality of a man by his enemies, and Hitchens is looking like a Mercedes! Interesting that scumbags like Galloway, Chirac, de Villepin, and Schroeder have Nation readers for comrades! Even more interesting when Nation readers call Bush a criminal! Telling too!

     The Galloway Papers Parliament's damning report about Saddam apologist George Galloway. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, July 23, 2007, at 12:07 PM ET

     The mills of justice grind with maddening slowness, but they do at least grind. In October 2005, my friend Denis MacShane, the radical Labor member of Parliament for Rotherham, rose on the floor of the House of Commons to demand a joint inquiry by the British parliament and the U.S. Congress into the financial relationship between George Galloway and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. This followed the report that month, by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, that presented persuasive evidence showing that Galloway's front organization, a "charity" known as the Mariam Appeal that campaigned against the sanctions on Iraq, had in fact received direct Iraqi subventions from the proceeds of the U.N.-sponsored "Oil for Food" program. Bank records established that Galloway's former wife had been paid at least $150,000 in this way. A completely separate U.N. inquiry chaired by former Treasury Secretary Paul Volcker identified another "Oil for Food" payment to the same lady, this time in the sum of $120,000.

     MacShane's intervention was important, not least because the House of Commons requires its members to declare all sources of outside income. An inquiry was set up, by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, to investigate. It has now produced its report, along with a recommendation that Mr. Galloway apologize to the House and be suspended from Parliament for 18 days. And the findings of the report are even more damning, if that is possible, than the conclusions reached by the Senate and Volcker investigations. In particular, they make reference to the transcript of a meeting between Galloway and Saddam Hussein on Aug. 8, 2002. On that date, Galloway complained to his political master--the man he had saluted in public for his "courage" and "indefatigability"--that certain problems with oil prices were affecting "our income" and "our dues."

     This raises two quite serious questions. The first is the extent to which the Iraqi Baath Party was able to purchase direct influence among Western politicians: George Galloway has been a hysterically extremist political thug for a long time, but others more supposedly "respectable," including some important Russian and French politicians and diplomats, may have been sweetened and suborned in the same way. The second has to do with a purely moral issue. The "Oil for Food" program was the means by which the most vulnerable people in Iraq--the children, the sick, and the aged--were supposed to be protected from the effect of sanctions aimed at the regime. To have profited from its abuse or its diversion is therefore somewhat worse than to have accepted a straight-out bribe or inducement from Saddam Hussein. It is to have stolen directly from the neediest and the weakest, in order to finance a propaganda campaign that in turn blamed the West for the avoidable sufferings of Iraqis between 1991 and 2003.

     The "anti-war" movement is not blameless in all this. When Galloway came to testify before the Senate and delivered a spittle-fueled harangue instead of answering the direct questions posed to him, he became a populist hero on the Left, was rewarded with a moist profile in the New York Times that praised his general feistiness, and was invited back to the United States to mount a speaking tour in which he repeated his general praise for the heroic "resistance" in Iraq, adding a few well-chosen words in support of the Assad regime in Syria. Praise was showered upon him in the Daily Kos, by columnists in The Nation, and elsewhere. Now we have the sober words of Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary commissioner for standards among elected members, who adds to the existing reports and evidence by saying that however much Galloway may have "prevaricated and fudged," the evidence against him is "now undeniable."

     I do not think that an 18-day suspension from the House of Commons is anything like enough punishment for what Galloway has done, first on behalf of a sadistic and genocidal megalomaniac and second to steal food and medicine from the mouths of desperate Iraqis. We ran into each other a few times on his debate-tour, and on the last occasion on which we exchanged views, when he told me that he would never debate with me again (which he has since consistently refused to do), I told him that we were not done with each other. I would, I told him, be waiting to write a review of his prison diaries. The Senate subcommittee referred his "false and misleading" statements under oath (a crime under 18 USC Section 1001) to the Department of Justice in November 2005. Prosecutors in Manhattan (location of the banks through which some of the shady transfers were made) have also been handed the relevant papers. And the evidence adduced by the House of Commons must necessarily be considered by Scotland Yard, because it goes far beyond the damage done to the honor of Parliament. In the meantime, it will be interesting to discover whether Galloway's former wife, or the associates of his campaign who also received "Oil for Food" money, ever declared the income or paid any tax on it. And if I was the editor of the Daily Telegraph in London, whose printed documents about Galloway appear to have been vindicated by the parliamentary inquiry, I would want to revisit the judgment for libel that Galloway astonishingly managed to win, even under a notoriously oppressive law, in an English court. His troubles are only now beginning.

     Just look at the gang that strove to prevent the United Nations from enforcing its library of resolutions on Saddam Hussein. Where are they now? Gerhard Schroeder, ex-chancellor of Germany, has gone straight to work for a Russian oil-and-gas consortium. Vladimir Putin, master of such consortia and their manipulation, is undisguised in his thirst to re-establish a one-party state. Jacques Chirac, who only avoided prosecution for corruption by getting himself immunized by re-election (and who had Saddam's sons as his personal guests while in office, and built Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor while knowing what he wanted it for), is now undergoing some unpleasant interviews with the Paris police. So is his cynical understudy Dominique de Villepin, once the glamour-boy of the "European" school of diplomacy without force. What a crew! Galloway is the most sordid of this group because he managed to be a pimp for, as well as a prostitute of, one of the foulest dictatorships of modern times. But the taint of collusion and corruption extends much further than his pathetic figure, and one day, slowly but surely, we shall find out the whole disgusting thing. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

     Posted by pontificus at 07/23/2007 @ 11:26pm

138. scootificus it starting to go luvvy mad

     Posted by Will C. at 07/23/2007 @ 11:53pm

139. or a woman because I'm pro-choice, despite your fellow "guy with a problem" WILL's opinion.

     Posted by MASK 07/23/2007 @ 10:39pm

     baby buckets, you're not a women because you're pro-choice. You're a woman because you're a woman.

     Posted by Will C. at 07/23/2007 @ 11:55pm

140. that's how it works

     Posted by Will C. at 07/23/2007 @ 11:55pm

141. Democrats: AGAINST licking George Bushs boots

     Republicans: FOR

     Republicans are the wrong side of the issue of Bush.

     Posted by conshame at 07/24/2007 @ 01:05am

142. Conservatives never saw Bush "coming"

     Posted by conshame at 07/24/2007 @ 01:07am

143. never saw him?

     they couldn't get him in there fast enough

     Posted by Will C. at 07/24/2007 @ 01:11am

144. cool, scootifucus is going luvvy mad and luvvy has moved into maaschmania

     Posted by Will C. at 07/24/2007 @ 01:22am

145. Bush and Cheney should be locked up alongside rapists and murderers.

     Bush and Cheney should be sent to Hell, to be burned alive forever by God, Amen, Praise God.

     Posted by conshame at 07/24/2007 @ 01:22am

146. hamsterland is going to need many padded rooms in 09

     Posted by Will C. at 07/24/2007 @ 01:22am

147. Of course, you have no actual proof and haven't offered anything to substantiate the 60% claim you parroted before. You've gone off into Rese/Plunger-style cloud-cuckoo land with this conspiracy-mongering.

     If you want to ask Walsh where he got the 60% number, you should ask him.

     I know that internal Democratic party numbers range from 50-70%!

     You may also find another reference in Professors Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy". I don't think ANY open-minded Democrat can read their exhaustive and well-researched (mainly Jewish and AIPAC sources) article and NOT conclude that our party has been hijacked by a bunch of right-wing nut cases that run AIPAC!!! You can read the article here [antiwar.com]

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 01:33am

148. I questioned my original Ignoring of METTEYA for what I felt was blatent bigotry in the form of anti-Semitism.

     Mask,

     Professors Meirsheimer (yes, he's Jewish) and Walt reserved a special place in their article for AIPAC boosters like yourself.

     Here is an excerpt:

     The Great Silencer

     No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy – an influence that AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America's "Jewish Lobby." In effect, the Lobby boasts of its own power and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. This tactic is very effective, because anti-Semitism is loathsome and no responsible person wants to be accused of it.

     Europeans have been more willing than Americans to criticize Israeli policy in recent years, which some attribute to a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. We are "getting to a point," the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union said in early 2004, "where it is as bad as it was in the 1930s."103 Measuring anti-Semitism is a complicated matter, but the weight of evidence points in the opposite direction. For example, in the spring of 2004, when accusations of European anti- Semitism filled the air in America, separate surveys of European public opinion conducted by the Anti-Defamation League and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed that it was actually declining.104

     Consider France, which pro-Israel forces often portray as the most anti-Semitic state in Europe. A poll of French citizens in 2002 found that: 89 percent could envisage living with a Jew; 97 percent believe making anti-Semitic graffiti is a serious crime; 87 percent think attacks on French synagogues are scandalous; and 85 percent of practicing French Catholics reject the charge that Jews have too much influence in business and finance.105 It is unsurprising that the head of the French Jewish community declared in the summer of 2003 that "France is not more anti-Semitic than America."106 According to a recent article in Ha'aretz, the French police report that anti-Semitic incidents in France declined by almost 50 per cent in 2005; and this despite the fact that France has the largest Muslim population of any country in Europe.107

     Finally, when a French Jew was brutally murdered last month by a Muslim gang, tens of thousands of French demonstrators poured into the streets to condemn anti-Semitism. Moreover, President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin both attended the victim's memorial service in a public show of solidarity with French Jewry.108 It is also worth noting that in 2002 more Jews immigrated to Germany than Israel, making it "the fastest growing Jewish community in the world," according to an article in the Jewish newspaper Forward.109 If Europe were really heading back to the 1930s, it is hard to imagine that Jews would be moving there in large numbers.

     We recognize, however, that Europe is not free of the scourge of anti-Semitism. No one would deny that there are still some virulent autochthonous anti-Semites in Europe (as there are in the United States) but their numbers are small and their extreme views are rejected by the vast majority of Europeans. Nor would one deny that there is anti-Semitism among European Muslims, some of it provoked by Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians and some of it straightforwardly racist.110 This problem is worrisome, but it is hardly out of control. Muslims constitute less than five percent of Europe's total population, and European governments are working hard to combat the problem. Why? Because most Europeans reject such hateful views.111 In short, when it comes to anti-Semitism, Europe today bears hardly any resemblance to Europe in the 1930s.

     This is why pro-Israel forces, when pressed to go beyond assertion, claim that there is a ‘new anti-Semitism', which they equate with criticism of Israel.112 In other words criticize Israeli policy and you are by definition an anti-Semite. When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to divest from Caterpillar Inc. on the grounds that Caterpillar manufactures the bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief Rabbi complained that it would 'have the most adverse repercussions on ... Jewish-Christian relations in Britain', while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement, said: "'There is a clear problem of anti-Zionist – verging on anti-Semitic – attitudes emerging in the grass roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church."113 However, the Church was neither guilty of anti-Zionism nor anti-Semitism; it was merely protesting Israeli policy.114

     Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist. Instead, they question its behavior towards the Palestinians, which is a legitimate criticism: Israelis question it themselves. Nor is Israel being judged unfairly. Rather, Israeli treatment of the Palestinians elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely-accepted human rights norms and international law, as well as the principle of national self-determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds.

     In sum, other ethnic lobbies can only dream of having the political muscle that pro-Israel organizations possess. The question, therefore, is what effect does the Lobby have on U.S. foreign policy?

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 02:06am

149. If you want to ask Walsh where he got the 60% number, you should ask him.

     Ah, so your responsibility for a claim you make ends when you read it somewhere? That ain't good enough, bro. With that response you announce to the universe that you aren't interested in the truth of the matter, but rather in saying things you want to be true. (I am assuming that the things you read that you wish were false you don't present here as fact.)

     Posted by BlueSpark at 07/24/2007 @ 07:51am

150. Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/23/2007 @ 11:26pm |

     You left out the Halliburton connections.

     And I am still waitin' for your proof, Ponti. Your inane "But no one was charged" has been answered many, many times here. YOU refuse to read the answer. I am waitin for some proof

     Where is your proof. I supplied mine.

     Waitin, moron.

     Idiot.

     Clinton Hater

     Bush ass kisser.

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/24/2007 @ 08:31am

151. Posted by CRABWALK 07/23/2007 @ 6:04pm

     CRABBIE, I knew I could count on you to fulfill my expectations for someone to play the role of the unreconstructed, unrepentant Reagan-hater, now resurrected as a knee-jerk Bush hater whose entire adult life has been lived for the purpose of learning nothing. You're a living fossil, dude! Thanks!

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/23/2007 @ 6:38pm

     See, what a mulyuk!

     Did Reagan single handedly crush the Soviets? Prove it, PONTI. Is catsup a vegetable?

     Are you a vegetable? A kohlrabi?

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/24/2007 @ 08:33am

152. It's not that I can't find any, it's just that don't think facts will do any good with you. I can't reason you out of a position you weren't reasoned into to begin with. It's an article of faith with you that Bush's economy is no good because he's a Republican, just as I'm sure you believe Reagan does not deserve credit for the tremendous economic recovery after Carter and the end of the Cold War after Reagan's term. Thanks, but I'll save my arguments for someone with a mind that's more open.

     That panty-assed cop-out says it all.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/24/2007 @ 09:42am

153. Mette-Half of America does not believe that AIPAC had something to do with the war in Iraq.Half of America never heard of AIPAC.30% of America doesn't know who Cheney is,but you want us to believe that they all know what AIPAC is.Get a grip on reality.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 09:48am

154. Will anybody (but HSUB) be surprised at this turn of events from yesterday???--

     the link if anybody needs it [democrats.com]

     Update 2:55: After an 80-minute meeting, Cindy emerged and told the activists that Conyers said "our only recourse is elections," and the activists groaned. Cindy announced she will run against Pelosi because she and Conyers haven't "stepped up," and the activists cheered. Rev. Yearwood is giving a fired-up speech and activists are crowding in to Conyers' office for the sit-in.

     Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 09:57am

155. Maskerina scours media constently to find anything to protect hsub, her love interest. She'll eventually be a prison wife always awaiting conjugal visits...

     But what she writes does differ somewhat with other news of what Conyers is saying:

     Conyers: If Three More Reps Will Support Impeachment, We'll Proceed Posted by Jon Ponder | Jul. 22, 2007, 5:43 pm

     Via the BRAD BLOG -- at an appearance hosted by the Progressive Democrats (PDA) in San Diego yesterday, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers signaled a new willingness to proceed on impeaching both Pres. George Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, according to sources in the room.

     "What are we waiting for? Let's take them out!" – Rep. Conyers

     In a report on the event posted to the PDA website by Judy Hess, a member of the San Diego chapter who helped organize the event, Conyers opened his remarks by referring to a pro-impeachment banner near the stage:

     "What are we waiting for? Let's take them out!" The room jumped with applause and shouts of approval.

     Hess also reported that Conyers said he is seeking additional support for impeachment from his colleagues:

     In his remarks, he said he needs three more Representatives to contact him in support of impeachment in order to move forward, with or without Nancy Pelosi.

     http://tinyurl.com/283v95

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2007 @ 10:19am

156. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/24/2007 @ 10:19am

     HSUB, two points...

     1. YOUR post...was from Sunday. Mine was from yesterday. Or do you think there are TWO "John Conyers", one who met with the PDA on Saturday and said "Yeah, yeah, give me 3 more and I'll do it". And one that met with Cindy Sheehan YESTERDAY morning and said "Sorry, elections are our only recourse"?

     2. Saying it's impossible to go back in time and kill Hitler...doesn't mean you're a Nazi. It means you're a realist.

     Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 10:30am

157. Impeachment Coalition of Dane County WI Releases Proposed County and City Impeachment Resolutions; Stages Torture Street Theatre

     Submitted by Chip on Tue, 2007-07-24 12:40. Impeachment

     The Impeachment Coalition of Dane County announces a street theatre production, "Real Americans Don't Torture," to be staged Tuesday July 24th and Wednesday, July 25th, 11AM to 1 PM, at the UW-Madison Library Mall, 728 State St. Madison, WI.

     We don't condone torture & neither should Tammy Baldwin!

     Conyers says if 3 more House members sign Resolution to Impeach Cheney he will start impeachment investigation in House Judiciary Committee.

     We DEMAND Tammy Baldwin SIGNS on!

     54% of public says impeachment investigation should start against Cheney

     Madison City Council & Dane Co. Bd. must pass impeachment resolutions in Aug.

     The People Of Madison Refuse To Be Bystanders To Torture. We Must Impeach!

     http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25025

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2007 @ 10:33am

158. Maskerina-- do you even know if Conyers was in his office yesterday?

     7/23/2007 Action Alert--Conyers, Impeachment, ARRESTS

     Democracy Cell Project

     I am sitting on the floor of a phone booth, so the police will not make me stand and blog. Lisa from C-ville is standing in front of it, hoping I will not be noticed.

     I have never seen anything like this one, folks.

     There are HUNDREDS of people lining the hallway to John Conyers' office. Cindy and a few others are inside, speaking to the staff, we assume. But the scene is incredible--people have come from all over the country to deliver the message that we can not tolerate illegal actions and an unConstitutional government.

     Richard has the camera and many photos--but he is up close and I cannot get to him. But we promise you photos as soon as possible.

     I will update this as I can...

     But hello to all from the center of democracy! We are taking it BACK.

     Oh--and CALL!

     Phone Chairman Conyers at 202-225-5126 and ask him to start the impeachment of Dick Cheney; and phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and ask them to immediately call Conyers' office to express their support for impeachment. Your Congress Member might be one of the three needed, not just to keep impeachment activists out of jail but to keep this nation from devolving into dictatorship.

     Click the link above to see the rest of the pictures but there's one in particular I'd like you to see, along with the caption it had.

     http://phillybits.blogspot.com/2007/07/ action-alert-conyers-impeachment.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2007 @ 10:38am

159. I think it's great that all this heat is being generated on Conyers and Pelosi to get their butts in gear-- Check out the pics and blogs concerning Sheehan's protest and arrest here:

     http://tinyurl.com/2gdusy

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2007 @ 10:53am

160. Maskerina-- do you even know if Conyers was in his office yesterday? ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/24/2007 @ 10:38am

     HSUB....are you losing it? Sigh...okay, here's the post before the post...from www.democrats.com-

     Update 1:35: Conyers just arrived!! As he walked down the hall, activists shouted IMPEACH so loud the whole floor echoed. Conyers and his staff took Cindy, Rev., and Ray into a private office without the media. Stay tuned!

     Update 2:55: After an 80-minute meeting, Cindy emerged and told the activists that Conyers said "our only recourse is elections," and the activists groaned. Cindy announced she will run against Pelosi because she and Conyers haven't "stepped up," and the activists cheered. Rev. Yearwood is giving a fired-up speech and activists are crowding in to Conyers' office for the sit-in.

     Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 10:55am

161. HSUB....are you losing it? Sigh...okay, here's the post before the post...from www.democrats.com-

     Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 10:55am

     Maskerina, I was searching for a Conyers' comment about the meeting-- zippo. I know I've read they met in private, but I haven't seen anything about Conyers take about it other than what I read the day before when he said he needed 3 more reps to call for it. Maybe that isn't good enough for Sheehan? Like to see Conyers make a statement.

     In any case it is good to see people doing something possitive and push the issue and their reps. This time thousands, maybe next time millions...

     Er, Maskerina, what have you done to push impeachment since you're so for it?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2007 @ 11:16am

162. Maskerina, I was searching for a Conyers' comment about the meeting-- zippo. I know I've read they met in private, but I haven't seen anything about Conyers take about it other than what I read the day before when he said he needed 3 more reps to call for it. ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/24/2007 @ 11:16am

     HSUB....reading comprehension problem? Or don't you trust Cindy Sheehan to accurately report what Conyers said?

     "Update 2:55: After an 80-minute meeting, Cindy emerged and told the activists that Conyers said "our only recourse is elections," and the activists groaned. Cindy announced she will run against Pelosi because she and Conyers haven't "stepped up," and the activists cheered. Rev. Yearwood is giving a fired-up speech and activists are crowding in to Conyers' office for the sit-in.

     Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 12:00pm

163. Er, Maskerina, what have you done to push impeachment since you're so for it?

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/24/2007 @ 11:16am

     I'm for Bill Richardson being the Dem nominee...but at 3% in the polls, I don't see it happening and prefer to save my campaign donation for the General Election.

     But according to YOUR logic, since I don't donate to Richardson, I want him to fail, not that I just don't see much hope for him.

     Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 12:04pm

164. BLOG | Posted 07/23/2007 @ 12:28pm Comments for "Censure and Impeachment" Read entire post

     COMMENTS

     Post a comment or reply.

     View your ignore list.

     History has vindicated Reagan completely; it has shown that the left was dead wrong when it came to Reagan, and virtually none of them have admitted it. Moreover, today's Bush hatred indicated that they have learned nothing. Being wrong is human; refusing to learn from it is catastrophic.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS

     Oh, that is SSOOOO funny PONTI my boy. Thanks for the laugh!

     Being wrong is human; refusing to learn from it is catastrophic. - bush has made a CAREER of fucking up and not learning from it so I guess he really is.... a chimp. A backward, shitflinging little monkey.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/24/2007 @ 12:45pm

165. Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/23/2007 @ 7:15pm

     LENNY! Ya big freakin' coward! Shouldn't shoot your mouth off and then fail to follow up. I posted my email, I waited patiently for your heated challenge to prove your manhood..... ...

     And nothing. Not a damned thing. So thank you, coward, for representing the conservacunts in such true fashion.

     At least LUVVY sent me an email whining about what a cripple he was and how mean I was to expect him to back up his words with action.

     You? Not a freakin' peep. Dont' ever talk to me about manhood again, you freakin' chickenshit.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/24/2007 @ 12:49pm

166. Mette-Half of America does not believe that AIPAC had something to do with the war in Iraq.Half of America never heard of AIPAC.30% of America doesn't know who Cheney is,but you want us to believe that they all know what AIPAC is.Get a grip on reality.

     I think as we play out this Democratic inability to extricate ourselves from Iraq or hold Bush and Cheney accountable for the lies they told America to get us into war, the 'ENTIRE' country will know who AIPAC is, especially the Democrats, because we will all have suddenly realized that our party has been hijacked by a bunch of right-wing war mongering idiots who ought to be Republicans!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 1:07pm

167. HSUB....reading comprehension problem? Or don't you trust Cindy Sheehan to accurately report what Conyers said?

     Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 12:00pm

     Maskerina, I note I want a statement from Conyers clarifying from himself the meeting with Sheehan, you have none nor cite none from Conyers and then say I have comprehension problems...

     ...I just don't see much hope...(for your own beliefs?)

     Posted by MASK 07/24/2007 @ 12:04pm

     Maskerina does nothing for what she says she wants but advocates and cites the opposite, contentually cites the reasons that what she believes is right-- is wrong to succeed. Thus Maskerina is not honestly stating anything with transparent motives; masks truth of her actions to what end. Definitely not for the right beliefs she does not advocate for.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2007 @ 1:41pm

168. Mette-Many Americans don't know what PAC is and they never will.Few people will ever blame AIPAC for Iraq or anything else to the degree that you do.One year from now support for Israel will have risen,again.You claim that the opposite will happen.We'll see.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 1:44pm

169. One year from now support for Israel will have risen,again.You claim that the opposite will happen.We'll see.

     Short of some stage terrorist event, which we are on the look out for this time, I do not see how support for Israel (among the American people) is going to rise.

     Is that what AIPAC and Israel has planned for us now?...a staged terrorist event?

     If so, you really should try to get some NEW 'video' footage of bin Laden, because most of us have figured out that your audio tapes of bin Laden are phony and that he probably died in Tora Bora, which would explain why we have yet to see any 'video' of bin Laden since that time!

     Fraud is only a short term strategy - in the long run we will figure out your fraud and hold you to account!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 1:57pm

170. Mette-I see that you're trying to blame Israel,in advance,for any future terrorist attacks.That's very paranoid or Muslim fundy of you.I can't decide which.I can see how support for Israel could rise.The more I read your stuff the more I realize that Jews need a homeland and am starting to lean in the direction of Israel.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 2:07pm

171. Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/24/2007 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person

     go ahead, compare Israel with its neighbors, it will look better and better.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/24/2007 @ 2:49pm

172. The more I read your stuff the more I realize that Jews need a homeland and am starting to lean in the direction of Israel.

     The question is not whether Jews need a homeland, it is whether they are going to respect the rights of their neighbors to have a homeland as well, without being 'controlled' by Israel.

     I personally do not think the Middle East was the right place to plop down the state of Israel, and would have chosen some place in Germany like Bavaria. At least a German based homeland would 'correctly' assign the responsibility for the homeland to the Germans since they, not the Palestinians, were the cause of the Holocaust.

     But since the idiot powers that be selected the 'Biblical' Middle East as the place for the homeland, then we need to do our best to make this work by respecting the rights of all, including the Palestinians, to self determination.

     But tell me....as a Jew, wouldn't you prefer Bavaria as the "New Israel"? With Bavaria, you could have a "new Jerusalem" to satisfy your evangelical supporters and you wouldn't have had all these headaches with Muslims, right?

     Bavaria is a lot prettier and the land is more fertile, so it really is perplexing that with all of this Jewish power, money and guilt-driven extraction of reparations and other resources from Germany that you couldn't have pushed for a Jewish state there!

     Maybe I should be running AIPAC, because I think you guys are getting the short end of the stick with that desert oasis that you call Israel!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 3:03pm

173. Mette-I was raised Christian,but now study Taoism and Buddhism.I did study Judaism and Jewish mysticism,but didn't become Jewish.Truth can't be contained in one belief system.I like the teachings of Jesus,but don't believe in the god of Abraham.It could be that the Jews didn't have a good experience in Germany and didn't want to hang out there.With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight I'm sure that many would have preferred a better environment,but, apparently,Israel sounded good at the time.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 3:50pm

174. It could be that the Jews didn't have a good experience in Germany and didn't want to hang out there.With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight I'm sure that many would have preferred a better environment,but, apparently,Israel sounded good at the time.

     You are probably correct, but I think the US and Great Britain could have made it work in Germany, but chose not to.

     A lot of Jews are moving back to Germany, and as this ME situation worsens, and I suspect that it will, Bavaria may sound more attractive to Jews as the 'New Israel'.

     Israel's current posture of insisting on being the superpower of the Middle East is going to lead to their eventual extinction, but they don't seem to realize that now and are currently controlled by a bunch of right-wing nuts that have absolutely no foresight or understanding of the Muslim world and the probable response to continued misadventures in the region.

     You don't shake a hornets' nest and expect the hornets to be deterred by your shotgun. This is the policy Israel continues to pursue, and it is plain crazy.

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 4:14pm

175. Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/24/2007 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person

     there was some talk of settling in Uganda.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/24/2007 @ 4:20pm

176. JR-I remember reading about that back in my Jewish study days.Wasn't another African area,also considered?

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 4:37pm

177. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/24/2007 @ 1:41pm

     HSUB, Cindy Sheehan met with Conyers for 80 minutes, came out, and said HE said "our only recourse is elections".

     Now, even you, in your deluded phase, must recognize only three possibilities--

     1. The story from www.democrats.com is false. Ergo, both Cindy Sheehan AND John Conyers would seemingly RUSH to the microphones to announce that it was false to remove any "false doubt" cast upon Conyers' "imminent" push for impeachment.

     2. Cindy Sheehan came out and LIED to the crowd about what Conyers said. In which case, you believe the "Peace Mom" is a liar and Conyers is remaining silent about her untruthful statment out of respect?!?!?

     3. Conyers said that to Cindy Sheehan. Now maybe Conyers LIED to Sheehan about "our only recourse being elections"...but why would he do that?

     If you can come up with a 4th reason...within the realm of the Universe in which we live...love to hear it?

     Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 4:39pm

178. I have heard Kenya mentioned.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/24/2007 @ 5:05pm

179. JR-That sounds familiar.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 5:07pm

180. Jewish settlement in Kenya began in the early 1900s. In August 1903, the British colonial secretary Joseph Chamberlain offered the Zionists a part of the territory in Kenya (the "Uganda Scheme") for their own autonomous country at the Sixth Zionist Congress. The suggestion created much controversy among the international Jewish community, and was rejected at the Seventh Zionist Congress, in 1905. Although, this proposal was reverted, several Jewish families immigrated to Kenya.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/24/2007 @ 5:12pm

181. Maskerina, actually read what I wrote a lot earlier and you'd get a 4th reason that is a lot more logical than your divisive drivel.

     Until Conyers actually comes out with a statement, all we're doing is 2nd-3rd person speculating, but then that is about 80-90% of all you do. (That you even get 2% of it right is pretty amazing considering the source. Oops, forgot the chimps on a typewriter theory...)

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2007 @ 5:52pm

182. Although, this proposal was reverted, several Jewish families immigrated to Kenya.

     If I were a powerful Jew like Mayor Mike, I would lobby hard for Bavaria as the "new Israel". By creating Israel on former German territory, it permanently reminds us of the horror of the Holocaust and who was responsible!

     Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 5:53pm

183. Is that what AIPAC and Israel has planned for us now?...a staged terrorist event?

     You were already off the rails, so what metaphor does one use to describe this comment? It's disturbing--and grimly telling--that you have already pre-blamed the Jews for the next terrorist event.

     If so, you really should try to get some NEW 'video' footage of bin Laden, because most of us have figured out that your audio tapes of bin Laden are phony and that he probably died in Tora Bora, which would explain why we have yet to see any 'video' of bin Laden since that time!

     The major battles in Tora Bora took place in 2001. There are videos of OBL as late as October 2004. What evidence do you have that OBL was not killed in the major battles (he couldn't have been given the dates of the battles and the tapes) but was killed later in a skirmish? Oh, that's right, evidence doesn't matter because the evidence has been distorted by the Jewish lobby. Sorry, I forgot.

     I think it is about time me all turn off Mettaya's "Super Happy Protocols of the Elders Fun-Time" program

     Posted by BlueSpark at 07/25/2007 @ 09:30am

184. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/24/2007 @ 5:52pm

     HSUB, cruise the left-wing blogs....they're already calling Conyers a "sell-out".

     Don't stand by this just out of EGO and "I don't want to admit I was wrong to MASK...of all people".

     Conyers said it....and I think you know it.

     Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 10:24am

185. Blue, me all turn off too.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 12:03pm

186. Blue, me all turn off too.

     LOL. Yeah, thanks for alerting me to the typo. Insert "we" for "me" in my above post.

     Posted by BlueSpark at 07/25/2007 @ 1:21pm

187. I thought it was poetic license. I'm with you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 1:35pm