An Opening for the Constitution

posted by John Nichols on 07/24/2008 @ 4:09pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (51)

Subscribe Now

Thirty-four years ago this month, when the House Judiciary Committee was considering strategies for holding a lawbreaking president to account, the most determined advocate for impeachment on the committee was a relatively junior member, 45-year-old Michigan Congressman John Conyers.

On Friday, Conyers will again participate in a Judiciary Committee examination of how best to address excesses of the executive.

Again, the prospect of impeachment will be discussed.

This time, however, Conyers will not be playing the role of the young firebrand.

Rather, he will be chairing the session.

There is no small measure of historic significance in the fact that a man who the Nixon Administration placed high on its White House "enemies list" – labeling the congressman as the "black anti-Nixon spokesman" – now sits in the seat once occupied by white-haired and venerable New Jersey Congressman Peter Rodino during the heady days of the Watergate inquiry.

It is, to be sure, a different seat from the one from which Conyers first rose to identify and then tackle the high crimes and misdemeanors of a lawless administration.

As the committee chair, Conyers must balance the competing demands of House Democratic leaders who would prefer that impeachment never be mentioned with those of the millions of grassroots Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, independents and, yes, even a few Republicans who cannot understand who Congress has failed to defend the Constitution "against all enemies foreign and domestic."

No serious observer doubts that Conyers has his heart in the right place. The only remaining member of the Judiciary Committee that went after Nixon who still serves on the committee has for the better part of a half century been the most steadfast defender of the system of checks and balances in the House.

Conyers introduced the first legislation calling for an inquiry into whether George Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached. At his direction, the minority staff of the Judiciary Committee compiled what remains the most exhaustive detailing of the current administration's wrongdoing. Even after Democrats retook control of the House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," the committee chairman kept top staffers working on presidential accountability issues and maintained lines of communication with lawyers, scholars and organizers who have been battling the Bush-Cheney administration.

It has not always been easy. Conyers has felt pressure from both sides: from top Democrats who have determined (against the evidence of history) that challenging a lawless president and vice president might endanger the party's electoral prospects and from activists who argue that a failure to challenge Bush and Cheney endangers not a political agenda but a republic.

On Friday, Conyers will strike a delicate balance.

The second most senior member of the House will lead the Judiciary Committee in putting impeachment on the table.

Key members of the House, including Kucinich, will argue that Congress must use every available means to address the high crimes and misdemeanors of the president. They will be supported by panels of lawyers, including Conyers' former Judiciary Committee colleague Elizabeth Holtzman and former Reagan administration lawyer Bruce Fein, who will argue that impeachment at this point is not just an option but a necessity. Others will testify on bahalf of legislative remedies designed to constrain this and future administrations.

Speaker Pelosi and her allies have narrowed the range of options. They do not want a formal vote on the particular article of impeachment that Kucinich has advanced against Bush – or on the various other articles the former presidential candidate has proposed. That is both a pity and a problem. When Congress fails to act against presidential lawlessness, it sets a precedent that is difficult to undo – even with specific legislation.

But that does not mean that Friday's hearing will be inconsequential.

Historians will long note the permanent record of a Judiciary Committee session that entertained serious discussion of whether President Bush and Vice President Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

And, hopefully, they will do so as part of a broader examination of how John Conyers and others who regard the U.S. Constitution as more than just a piece of paper kept alive a respect for the principles of separation of powers and presidential accountability even when the political leaders and strategists of their own party told them not to mention the "i" word.

Against all odds, impeachment is on the table.

It is not the centerpiece that some would make it.

Those of us who regard the Constitution as having more meaning than a party registration card will continue to argue for a wider examination of what the presidency has become, a deeper debate and a fundamental renewal of the constraints of executive excess.

As we press our case, however, we would do well to recognize that, against great odds, John Conyers has created an opening that allows us to imagine and pursue that renewal.

Comments (51)

geez, the one issue me and FRANK agree on!

Seriously Mr Nichols, you're starting to look obsessive.

"Speaker Pelosi and her allies have narrowed the range of options."

She's not Sam Rayburn, but she's not a powerless idiot either. If she doesn't want impeachment...there will BE no impeachment.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 4:28pm
Nancy Pelosi is playing politics with the constitution. She figures that Bush has damaged the rethug party to the point that the dems are a shoe in for the White House.

My guess is that she figures that the dems will wield that power that Bush has used for some time unchallenged, but she figures she's on the "good" side. From what we've seen, there is no "good" side in D.C. which is all the more reason to have checks and balances in the government.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/24/2008 @ 4:29pm
If historians look at this at all they will see it as a partisan attempt by a failed Democratic congress (approval in the toilet) to try to do something, anything. Conyers needs a trip to the dog track.

Posted by wredner at 07/24/2008 @ 4:56pm
Although impeachment is unlikely, I do think there should be a "truth commission" to get at the facts behind this criminal administration, and use the criminal process to hold those to account that violated the law.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2008 @ 4:56pm
The theatre of the RIDICULOUS is now open! Send in the clowns of the Undemocratic congress please!

Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/24/2008 @ 4:59pm
Rio got it right...Conyers and the like are the real clowns.

this will get highlighted by the even bigger clown, Keith Olbermann and get it's 5 minutes of news and then disappear into the trash heap where it belongs.

Only American hating leftists want to impeach a president for defending the country.

But the good news is that Nichols will probably sell another 20 copies of his book.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 5:31pm
Only American hating leftists want to impeach a president for defending the country. But the good news is that Nichols will probably sell another 20 copies of his book. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 5:31pm

That's precisely it. And the America hating right want to dissolve the Congress and turn this into a dictatorship.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 5:51pm
That's precisely it. And the America hating right want to dissolve the Congress and turn this into a dictatorship.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 5:51pm

There isn't a person on the right who wouldn't scream bloody murder if Bush was still in office Jan 21. There's no dictatorship.

Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008 @ 5:58pm

As I noted on another thread, young CCC is someone often given to hyperbole because of his youthful inexperience and lack of acquaintance with reality.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 6:02pm
Nothing new here.

John Nichols posts useful commentary on a topic of great significance in regards to the possibility of maintaining some meaningful semblence of a Republic --i.e. the need for an impeachment inquiry if not all out impeachment hearings-- and the usual inane chorus of blubbering boobs and nattering ninnies chimes in with their two American cents worth of valueless drivel.

This is a good place for a stick-up.

Air freshener, that is.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/24/2008 @ 6:30pm
Wow... Clinton lied about a blow job and you right wing nut jobs stood behind every one of the 'Elected' right wing nut jobs who screamed for impeachment... Do you guys really have that short of a memory..?? Amazing... The more posts I read from 'my friends' on the right, the more I realize how far from reality some Americans are. Mary, you really think information that a murderer 'endorsing' President Obama is some sort of AH HA ! moment..?? Truly Pointless... Would it matter if Kenny'boy'Lay of Enron infamy 'Endorsed' Dubya..??(Dubya in fact used his jet during 2000 campaign) Which is worse..?? Your argument is weak and pitiful at best. If your trying to make a point, try to make sense. Lvl, stop watching The factor so much man... Its really starting to get to you... "America Hating Leftists"... Laugh Out Loud... Getting sent to Iraq for the third time since 2002 at the end of November.. Do I qualify as an "America Hater"...lol..What Are YOU doing..?? Where does your experience/acquaintance with reality SPRING from..?? Your couch and AM radio/Fox News..??

Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/24/2008 @ 6:46pm
Lvl, stop watching The factor so much man... Its really starting to get to you... "America Hating Leftists"... Laugh Out Loud... Getting sent to Iraq for the third time since 2002 at the end of November.. Do I qualify as an "America Hater"...lol..What Are YOU doing..?? Where does your experience/acquaintance with reality SPRING from..?? Your couch and AM radio/Fox News..??

Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/24/2008 @ 6:46pm

1. I don't watch the factor. O'Reilly is too liberal and so if I'm going to watch a liberal, I'll watch one that is more open about it.

2. Iraq, 3rd time since 2002? Really? are you with Al Qaeda? Because the US wasn't in Iraq in 2002.

3. My experience comes from 1)military service, 2) working in political campaigns since 1960, 3) as a former busines executive, and evidently a more rounded background than you.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 7:00pm
Mr. Lib... LOL...

1. Qaeda WASNT in Iraq in 2002... But you can still believe that lie from YOUR current Admin...

2. If you were in fact 'In the military', Then you will surely know you cant put 150k+ troops and equip in country in just over 90 days.... (mar03 Kick-off)... I was on an MSC ship transiting the Suez Nov 02... Ill send ya Photos if you like.. Would you like more information on 'Military Matters' Mr. Lib...

3. More rounded..?? Well thats just a matter of PERSONAL opinion... Im Not one to BLOW my own horn... But if I were, I might even impress you MR. Liberty.

On a side note Mr. 'Liberty'... (just so i know how 'Conservative' you are) Question.. Do you believe dinosaurs existed..?? Or is that a 'Librl elite' POV..?? Just need a gauge...

Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/24/2008 @ 7:28pm
There isn't a person on the right who wouldn't scream bloody murder if Bush was still in office Jan 21. There's no dictatorship. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008 @ 5:58pm

Ahhhh. So only the far LEFT hate America. All the right are patriots? Same to you LVL. I main be prone to hyperbole but you are so far up your asses with partisanship that you believe you don't have equal extremes on the right. You believe only the left have their "America hating radicals."

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 7:52pm
Ahhhh. So only the far LEFT hate America. All the right are patriots? Same to you LVL. I main be prone to hyperbole but you are so far up your asses with partisanship that you believe you don't have equal extremes on the right. You believe only the left have their "America hating radicals."

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 7:52pm

Show me where I have ever said that everyone on the right is a patriot.

Of course there are America haters on the far right. I have never seen Happy, JM, Mary, USC, Ponti, Thrawn, or myself ever deny that. Can you provide an example?

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 7:58pm
There isn't a person on the right who wouldn't scream bloody murder if Bush was still in office Jan 21. There's no dictatorship. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008 @ 5:58pm

There ya go. An example.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 8:02pm
Talk to me babe...

Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/24/2008 @ 8:06pm
There isn't a person on the right who wouldn't scream bloody murder if Bush was still in office Jan 21. There's no dictatorship. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008 @ 5:58pm

There ya go. An example.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/24/2008 @ 8:02pm

Excuse me. That example is just the opposite of your claim.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 8:49pm
There isn't "ANYONE" on the right who would want Dudya for 4-8-12 more years..?? Is that your claim ..??? LOL... You sure about that MBB..?? Some of the herd here would LOVE it... Hell 26% of the POP. still thinks Dudya is still doing a 'good' job....

Its a mighty big brush you use MBB... Generalizations never hold water. Never... Your arguments can be torn to shreds.

Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/24/2008 @ 9:13pm
Everybody needs to remember that LVLIB's idea of the "Far Left"....

ALMOST (if not does) includes Chuck Hagel!

LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 10:57pm
The Constitution was posted on the backsplash of the urinal in the executive john of the Oval Office. Bush and company practiced writing their names on it. It's time that our founding document gets rescued. The Congress has been dormant too long. It's time to get moving.

Posted by midnight04 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:05am
Excuse me. That example is just the opposite of your claim. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 8:49pm

How is that exact opposite? I MUST be missing something. She there is no one on the right who wouldn't!

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:30am
Not that this would get ever get brought up at the n0t-really-impeachment hearing (if it did they'd all run into a closet after tearing down the c-span cameras), but the simple reality is that aiding and abetting torturers and war criminals by gov't officials -- even after the fact, by putting any accountability "off the table" -- is a war crime in itself. The duty to report and ACT to stop ongoing torture is an affirmative one.

Pelosi, Conyers, Obama, Nadler and the rest are themselves currently in "Nuremberg defendant" status.

And while they "make the rules" inside the cloistered beltway at the moment, they do not change the rules found in the treaties that tens of thousands of Americans fought and died to forge.

Those who dream of "reconciliation" committees seem to forget that the "truth" part comes first. The fact that the DC-Dem "leadership's" Failure to Impeach makes them complicit with the war criminals is a very, very inconvenient truth.

Posted by thedeanpeople at 07/25/2008 @ 12:40am
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008 @ 5:47pm

Looks like that puts him in the same category with Maliki, most of Europe, 47% of the US electorate and a good portion of the Muslim community.

don't be an idiot Darin. Why post such drivel. do you need to live in fear all of the time? Do you know that the Klan supports McCain? Does that sway you to vote for him?

BOO! Watch out, the bogeyman gonna git ya!

Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2008 @ 06:59am
Luvvy posted his very own list of 'Merica Haters....

Of course there are America haters on the far right.....Happy, JM, Mary, USC, Ponti

, or myself .....

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 7:58pm |

Bubba Oh'Really (?) is too liberal for Rev? And this nutter calls me "fringe"? What a freak. American Taliban.

We just have to look at how against any investigation into violations of the constitution they are. Again, think back to the early days of the Nixon hearings, the squeals from the right were eerily similar to their squeals today.

Bush is the King, The Unitary, The One. He can do whatever he wants, as long as it makes the neo-cons "feel" safe and proud.

[ Phred Thompson-"For me, as for millions of other Americans, Watergate did not ring many bells in the winter of 1972-73 ... My only reaction to the case had been a vague feeling that every political campaign has a few crackpots who cause embarrassment."

"At That Point in Time" can be read as the story of Thompson's 18-month odyssey from this semi-informed Watergate skeptic to a grudging convert in the bipartisan consensus that Nixon had to go. But Thompson's narrative also offers perspective on 21st-century politics -- especially the full-throated cries by some antiwar Democrats for the impeachment of George W. Bush.

Had it only been Democrats back in 1973-74 calling for the president's scalp, Nixon would have served two full terms in the White House. What brought down Nixon was the growing realization by mainstream Republicans like Baker, the vice chairman of the Watergate Committee, and on-the-make GOP operatives like Thompson that a cancer was indeed growing on the presidency.

..."In retrospect," he writes, "it is apparent that I was subconsciously looking for a way to justify my faith in the leader of my country and my party, a man who was undergoing a violent attack from the news media, which I thought had never given him a fair treatment in the past. I was looking for a reason to believe that Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, was not a crook."

This passage also illuminates the mental gymnastics that today's Republicans are willing to perform to justify their continued support for Bush as president.]

Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2008 @ 07:15am
why is that criminals walk the earth and the worst of them wear suits and have stuffed bank accounts and hold office.

....Posted by Zero at 07/25/2008 @ 02:45am

Criminals is correct and a stacked system is even more so. Check the link out below, but be warned that the video is 47 minutes long, but well worth the watch...especially the last quarter where there is a quote from President Garfield about the tyrants who really run the show. He was assasinated for making that comment. Then their Woodrow Wilson's comment after the fact that he messed up big time.

The video shows the banking system for the corrupt power grabbing system that it really is.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&hl=en

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/25/2008 @ 09:06am
This passage also illuminates the mental gymnastics that today's Republicans are willing to perform to justify their continued support for Bush as president.]

Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2008 @ 07:15am

Crab, As I've pointed out earlier, Liv makes the John Birchers look like democrats.

He calls himself a man of God and then promotes outright slaughter and murder of people he doesn't even know. His excuse of course is that Saddam and his sons were evil, but in fact, we've managed to kill more folks than Saddam did, but that's alright for him because we are on God's side, so our killing is full of goodness and Godliness. Our enemies should feel blessed to be killed by us in his book.

Now, if anyone else has the audacity to think their nations can have a say in the world obviously they hate America and Israel and therefore need an old fashioned schooling. This schooling comes in the form of aerial warefare followed by installation of corrupt puppet governments (see European colonialism). This is just a modern form of it.

With Liv's reasoning skills, I'd be surprised if he could hold win one of three with against either of my children in a game of checkers.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/25/2008 @ 09:17am
GOT INCEST?

In the WSJ article entitled "Fed's Fireman On Wall Street Feels Some Heat", it states that Timothy Geithner, President of the NY Fed:

"…initiated a series of dinners at the New York Fed's executive dining room, in which five or six executives from a major Wall Street firm would meet his own top people…"

Such relationships may help the Wall Street Banks, but do not serve the public interest. It is completely inappropriate for officials who have regulatory duties to be socializing with the people they are supposed to regulate.

Kissinger Associates is a front for "David Rockefeller, Inc." also known as the CFR and JP Morgan "Chase" AND Exxon.

Geithner is Rockefeller's bankster, and Rockefeller is calling the tune on literally everything.

That helps to explain why Rockefeller named his Manhattan office building "The Tower Of Power."

Geithner is the operational head of the snake...and the body is fully revealed here:

In 2001, he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department. He then worked for the International Monetary Fund as the director of the Policy Development and Review Department until moving to the Fed in 2003. In 2006 he became a member of the influential Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Thirty

The Group of Thirty was founded in 1978 by Geoffrey Bell at the initiative of the Rockefeller Foundation which also provided initial funding for the body. Its first chairman was Johannes Witteveen, the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Its current chairman of trustees is Paul Volcker.

The Group of Thirty's groundbreaking work on derivatives, Derivatives: Practices and Principles, published in 1993 was commissioned in the 1990s just as the use derivatives grew and began to move into the mainstream of finance.

former members include:

Austrian-American economist, Fritz Machlup

former deputy Bank of England governor, Rupert Pennant-Rea

former Bundesbank President, Karl Otto Pöhl, and

the former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan

Masters Of The Universe, all tied to Rockefeller and the IMF:

http://www.imfsite.org/abolish/whyrock.html

Posted by plunger at 07/25/2008 @ 09:48am
Posted by plunger at 07/25/2008 @ 09:48am

I'm sure glad you made it out of one of Dick Cheney's Concentration Camps after World War-III broke out a year ago March, PLUNGEY.

You need to show up more often and warn us of the dire threat that David Rockefeller poses to us and Mankind!

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/25/2008 @ 10:07am
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 09:59am

Problem with your reasoning there, Darin.

LVLIB's interpretation of "God" is contradictory. He BOTH claims that "if a Muslim jihadist came to my house and didn't try to kill him, I'd be obliged to feed and clothe him"....AND that he "regretably" sees the needs for leveling WHOLE CITY BLOCKS with large innocent casualties to kill that same terrorist if he's overseas.

Or even just foreign policy in general...

he has no problem trading with China...a terrible abuser of human rights....but then excuses the invasion of Iraq due to Saddam's abuses which pale in comparison AND NUMBER....and then re-contradicts himself in a discussion of the Korean War where he advocated nuclear bombardment to "free" China from Mao.

He's all over the place, because he's trying to maintain "Christian altruism" AND hard-core "nuke da bastards"/Curtis LeMay "anti-Commie/anti-terrorists" foreign policy AND right-wing free trade advocacy.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/25/2008 @ 10:14am
If this is a dic'tatorship/unitary exec, there'll be no impeachment.

If our congress follows the law and impeaches the criminals in the hsuB/cHeney admin, then we're back to a three branch constitutional form of government.

As hard and simple as that.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2008 @ 11:48am
And they will all think the other two are stupid because they favor a different policy. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 09:59am

Wow. Someone who sees it clearly. But who is right?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:32pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/25/2008 @ 10:14am

The on fault of all religious people in politics. It is hard to make your politics jive with your religion. How can you say nuke em' all and then preach the power of Christ, a man who forgave his executioners even as he hung from the cross?

It's proof that in the Bible if you destroy the meaning of something enough you can make it justify anything.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:52pm
Wow. Someone who sees it clearly. But who is right?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:32pm

I'll go with MBB's choice A. If you believe accumulation of wealth is the end answer for everything, then that's extremely narrow ninded thinking.

If you believe that your God is the only God, then once again, that's extremely narrow minded thinking.

Believing that "all people are created equal" is my answer though people certainly aren't born into equal circumstances as the affluent would have folks believe. In justifying their wealth and riches they say they worked harder for their money and therefore deserve the rewards for their toils. But, how much is too much? When one person starves so that another person can purchase that second vacation home, yacht, or whatever, the massive wealth concentrated on the few definitely comes into question.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/25/2008 @ 1:20pm
Problem with your reasoning there, Darin.

LVLIB's interpretation of "God" is contradictory. He BOTH claims that "if a Muslim jihadist came to my house and didn't try to kill him, I'd be obliged to feed and clothe him"....AND that he "regretably" sees the needs for leveling WHOLE CITY BLOCKS with large innocent casualties to kill that same terrorist if he's overseas.

Or even just foreign policy in general...

he has no problem trading with China...a terrible abuser of human rights....but then excuses the invasion of Iraq due to Saddam's abuses which pale in comparison AND NUMBER....and then re-contradicts himself in a discussion of the Korean War where he advocated nuclear bombardment to "free" China from Mao.

He's all over the place, because he's trying to maintain "Christian altruism" AND hard-core "nuke da bastards"/Curtis LeMay "anti-Commie/anti-terrorists" foreign policy AND right-wing free trade advocacy.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/25/2008 @ 10:14am

No contradictions as I've previous responded to you. It's your inability to form judgments that are outside of your own bias and your consistent twisting and distorting of what people have stated.

1. It is entirely consistent with the teachings of Christ to show goodness to your enemy during his need and yet still react with the sword of justice to the evil actions of that same enemy. Christ taught at length on this but liberals and atheists usually dismiss or ignore his calls for violence against those who practice evil.

And I never said to willfully bomb innocent civilians. I have stated that where jihadists are hiding, that leaflets should be dropped as is the normal US military practice. If jihadists prevent those innocents from leaving that is a great tragedy but the real responsibility than lies with the jihadists. Much like in a police confrontation with criminals holding hostages. You try to avoid the loss of innocent lives in your need to get to the criminals but sometimes you are left with no other choice. It happens every week in this country.

Like most libs, you blame the good guys rather than the criminals or evil people like the jihadists. Unlike the good guys, neither of those cares about the loss of innocent lives.

2. You obviously have either never read my posts about China or more likely you just ignore the facts in your desire to paint a false picture. I have said consistently that I oppose our current trade status with China. I was against the Clinton decision to give them permanent MFN status. I have also said that I came to really understand the danger and the complexity of this problem when I lived in Taiwan in 1992-1993.

My specific area of study for my history degree was Asian Studies. I have been consistent in my view that China is a danger to the west even as it tries to combine it's capitalist growth with it's real desire to be the Supreme Marxist power economically and militarily in the world.

You Mask show yourself in posts like the one I'm responding to, as actually someone quite limited in your understanding of history and other nations. I would expect these types of simplistic distortions and conclusions from someone much younger than yourself.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 1:54pm
Dream on. There will be no impeachment. Why? The Republicans don't want it, because they overwhelmingly jumped on the war fervor bandwagon in voting in favor of war. And neither do the Democrats want it, as roughly half of them were sucked in by the Bush propaganda machine. Impeachment proceeding would not only expose Bush duplicity, but Cogressional complicity as well.

Posted by bobforer at 07/25/2008 @ 2:43pm
Well, speaking of pragmatism, according to William James's book, "Pragmatism" all three are right. (No objective capital "T" Truth.) Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 1:40pm

Also very true. Unless you could actually live out all 3 realities to see which one turns our according to expectation no one can be proven right or wrong. That's why I think all of this sparring is funny. All of this I am right and you are wrong. And all of this hatred doled out over opinion is hilarious. All these people who sit here ringing the bell of socialist fear just make me laugh because they don't know if it would work or not. Hell Democracy was a joke to others before America did it. No one thought our Democracy would work. I just find this constant bickering (that I participate in funny) because what's the point in getting angry over and opinion?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 3:20pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 1:54pm

or have you ever stopped to think LVL that you have severely misinterpreted scripture in order to justify what you want?

Why would Jesus at one time justify violence against your enemies and then forgive those who kill him? His message is inconsistent if you can use it to justify both.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 3:24pm
This is why totalitarian states always fail. The leader's goals become the singular goals and you lack the democratic process for establishing the proper balance required to achieve a livable consensus. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008 @ 4:18pm

All very true. That's why all these people who argue that one party is a bunch of idiots are wrong. If we didn't have the balance of parties and ideas this country would quickly fall apart.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 4:41pm
Why would Jesus at one time justify violence against your enemies and then forgive those who kill him? His message is inconsistent if you can use it to justify both.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 3:24pm

Forgiveness and justice are not mutually exclusive. This is a central concept that liberals cannot seem to reconcile.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:28pm
Forgiveness and justice are not mutually exclusive. This is a central concept that liberals cannot seem to reconcile. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 6:28pm

Curious. I don't think he asked for their forgiveness then told God to smite them for their crimes? Can you stop with the partisan crap too. It makes you sound like a moron. Anyone who lumps a group of people into broad generalizations is a moron. That's what racists do. Oh some blacks steal therefore all blacks steal.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 7:20pm
"..there should be a "truth commission" ..and use the criminal process to hold those to account.." Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2008 @ 4:56pm Truth only comes with blanket immunity, but only the latter will happen. There have been too many other dark events swept under the rug in our history, but if anyone imagines our global reputation and adoration will be restored without accountability, that will not happen either, regardless how well intentioned and charismatic Obama is. In my opinion, the outside world has been more horrified by the torture than anything else. Without accountability, not only will the same crimes be guaranteed to happen again, but we can be guaranteed also that America and Americans will be considered persona non grata by the rest of the world.

Posted by mystic at 07/25/2008 @ 10:30pm
I'm amazed to see so many right-wingers using The Nation's Web site to register their objections to the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. This is, after all, The Nation, "the flagship of the left," not Fox News.

Although I find many of these objections nonsensical at best, I can only interpret their number and vehemence as a hopeful indication that impeachment may well hang heavily on the minds of Bush supporters. Their concern makes me hopeful.

Posted by nic_brodeur at 07/25/2008 @ 11:32pm
Before he died Wednesday evening, death row inmate Dale Leo Bishop ... urged people to vote for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. If he's good enough for murderers, he's good enough for the rest of America!

Posted by marybretbrad at 07/24/2008

what kind of asinine nonsense is this?

•••••••••••••••••••

""Thank you very much for your presence here," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said to Obiang at a press conference last week. "You are a good friend and we welcome you."

THAT is an endorsement.

"In July 2003 the state radio station announced that Obiang was "the God of Equatorial Guinea" and that he now enjoyed the right to "decide to kill without having to give anyone an account and without going to hell".

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 12:53am
As I noted on another thread, young CCC is someone often given to hyperbole because of his youthful inexperience and lack of acquaintance with reality.

Posted by THE SAGE at 07/24/2008 @ 6:02pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 12:56am
2. Iraq, 3rd time since 2002? Really? are you with Al Qaeda? Because the US wasn't in Iraq in 2002.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 7:00pm

al qaeda, iraq?

hahahahahahahaha

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 12:59am
2. Iraq, 3rd time since 2002? Really? are you with Al Qaeda? Because the US wasn't in Iraq in 2002.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 7:00pm

¿no?

The Secret War: Iraq War Already under Way

By John Pilger

December 20, 2002

The American and British attack on Iraq has already begun. While the Blair government continues to claim in Parliament that "no final decision has been taken", Royal Air Force and US fighter bombers have secretly changed tactics and escalated their "patrols" over Iraq to an all-out assault on both military and civilian targets.

American and British bombing of Iraq has increased by 300 per cent. Between March and November, according to Ministry of Defence replies to MPs, the RAF dropped more than 124 tonnes of bombs.

From August to December, there were 62 attacks by American F-16 aircraft and RAF Tornadoes - an average of one bombing raid every two days. These are said to have been aimed at Iraqi "air defences", but many have fallen on mostly populated areas, where civilian deaths are unavoidable.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 01:02am
as opposed to one that is really ambiguous and produces a 5-4 decision by the nine Supreme Court Justices. When 45% of SCOTUS agrees with your interpretation of the Constitution, you're wrong (because 55% disagrees) but it's a debatable point and ambiguous. It is clearly not black and white.

Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008

you mean like bush v gore?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 01:09am
"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.... And when you realize the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."

jimmy garfield.

ta da!

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 01:18am
Well, we have the resources to do something about Iraq, the same is not true for China.

Posted by marybretbrad at 07/25/2008

that's right!

where would we hide our inflation?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 01:21am
You try to avoid the loss of innocent lives in your need to get to the criminals but sometimes you are left with no other choice. It happens every week in this country.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/25/2008 @ 1:54pm

well then,

fix YOUR country.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 01:23am
would expect these types of simplistic distortions and conclusions from someone much younger than yourself.

Posted by THE SAGE at 07/25/2008 @ 1:54pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 01:25am