In a diary entry on DailyKos, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), one of the most consistently progressive liberals in the Senate, surrendered to the Democratic Party Establishment, with an embarrassing string of lame and tired excuses for not standing for impeachment of the Bush/Cheney regime.
Feingold, who once took the lead in opposing Bush's and Cheney's abuses of power and their undermining of the Constitution with a censure motion filed in the Senate, wrote in the DailyKos diary that while he agreed that Bush and Cheney "may well have" committed "impeachable offenses," he nonetheless did not support impeachment.
His reasons offered for this bizarre turnabout sounded suspiciously like "talking points" from the Democratic Leadership Council, or from the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Feingold says he worries about "The great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country." But he fails to address what problems Congress is actually working on, or what problems it can even try to work on. The list is embarrassingly short. In fact, aside from the tiny and almost meaningless increase in the federal minimum wage that was passed as kind of "blood money" attached to the $120-billion Iraq War funding bill, there is nothing Congress has done in the last six months. And there is nothing they can do, because Bush can veto anything significant that the Democrats manage to pass, and even if he can't veto a bill, he can kill it with a signing statement, unless Congress impeaches him for his refusal to enact laws.
Feingold says "the time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do - end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years." Hey Russ! Wasn't Congress also elected by Americans who wanted to restore respect for the Bill of Rights and the rule of law? Also, remember that the whole Clinton impeachment process took all of four months-not a particularly long time. And again, without impeachment "on the table," Congress has done nothing to end the war in over six months, and it has not been able to do anything about addressing those "terrible mistakes" of the Bush administration.
Mistakes? We're talking about crimes here; not mistakes!
Feingold claims to be concerned about the "overuse" of impeachment. That's rich! Because Republicans clearly misused impeachment to go after President Clinton on a minor issue, Feingold is willing to let Bush and Cheney slip away with crimes that have led to the pointless deaths of almost 4000 Americans and over 600,000 innocent Iraqis? What is this man thinking? He's comparing Clinton's lie about a marital infidelity with Bush's ordering of torture? With his authorizing of kidnappings and secret international gulags? With the elimination of the 700-year-old foundation freedom from illegal incarceration known as habeas corpus? With massive secret illegal spying on Americans?
It's hard to believe these words are even coming from a man who only a year ago was out front calling for censure of the president by the Senate. If this president and vice president are not prime impeachment bait, Feingold and his colleagues should just vote out a Constitutional Amendment removing the impeachment clause, because it will never be used again.
Feingold tries to duck his leadership responsibility by claiming he has "a specific role to play as a sworn, impartial juror should an impeachment be tried in the Senate." That, however, is nonsense. In no way does the Constitution state, nor did the Founders ever imagine, that senators in an impeachment trial would be impartial in the way that petit jurors in a criminal trial must be impartial. There is no jury selection process at which biased senators are removed from the trial. All senators, with all their political baggage, are automatically part of the "jury." And they are understood to be political actors. Some would no doubt be swayed by the arguments made at trial by the House prosecutors at such a trial, if they open their minds, but they are understood to be political animals. Feingold is clearly being disingenuous here.
He has a role to play. As someone who understands the grievous crimes of this administration, Senator Feingold should be pressing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stop blocking impeachment. He should be following the honorable and courageous path being paved by California Senator Barbara Boxer, who told the Speaker that "no one can take impeachment off the table," and who warned that the U.S. is "closer to dictatorship than it has ever been in history."
One would have thought Feingold would be making the same charge, but something has turned this once honorable and courageous Senator to moral and intellectual mush.
I remember, when Sen. Paul Wellstone was tragically killed in a plane crash, thinking, "Well, at least we have Russ Feingold."
That was then. This is now. What would Sen. Wellstone be doing today? Certainly he wouldn't be ducking his responsibility to stand up in defense of the Constitution as Feingold is doing. He'd probably be traveling the country, giving rousing speeches at impeachment events.
Russ, wake up! You can't fight Bush and Cheney with bills, and they've made it clear you can't investigate them with committees and subpoenas. These two power-crazed criminals and Constitution wreckers are thumbing their noses at you and all your colleagues on both sides of the aisle. They're laughing right now at your pathetic cop-out.
There is only one possible avenue of counter-attack against these guys: impeachment.
We who are pushing for impeachment would like to have you on board, fighting for the Constitution with us, as you pledged to do when you took your oath of office, but if you are going to cave and play the cynical and cowardly game of Pelosi and the gang of corrupt leaders of your party, we'll just have to do it without you.
And you'll have to face your next election without us.
Dave Lindorff's most recent book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
99 Comments so far
Show AllI have one question now.
Which way is the Vomitorium?
I WAS a contributor to Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriot's Fund, but I've decided to only contribute to candidates who support impeachment. My response to his latest request for funds will be: Take two aspirin and call me when impeachment is on the table.zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
In the meantime, I think working to make the Green Party stronger is the only way to get the Democratz to stop with the Repugnican Lite crapola. The two party system usurped the true function of the Electoral College. Time to give that body a real work out by voting third party for a change.
Perhaps one of the major candidates for Prez offered the #2 spot to Russ and he has to stay in line? While I thought he would be great for that, I can't accept his current position on impeachment. It's out of character, so something is definitley afoot and hitting them in the wallet is the only thing I can do as an individual to make my position on Impeachment hit home. I can screwed for free. I don;t have to pay for participating in a farce.
Barrrrrf.
You summed up my own reaction quite well. "At least we have Russ Feingold." That is how I have always felt. I was up all night after reading his diary. Bereft is an understatement. Leaderless... abandoned might be a better word.
Feingold has always been my favorite Senator. I'm pretty much done with Senators and Congressmen now (except for Dennis.) I won't get my hopes up like that again. Washington must... do something to their heads.
We're going to need Lincoln or Eisenhower to return from the dead, if our democracy is going to have a shot at surviving this regime. And somehow I don't think they're coming. Not that they wouldn't have fought for us, had they only been here in our lifetime.
We have no statesmen now.
BaltoCaveMan,
Hey, I'm beginning to like you. You seem like a nice guy. Look, I have nothing against you or against the people of your religion. But I despise Israel that is occupying Palestine and is acting like Nazi fascists. That's one point.
Also, I know, and I'm sure you do, that I had you beat in your argument in your original post. However, if you are still not satisfied, read the following excerpt from an open letter that appeared today on www.CounterPunch.org
Falling for Lieberman's Iran Resolution
By FELICE PACE
"I am outraged that you both voted for the resolution by Senator Lieberman suggesting that Iran is responsible for the death of American soldiers in Iraq. This is a blatant attempt to provide cover to Bush and Chaney for an attack on Iran. It demonstrates once again that Mr. Lieberman's main allegiance is not to this nation but to the American Zionist Agenda and those in Israel and the US who want to promote instability in the Middle East and to have the US attack Iran on behalf of the Israeli military."
Now, about your question regarding "Ever wonder why and where he comes from?"
You interpreted that question literally. Let me give you an example. Suppose you argue with me and I say: Where are you going with that? This question does not require an answer on your part, such as: I'm going home. OR, I'm going to the gym. It only means: what are you going to achieve with that argument? Similarly: Where he comes from? Was not meant for you to answer where you were born or where you reside. That was none of my business. It was a rhetorical question that did not require an answer, and it was intended for readers to arrive at your religion and your bias in trying to protect AIPAC. From the content and the tone of your post I already knew your religion and your bias. Where you live did not matter.
Saila:
In your responses to my post, you still neglected to answer the same question I had the courage to answer:
"Ever wonder why and where he comes from?
So, since this thread has read my bonafides, what are yours, or don't Zionist Conspiracy Theorists have the courage to reveal themselves, just like all the bullies of history. Have you read the "Protocols" yet? It must be on your best sellers list. Pssst! Jews and Israelis are out to conquer the world...and make all of you eat kosher food....pass it on! C'mon in a room of 100 people representing the world's population, there wouldn't even be one Israeli or Jew!
If Scotland is your home, God bless you, the Scots are a great people that protected society from barbarism, they have a nobel past, and courage to face others, they were warriors.
So answer that question first: "Ever wonder why and where he comes from?
Then I'll pose another: Where are the people of Gaza getting their food and medicine from?
For the answer:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3425559,00.html
Hint: you won't like the answer.
And so after all your scapegoatism is finished, what has been accomplished to do something to my countries policy, let's see....hmmmm....nothing!!! Bushco has just created another "let's you and him fight". Thanks, it's been fun knowing people like you still exist and can still give aid the Bushco type regimes. I've got better people to have an educated argument with.
-30- -30- -30-
If you guys want to play dumb, that's your prerogative. You know that I meant the last two lines of the portion that I had posted, and it reads:
"But Congress has cooperated fully by passing every bill or resolution against Iran backed by the horrifically influential AIPAC lobby. Recall how Nancy Pelosi omitted a requirement for Congressional authorization of any Iran attack from legislation at the Lobby's behest?"
That is what shoots down your argument.
RE: MAKING AN ARGUMENT YOURSELF VS. SAYING 'MY DAD CAN LICK YOUR DAD'
BaltoCaveMan July 19th, 2007 12:36 am
"Where is your criticism of the theories I put forward? Where are the cogent arguments against my central theme"?
Saila July 19th, 2007 8:30 am
1) "I afraid the article by GARY LEUOP appearing a few posts above - "amply shoots down your entire logic and argument."
Reply: You did not post an "article;" you posted a link.
2) "- amply shoots down your entire logic and argument."
Reply: A link does not "shoo[t] down" an argument. Only a counter-argument w/evidence can do that. You didn't provide that.
3) "I suggest that you read the last two lines of that article again, and you would agree the AIPAC would love the USA to attack Iran for Israel."
Reply: Last two "lines" of Leupp's article:
"Those wishing to reverse that have an easy option: vote to impeach. And while you're at it, vote to insist on Congress's exclusive power according to the Constitution to declare war."
Enlighten me: how could these "last two lines" persuade anyone that "AIPAC would love the USA to attack Iran for Israel"?
4) "Ever wonder why and where he comes from?"
Reply: Good point - obviously, anyone who doesn't agree w/you that there's a conspiracy is part of the conspiracy.
Say it ain't so, Russ ... Say it ain't so...
My hats off to David Lindorff as he continues to hammer impeachment. Throw the tea in the harbor and impeach these traitorous bastards or this country will never be the same. Time is of the essence. As far as doing the people's work in the Senate this is the people's work and nothing else is getting done anyway so why not do the right thing and reign in the cretins who are stealing the country away from the people that make up America. Impeach with true purpose. What cowards the American people have elected. My, my, my…
BaltoCaveMan, 2
I afraid the article by GARY LEUOP appearing a few posts above amply shoots down your entire logic and argument. I suggest that you read the last two lines of that article again, and you would agree the AIPAC would love the USA to attack Iran for Israel.
Don't get me wrong now; personally I have nothing against the Israeli lobby groups including AIPAC. In fact I admire them for their intelligence. Look how they're able to manipulate another dumb regime to fight their wars for them.
BaltoCaveMan, 2
I afraid the article by GARY LEUOP appearing a few posts above amply shoots down your entire logic and argument. I suggest that you read the last two lines of that article again, and you would agree the AIPAC would love the USA to attack Iran for Israel.
Don't get me wrong now; personally I have nothing against the Zionists or Israeli lobby groups including AIPAC. In fact I admire them for their intelligence. Look how they're again trying to manipulate another dumb regime to fight their wars for them.
Say it ain't so, Russ! Feingold's support of the 97-0 Iran resolution is also disheartening.
I'm tired of the old saw from moderate Dem bloggers and Dem establishment types that we need to get a Democrat in office in '08 at all costs.
I'm starting to think that the Dems really are the problem and that the priority of all progressives should be focused on changing the Democratic Party FIRST. I'm not exactly sure how it can be done but it's clear to me that we aren't going to accomplish anything meaningful in terms of a progressive agenda unless we get rid of corporate Dems. The party needs an enema.
TO: Salia
To answer your question as to who I am, I am a fourth generation American citizen, who's family arrived here in the 1800's. And my handle tells the world where I am from. Why does your handle link to a university/college in Aberdeen, Scotland?
As to why: because it appears that comments like that are just "shots" on an anonymous forum. Where is your criticism of the theories I put forward? Where are the cogent arguments against my central theme:
[ar·gu·men·ta·tion/Pronunciation: "är-gy&-m&n-'tA-sh&n, -"men-
Function: noun / 1 : the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion against the central theme]:
the work of the rulers of my country to maintain power by dividing critics and subverting dissent. I applaud you for helping me prove my point.
Now, the same two questions to you, again proving my point that posts like yours aid those whom Americans should to challenging: By resorting to scapegoatism and old prejudices, and having those with similar views oppose each other rather than the proper opponent, the impact of uniting will be abrogated and the threat to the "them" lessened.
"Ever wonder why and where he comes from?"
I am starting to feel more and more that the cheney/bush presidency has created a physically threatening environment for senators and congessman in washington. "Accidents" can happen to anybody at anytime. Perhaps Russ Feingold knows something that we don't know, that any move towards impeachment can increase the likelihood of these "accidents." It is not impossible. Look at the hired guns we have in Iraq. These people are paid to kill. All it would take is the redirection of one of these "soldiers" in the direction of a senator or their family. The sooner we can get Bush out of office the better. His power is unlimited what with his "signing statements" which basically mean that he does not have to do anything that the people want him to do. Clinton was impeached for keeping his sex-life private. It is time for the American people to realize that a stain on a dress in no way compares to the absolute evil committed by this administration. Try and imprison! It's an open and shut case people. American people. You're up!
Disingenius! Is that what they call it? Lying, fibs, distortion, turning the truth upside down on its head? Come on, if he needs to be impartial in an impeachment trial, that automatically disqualifies the Republicans as well as the five Justices from Hell on the Supreme Court, let's see, Chief Justice Satan, Lucifer, Beezelbub, Belial, and the Prince of Darkness.
Pelosi should be off the table.
"What kind of damage could Bush do in 553 days?"
ALL (or at least most) of the above. It's coming, like it or not. In fact it's happening at this very moment.
Only 553 days left?
Gee -- what kind of damage could Bush do in only 553 days?
Reauthorize the war -- ?
Hand out new contracts to mercenaries and Halliburton -- ?
Cancel the 2008 election -- ?
Bankrupt the Treasury -- ?
Attack Iran--?
Increase numbers of dead Americans/Iraqis -- ?
Privatize Social Security --?
Destroy Medicare--?
The possibilities for ruin are endless --
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DO IS INVESTIGATE TO IMPEACH . . . AND WITHDRAW TROOPS FROM IRAQ.
NOR SHOULD THE CONGRESS BREAK FOR VACATION THIS SUMMER UNTIL THOSE GOALS ARE GAINED . . .
If I am standing on the tail of a six foot poisonous snake and I see a fire headed my way that will reach me in the next half hour, forgive me if I kill the snake first and then fight the fire.
The most immenent threat to the future of this country is todays political leadership because if it is allowed to deteriorate away from freedom and liberty and rule of law based upon a Bill of Rights it will not make a difference if we fix childhood education because we will of destroyed any meaningfull child education in future.
If we worry about threats from Gonzales and we let the one snake with two heads bite us who wins?
Governemtn is not so much people it is Principles and the one Principle we cannot afford to surrender is "Justice" being meted out to those who try and destroy it.
To let those who have tried to destroy your nations principles and participate by installing laws rules and regulations that will remain on books forever and are just awaiting for the next person to use and abuse cannot be set aside until a later date that will never be able to come except right now.
Would you let your child steal little things all his juvenile life and then wonder why he steals or robs a bank when he reaches adulthood?
Or do you correct them at the first instance?
For far too long you have spoiled the political and military with their corporate allies and listened to all thier excuses and blaming of others for thier misdemeanors and now it will take more than just a mild. "Don't do that" or pat on butt to disuade them.
You may have to knock them between the eyes, and not ait until like the junkies to the comon treasury they are they come home tomorrow and rob your house.
Thirty seven Jewish Senators?
Try eleven!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish-American_politicians#Current...
This is part of an article currently on www.counterpunch.org which I like to present to the guy (above) who urges the progressives not to talk about AIPAC any more. Ever wonder why and where he comes from?
Impeachment or War?
Cheney Urges Bush to Strike Iran
By GARY LEUPP
"Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran." That's the headline of a very frightening article by Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in the London Guardian. Sub-heads
"Surely that concern is felt among the highest ranks of the military as well as the average citizen whom polls indicate feels no enthusiasm for the planned assault. But Congress has cooperated fully by passing every bill or resolution against Iran backed by the horrifically influential AIPAC lobby. Recall how Nancy Pelosi omitted a requirement for Congressional authorization of any Iran attack from legislation at the Lobby's behest?"
Feingold does unfortunately succumb to tribalism and can always be counted to give Israel carte blanche, albeit with the occasional reservations- although he doesn't yell it from the mountain tops--he does tend to frame Israel as the justified victim.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/artappraiser/2006/jul/21/russ_feingold_on_is...
2003-2004 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation's position, Senator Feingold received a rating of -4.
2003-2004 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel's position, Senator Feingold received a rating of -4.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0972103
RE: RESPONDING TO SCAPEGOATING
BaltoCaveMan July 18th, 2007 7:50 am
"tired of...scapegoatism....Are the readers here really as naive as that?"
Glad some other posters are reacting to this. It is a drag to find. Though I have argued against the conspiracy spotters, it is to be hoped that they are only a noisy minority. IMO, on the one hand, the forum would suffer if this became a central issue; on the other, remaining quiet all the time may encourage the belief that others agree with them.
Wellstone was murdered.
Feingold throws in the towel.
I liked the comment, I'm too old for this shit and too young to go down without a fight.
Any sane person would want Bush/Cheney out of office.
At best they have been incompetent.
At worst they are evil. (They have allowed the use of torture of innocent people for example.)
So why is anyone defending them?
Fear of terrorism?
But this administration has increased the number of terrorists with its bungling.
The next is a quote from today's editorial in the NY Times
(and I need to buy an orange t shirt because the exit for Mr. Bush is with impeachment imo)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/opinion/18wed1.html
"This administration has never hesitated to play on fear for political gain, starting with the first homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, and his Popsicle-coded threat charts. It is a breathtakingly cynical ploy, but in the past it has worked to cow Democrats into silence, if not always submission, and herd Republicans back onto the party line.
That must not happen this time. By now, Congress surely can see through the president's fear-mongering and show Mr. Bush the exit from Iraq that he refuses to find for himself"
Look, I am tired of liberal scapegoatism. I, too, am disgusted with Unrefeinedgold, but stop looking for AIPAC-it is degrading, and works into the hand of those who are really pressuring Unrefeinedgold and others. Why do people on this intelligent blog always cite AIPAC? What has AIPAC to do with our county's leader and the President? Did AIPAC start this idiot war? Why would AIPAC want this war in Israel's backyard? Why would AIPAC, if you are correct, want America's troop strength so diminished that if Israel really need America military backing, it wouldn't be there? Why would Israel, who people on this blog have called a US welfare state, want the US economy to tank?
C'mon people, the Fascists of the last century concentrated their power by scapegoating, and influencing the masses to take out their frustration on groups, Jews, gays, Catholics, intellectuals, so as to divert the people from going after the real culprits, the Fascists themselves.
Forget Unrefeinedgold...he's a politician first, and has the backbone of any American politician, and let's get on to finding those who have the backbone to get rid of those who have brought us to this: dividing the liberal class, and those who think. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Caesar, all knew the secret of avoiding public wrath: set the masses on each other through appeals to old prejudices, by making the masses fight among themselves for food, money, bread (healthcare?), divide and conquer, and liberals are falling for the oldest trick in the book. Are the readers here really as naive as that? Let's get on with it: stop looking for scapegoats and do some real good.
It seems that it makes little difference whether or not there is a Democrat or Republican in office.
Russ Feingold has served his constituent Russ Feingold. Let's remember the Samuel Anthony Alito or the John Glover Roberts Jr. hearings. Feingold let us down both times.
Lip service seems Feingold's forte. All we ask of Russ is that he please stop soliciting funds as a progressive because real progressive organizations need these donations. Please Russ stop it.
Mr. Lindorff, Saila, Montemerrick, peoplefirst, and everyone who trashed my arguments.
Thank you!
Following the event, one anonymous Democratic member of the House of Representatives was quoted as follows:
"My guess is that some of the less courageous members of the party are thinking about becoming Republicans right now."
Speaking of Minnesota Democrat Paul Wellstone:
It seems that Democrats are twice as likely to die in plane crashes as Republicans. Often those who died have taken highly controversial positions in opposition to vested govenment interests. (See Sam Smith's story in the Progressive Review).
Apparently, it is a relatively common speculation on the Hill that Wellstone was murdered.
Exposed....enuff said
Nader 2008
Israel/AIPAC has got the US by the balls. It's only a matter of time before the Lieberman legions attack Iran, suicidal though it be.
Dave Lindorff,
"…but that doesn't mean you can just yell "AIPAC" every time someone in Congress does something you disagree with in the Middle East."
That may be true, but then again, Feingold does not need AIPAC to tell him not to impeach. He himself IS AIPAC. Allow me to clarify.
If you ask Jewish people all over the world, including those in Israel as well as the 38 in the U.S Senate and the ones in the U.S. Administration just one simple question: If there was a choice that either the American or Israeli interests were to be destroyed, which one would you rather be destroyed? Since the question is one of either/or, their answer to the question is obvious. No matter what nationality they possess, to them Israel is always first. This is one side of the coin.
Although the U.S. is primarily pursing a policy of grabbing oil and controlling the Middle East, there is no question that this policy is tremendously to the benefit of Israel. After all, Israel would much rather have the U.S., its number one ally and supporter in the world, control the region rather than anyone else. There is also no question that Israel would rather have weak neighbors than strong ones. Thus, the destruction of Iraq, and the possible attack on Iran, which Israelis pray for, would greatly benefit Israel.
Now, who is pursuing these policies? None other than the Bush/Cheney gang. Now, if you were Mr Feingold or AIPAC, or one of the 38 Senators, or… Would you try to impeach Bush/Cheney and stop them dead in their tracks when their policies are to the benefit of Israel? The answer should again be obvious.
Because of the Israel-first crowd, AIPAC has come to acquire a rather new and expanded meaning. It now includes not only various Israeli lobby groups in the U.S. as well as all over the world, but also all individuals with Israeli-first mentality.
Thus, Mr Lindorff is right. You cannot just yell "AIPAC", because Feingold does not need it—He is AIPAC.
Why the Democratic Congress shies away from direct confrontation with the most lawless cabal of pocket-lining criminals ever to govern this nation is beyond my understanding. What on earth are they afraid of, if not of their own shadows? What arguments are they unaware of, since they seem not to recognize the gravity of the precedents being set for a permanently expanded executive authority? As for the argument that impeachment is a 'distraction' from the business of governing, the Constitution says otherwise. Are we a nation of laws or not?
When Nixon faced the threat of impeachment he resigned and the GOP dared not show its dark side. When Reagan and now Bush II have not and will not ever be impeached, BIGGER CRIMES against this country persist and only get worse. In these 27 years, it should be obvious that impeachment has been reserved only for sensational amusements such as personal affairs and not for fighting for real justice. Reagan's escape of impeachment thanks to cowardly Democrats should have taught the Democrats a lesson about cowardice. Instead, they move to the right in greater cowardice and now, they don't even want to hold a hearing much less force Bush II to slow down much less bring Bush II to justice. I'm afraid our system of checks and balances has long been out the door since 1980 and it will only be a matter of time until this country bears the worst of a SEVERE crash.
Why is impeachment of Bush and Cheney so important? The question of who wins the next election, is of very minor importance in comparison with the question of whether future administrations will be compelled to operate within the limitations of the law. Whoever is president next will have to operate under fear of being impeached next. That is the point of impeachment. If we do not impeach Cheney and Bush, we will establish that it is permitted for future presidents and vice presidents to mislead the Congress and the public into wars, spy in violation of the law, detain without charge, torture, operate in secrecy, and rewrite laws with signing statements. Those powers in the wrong hands could do serious damage as Bush and Cheney have proven. As the past has shown, impeachment takes only three or four months--it is time to begin the process.
Is it possible that Bush has not knowingly violated the law? That is, has Bush authorized spying programs not knowing they violated the law and the Bill of Rights? He's on videotape lying about it for years. He's on videotape confessing to it. A federal court has already ruled what he's done is a felony, finding in NSA vs. ACLU that the NSA program of broad data-mining and warrantless wire-tapping of U.S. citizens is illegal and unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment. Yet, he continues.
Have Bush and Cheney threatened an aggressive war on Iran? They're both on
videotape doing so. A pre-emptive strike on Iran, as on Iraq, would be a violation of international law, against the principles of the United Nations and a violation of Article VI of the US. Constitution.
Was Bush criminally negligent during Hurricane Katrina? He's on videotape
being warned of the danger. He's on videotape claiming he was never warned.
This is only a small part of the evidence for impeachment. The US House of Representatives needs only the will to begin.
Bush and Cheney have used unlawful detentions and torture. The Supreme Court in Rosul v. George W. Bush ruled detainees were being wrongfully imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba. The Bush
Administration's detainment policies and actions were ruled unconstitutional and illegal - in violation of Amendments V, VI & VII of the US Constitution.
The use of torture, legally justified by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, is an additional violation to the 8th Amendment.
The Supreme Court again in Hamdan v. Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, et al. ruled that the Military Commissions instituted by the Bush Administration violate the Universal Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions to which we are bound by American law. Again, the Bush Administration's
actions were found by the highest court of the land to be illegal and
unconstitutional - violating Amendments V, VI, VII of the US Constitution. Bush and Cheney and their staffs have defended these policies on video and in writing. The practice of detaining without charge and the numerous victims of it are undisputed public knowledge. Evidence of torture is voluminous and indisputable and includes public photographs.
If we do not impeach when the case is as compelling as it is now, we are effectively removing impeachment from the Constitution. The duty for the US Congress is morally compelling, imperative, and necessary.
We would be wise to recognize that impeachment is the best guarantee of electoral success for Democrats and Republicans alike. Voters appreciate efforts to push for a cause. When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to nvestigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election.
Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or
improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort
by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a
different direction, suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.
The Democrats would be wise to begin impeachment proceeding to be certain of winning the next election.
A little history.
1. When Israel bombed Lebanon last year, Russ Feingold defended Israel's right to defend itself.
2. Precedent for letting presidents get away with crimes is well established. In Nixon's case, what I think was the biggest crime, the secret bombing of Cambodia, was left out of the Articles of Impeachment by choice (Democrats) And of, course, the Democrats again regarding Iran Contra. Selling missiles to a "terrorist state"!! to fund drug running in Central America!!
Wake up Dave Lindorff
Something is very very rotten in all this.
Many posters still think its the Democrats or its Aipac or the corporations or this or that
Maybe Cheney and the people behind him ARE really evil. What if people's lives are at stake and people will die if impeachment begins? What are Cheney and Bush capable of?
One can not believe what is read in the news. Many of you seem to believe you KNOW what is going on. If a politician gives a statement you seem to think that he is telling you what he really believes. And yet you also write the system is corrupted.
Politicians are lying.
I think impeachment is NOT off the table.
Yes the system is corrupted and yes we do not know what is happening.
People who have lived under communism know what this is like. You can not trust newspapers, and you can not trust what politicians say. The power struggle between groups is hidden from you unless you have power and have access to behind the scenes.
I will continue to push for impeachment and I will support Cindy Sheehan and I will hope that politicians like Feingold and Pelosi will be able to bring America back from the brink.
BUT SOMETHING WE CAN NOT EASILY SEE IS HAPPENING and its happening behind the scenes imo.
My fear is that Cheney is threatening to use nuclear bunker busters on Iran and has said a war against Iran will occur if impeachment begins. What else can you think of that Cheney could use to threaten people like Feingold? Bush and Cheney have a great deal of power and they have the support of some people in the military.
What would they do if backed into a corner?
Think that over.
What would they do if backed into a corner?
And continue to support impeachment
I agree with veros. There is more here than we can see.
"The only thing that I fear and do not think is out of the range of possibilities is that our reps are being threatened by a criminal conspiracy that is undermining every good thing that could happen in this country." quote from veros
"the U.S. is "closer to dictatorship than it has ever been in history." quote from Barbara Boxer.
Think about it.
This might be the real thing.
These people might really be fascists, with all that implies.
Regarding your statement: "but if you are going to cave and play the cynical and cowardly game of Pelosi (re Feingold) and the gang of corrupt leaders of your party, we'll just have to do it without you," I agree, with one caveat; if these monsters aren't impeached, then there will BE NO NEXT TIME. These people have the goal of open dictatorship, period. Although I am Small Potatos, I live in SAn Francisco and I have put the office of Nancy Pelosi on notice, because she will not take impeachment off the table, that I will actively support the run of Cindy Sheehan against Pelosi in SF in the upcoming congressional election. By the way, Feingold has a bad habit of talking big and then caving at the last minute. I am so sick of these people. Gailhen
RE: AIPAC HYPOTHESIS
Dave Lindorff July 17th, 2007 3:36 pm
"A comment regarding the AIPAC hypothesis."
Agreed. The term and allegation are thrown about carelessly, and, I am sorry to say, a good deal.
I have taken issue w/posters on this topic, regarding this lobby's power - and the evils of the Israeli state - in the framework of greater US foreign policy, as discussed by Zunes, Chomsky and others.
As I recall, the last time I argued the Chomsky-Zunes thesis, I was accused of being an agent of AIPAC.
Magikpowerwoman -- "Perhaps people in Congress are being blackmailed by this executive. I mean, if you're going to spy on your own people, who better than the strongest in Congress. Make them just go away. Hagel sure got quiet a few months ago after coming on strong earlier in the year."
I think about this often and fear that this IS what's going on. What a tragic situation for a nation that used to be rather decent. Now we have a fascist state where people are afraid to speak out because they worry about retaliation or repercussions from those who hold the power to destroy them. Pretty sad...
Inchoate wrote: "To impeach Bush would just be a waste of time and money when we can least afford it. It's only 553 days till he's out anyways, the impeachment trial alone would take longer."
I say: "NOT to impeach would be a waste of a Constitution and a representative democracy!"
When there was so much pressure building to impeach Nixon, he resigned. The very act of impeaching (bringing charges against) Dick Cheney would enable the Congress to get results from their subpoenas. The impeachment-based subpoena is the ONLY one that suspects cannot reject. They must answer those subpoenas. NOT to impeach is saying to the world, "Yeah, we're okay with violating our Constitution in so many ways that it's hard to count them all." Impeachment of Cheney (H. Res 333) would help us expose the information that we need to help turn this country around politically and morally. Impeachment (H. Res. 333) of Cheney would begin to bring a degree of redemption to the Congress that has aided and abetted this White House ever since 9-11. IMPEACH CHENEY -- H. Res. 333 -- IMPEACH CHENEY -- H. Res. 333
Thanks to the 15 co-sponsors, I believe we can do this during this "IMPEACHMENT SUMMER"!!!!
I am so sad that someone I respected does not understand the supreme importance of impeaching these two criminals. Perhaps people in Congress are being blackmailed by this executive. I mean, if you're going to spy on your own people, who better than the strongest in Congress. Make them just go away. Hagel sure got quiet a few months ago after coming on strong earlier in the year.
Sadly, I think Feingold has become convinced he would be a committee of one in the impeachment IF it got to the Senate.
All Congress members have decided to make themselves irrelevant. The President/King who is anointed next will definitely build on Bu$h the inferior's power grab.
What about truth. If our congress people in the House would initiate impeachment and expose the truth of this corrupt administration the senate would have no choice but to support the truth. I hope our reps have the courage to stand up and expose the truth. They all talk loud and long about how and what they stand for when they are seeking to be elected. How about standing up now for the truth. I would love to see the truth exposed, and criminals held to account. Lets continue to march and shout, write and talk, loud and long enough to be sure that they hear us. I feel like most people here that it is imperative that impeachment proceedings begin ASAP.
The only thing that I fear and do not think is out of the range of possibilities is that our reps are being threatened by a criminal conspiracy that is undermining every good thing that could happen in this country. How else can one explain the lack of integrity of most every member of congress. I think of the anthrax, and Paul Wellstone, and the hard to explain "ineffectual stance our seemingly good reps take on certain issues.
Dave Lindorff:
"As an investigative reporter it galls me when people throw this [the AIPAC comment] out without evidence ... Clearly something's gotten to Feingold, but let's find out what it is and then fight him on it."
OK Dave, you're the investigative reporter. Find out what got to Feingold and let us know. If 'it / they' got to Feingold, 'it /they' got to others, too. When you tell us what it is, we'll help fight it.
But be quick about it, huh? Time is running out.
The democrats will now be responsible when Bush attacks Iran. They have no place to hide and no excuses if they let Bush the Crazy stay in office. He and Cheney have been threatening this more and more, so it isn't like the Democrats don't know they are planning to do it.
Goodbye America, Hello Amerika.
The points I would make have already been made.
Impeachment will not remove bush from office. Impeachment is a particular type of bill passed by the House of Representatives that alerts the Senate to the Constitutional requirement that it examine the eligability of a federal officer to continue filling his position due to certain information that has come to light.
Impeachment is territory belonging solely to the House, while the ensuing trial belongs solely to the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Senate presiding over the Senate chamber instead of the Vice President. After viewing/hearing the information submitted by the House, and whatever relevant witnesses that may come forward, the Senate votes to remove or acquit the federal officer.
bush has admitted to committing impeachable offences: He knowingly commanded and authorized federal employees to violate the FISA laws of the U.S. that govern the surveillance of mail and electronic communications without a duly issued warrant. This is a criminal offence carrying a mandatory 2 year federal prison sentence for each of the 15,000 violations bush has admitted to.
There are plenty of other crimes and incompetencies bush is responsible for that make him a candidate to be impeached and removed.
The real issue is whether Congress is willing to do its duty and act. In the face of the broken FISA laws, bush is a criminal. From this time forward will the U.S. be a nation of laws, or has it become a place where privilege permits criminals to get away with their actions?
Failing to impeach bush is a tacit approval of everything bush has done. It sets a precedent that committing the same kinds of crimes in the future is acceptable.
I sent this email to Feingold:
The democrats are enablers if they let Bush/Cheney out of being impeached. I cannot remember any issue in my 55 years that has left me completely giving up on all of you.
The American people WANT this to happen. Why are all of you so spineless? These guys are horrible and have committed serious crimes. WE DESERVE THIS AND NEED IT TO HEAL THIS NATION. Who cares about campaign finance reform or any other vacuous baloney you think means something, when all of you don't give a damn about the law anymore? I feel an incredible amount of venom toward our senate/house now. We have been in the streets for months and sending money to get those in other states in close elections elected. Never again will any of my money go to any democrat. You're no different fundamentally if you sit on your thumbs on this issue. Be a MAN like you have been in the past. Stop whining about how hard it is. Hey Russ, what about the kids that have died due to these lies? They didn't complain and whine about how hard it was to follow their convictions even if they were misled. sleep well chicken.
Yes, jp, the Moyers segment on impeachment with Fein and Nichols was superb. Go to PBS and watch it online for those who haven't seen it or read the transcript.
I agree with Dave Lindorff. (BTW, I enjoy reading your work.) Something has gone awry with Feingold and there is a reason he is making lame excuses, although I'm not sure how to find out what that reason is!
My senator, Barbara Boxer has come forward in support of impeachment, and I cannot understand Feingold's flip-flop at a time when impeachment is gaining support in this country. Bush and Cheney have broken countless laws and the time has come for Congress to act--not capitulate.
I'm sending Feingold an email pronto.
John Nichols and Bruce Fein presented the most cogent case for impeachment, and this article futhers the argument. This is not just the most corrupt adminstration in our history, and that will at least end when they are finally out of office. However, even more important than these well- documented "high crimes and misdemeanors," however, is the precedent for a rogue executive that makes mincemeat out of the Constitutional separation of powers. The founders established impeachment to address abd prevent precisely this kind of power grab. How can Feingold ignore this? We must contact him, Pelosi, and Reid and insist that impeachment not only be "on the table, but should begin immediately. As for his claim that impeachment would take away from the time needed to address the problems of the nation, how many of those problems are a result of Bush's arrogant power grab? I am talking about the war, the pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina (due to the incompetence of his political cronies), the threat of terrorist attacks, which have increased as a result of Bush's aggressive attack and occupation of Iraq.
I, too, am disappointed in Feingold.
Please consider joining us in D.C. on July 23rd. I REALLY hate to say it, but the time has come for action, not more words. The American people MUST decide.....either we do nothing and run the very real and immediate risk of dictatorship (within 500 days I might add) or we act decisively, NOW, to take back our government and our country. Waiting for our elected reps to do anything for us is, well, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. There are only so many times that one can march, write, speak, assemble etc before one begins to understand that the time for that is LONG past. It gets us nowhere because a career politician is, by their very nature, corrupt. Gone are the days when we were represented by average folks doing a public service. Politics is BIG business. There truly is only one party in this country. Damns and Repugs are simply two sides of the same coin. Doesn't really matter who you vote for.
This is why the Damns are not keen on impeachment. It would only serve to illustrate to the people the horrible truth. And it IS horrible. Our government has been bought and paid for and you KNOW that the Walmarts and Enrons of the world are calling the shots. We the People became We the Consumer a long long time ago and our current problems are a natural result of the many, many times we have turned a blind eye for the sake of expediency. Just as the Damns are trying to convince us to do right now, again.
I plan to go to D.C. on the 23rd. Not an easy trip for me. I live way up here in Vermont. I'm a working stiff and it will cost me a days pay, which I can ill afford, not to mention the gas to get there and finding a place to sleep. Of course the way things are going I'll probably end up spending the night in jail. Whatever. At this point I have to make a stand. I could not live with myself were I to sit idly by, fingers skittering over the keyboard. I have two grandchildren. What do I tell them when this country comes crashing down? "Well, I blogged and wrote to the editor. I called my senators and congressman, but they didn't listen so I just sat around and watched it happen. That's why you have to live in the U.S. of Haliburton."
Can't do it.
So, here I go. I'm too old for this shit....but I'm too young to go down without a fight.
Please think about coming to D.C.
The more of us there are, the better the chance they can't shoot us ALL.
There is something a bit inconsisitent about Feingold's worry that an impeachment process would take ime away from dealing with the problems of this country. Aren't the main problems facing our nation the results of the policy of Bush and Cheney? (Here are just a few: the war in Iraq, the threat of war with Iran, the lack of enforcement of food inspection, the increasingly regressive economic policies, etc.) The only way Congress can do effective work on these issues is by ridding our nation of this corrupt, incompetent, and immoral administration. Wake up, Mr. Feingold, or else go to sleep with your apparently new found pals in the DLC!
democrats are afraid the image of them destroying the presidency will come back to haunt them.
Ironically, if the president was impeached with his VP, perhaps Congress would be freed up to carry on with "progressive" causes. It appears most of their energy today is spent combating the Bush Administration.
Silly me, who would have thought Feingold would present such a compromised position?
-------
I do think the author is wrong on one point and that is -what I would call the misuse of- the word cynic as he tries to close his argument. Cynicism is good for bolstering critical thought. Go after other aspects without proclaiming the cynic guilty. Who else would come forward to challenge what is proclaimed doctrine and policy if not the cynic? Leave the cynic to pull apart the charade.
What greater role for Congress than to defend the Constitution? What other way to rein in this administration? I've argued elsewhere that their intent is to block all alternatives but impeachment and then argue that the clock is running out so why traumatize the country. It worked after Nixon and it worked with Iran-Contra.
The neo-cons are not going to go away. Each time they lose, they learn from their mistakes and start over again with a Constitution a little weaker from their last assault, the opposition a little more demoralized.
I would hope that this time the Democrats would avoid the trap and fight back, not just boast that they "minimized" the damage.
their all scared shitless, because their all dirty.
It's curious that Feingold says he doesn't want to impeach because he would RATHER "work[] on the problems of the country." Impeaching Bush and Cheney redresses one of the most important problems the Democratic Congress faces right now.
The fundamental corruption of our democracy by consolidating power in the Executive Branch in direct defiance of the Constitution is evidently not considered a "problem of the country."
In addition, the best way to gain traction to attack the other problems and to fix the damage done to the country in Iraq and at home by the Bush Administration is to make sure the next Administration understands the consequences of breaking the law and undermining our democracy.
Since Fiengold is smart, and this claim makes no sense, we are again left with the certainty that the real reason for the failure to impeach is not the stated reason or reasons.
The two viable explanations I have seen here are:
+ That Democrats think they will win in 2008, and wish to keep the extraordinary Executive powers Bush and Cheney have grabbed.
+ That impeachment might leave a viable Republican incumbent available for the 2008 election, and so would reduce the likelihood of Democratic vistory in 2008.
The first viable explanation above means the Democrats are no better than Republicans in pursuing power at the expense of the health of our democracy.
The second viable explanation should leave no doubt that the Democrats are weak (as if there were any doubt remaining). Essentially, this is the desire to cling to a small handicap for the other side as opposed to claiming the major victory of re-establishing accountability in the government.
Any way you cut it, it amounts to more of the same pathetic lack of leadership from Democratic leaders.
To say I'm disappointed in Russ Feingold is the understatement of the year. Now all we have left is Jim Webb I hope he is as strong as he seems to be.When I made another post praiseing Feindgold I didn't know he had caved in for that I apologize
That's it. Game over, man. Game over.
frank1569 for President. Cheneybush will be arrested on inauguration day, and by the end of the first week, every loyalbushie in every agency, department, and dark corner will be purged - and charged with crimes if possible. Every single piece of paper and bit of data not deemed actually "top secret" will be unearthed and exposed. All Halliburton contracts will be voided immediately, and a portion of the savings will be used to hire as many lawyers and investigators it takes to reveal and cure the Cheneybush cancer. Troops out of Iraq - and out of as many of the other hundred or so countries we shouldn't be - as fast as humanly possible.
And that's just week one. Oh, and Russ - no job for you.
Excellent article!
Once again it is pointed how some Democrats use "progressive" platforms and act progressive to get what they want...votes. Then, once in power they'll think nothing of talking the talk (until told by the DLC or others to back off) but refuse to walk the progressive walk.
Russ Feingold joins the long list of Democratic tricksters.
Time for a new direction, a party that does not deviate from a truly progressive platform. www.gp.org
Who is left? I was in strong support of Feingold and just don't believe we have the whole story. Something is amiss in Congress as they all say they have more important things to do than impeach Bush and Chaney. What are these Congressmen and women so afraid of and can't they see the writing on the wall? Impeachment should be the ticket numero uno before Bushies attack Iran.
Paul Wellstone was the kind of man who could restore America to greatness; a great speaker, very intelligent, down to eath, a champion of the regular working guy. He was very well liked - even by his enemies across the aisle in Congress.
This, of course, made him a huge threat to a Bush presidential run.
That's why he is gone. For a treat - check out:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/
and
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/1101_wellstone.html
and
http://lmno4p.org/wellstone.htm
A reasonable person may think:
if "they" can assassinate Paul Wellstone - "they" can assassinate anyone.
"They" probably figure that kind of reasonable thinking ought to keep everyone on good behavior and towing the line, but...
let's face it,
they can't assassinate all of us.
Besides, who would pay all the taxes to fund the liberation of the Iraqi oil wells?
re: Inchoate - "To impeach Bush would just be a waste of time and money when we can least afford it. It's only 553 days till he's out anyways"
How can anyone be so sure that these guys will go quietly? Anybody hear Cheney talk of retirement? (Bush has mentioned it, thankfully).
We need impeachment before martial law arrives and all pretense of democracy goes bye-bye.
congress is worthless as is the admin. every election we switch back and forth between the demoRats and the recrudlicans. a silly farce that we have to endure every 2 - 4 years. democrat - republican - republican - democrat. with a few independants that get in. what an utter farce this nation is
Let's quickly demolish the feeble arguments of Inchoate (July 17th, 12:49 pm), who writes "To successfully remove the president from office requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. That won't happen....It's only 553 days till he's out anyways..."
Even if the effort to impeach is made, & ultimately falls short of removing Bush from office, it's vastly better than failing to make the effort. Allowing these monsters to complete their term with no official rebuke whatsoever sets in stone a terrifying precedent for the future. Then, after Bush & Cheney themselves are gone, every president who follows can do all the same things -- and justify it by pointing to the precedents set by Bush (and tacitly approved of by Congress).
As Dave Lindorff points out above, it's impossible to know at the outset how the impeachment process itself will affect both public & congressional opinion. The revelations could be so damaging that more Republicans would be forced to distance themselves from Bush-Cheney, as was the case in Watergate.
What's really at issue here is defending the Constitution & rule of law, which is the only thing standing between us and de facto presidential dictatorship. To fail to try to impeach is simply to throw up one's hands and say, "Ah well, so we lose the Constitution. A pity..."
If we're too cowardly to stand up and fight for accountable government, we lose it forever. People like "Inchoate" think this is no big deal. That kind of thinking reeks of the same kind of cowardice that the Democrats reek of.
there won't be any impeachment, folks. you can forget it. why? cuz congress is as deep in the crimes of this gov't as the bush admin. one ex: sen. dickless durbin a few weeks ago came out and said all members of the senate intelligence committee knew that the wmd info on iraq was a fraud, but poor little dickless couldn't say anything cuz the info was "classified." that's 12 senators right there, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. all of the other crap this admin has done (ok, maybe not some of the DOJ stuff) has either been approved legislatively or allowed by the congress.
impeachment ain't gonna happen.
Kooshy,
Thanks a million for the number 37. I have always been interested to know that, but didn't know where to find it. Any number on the House of Reps?
If they impeach Bush now, that will save a lot of work repairing the damage he causes in the next year. Imagine what his parting shot will be like?
And the democrats are acting in ignorance. If your roof is leaking, and you're worrying about the arrangement of the patio furniture in the backyard, maybe it isn't as important as fixing your roof. I don't know what is more important than impeachment.
The president will be impeached.
www.NotOneMore.US - Take the Pledge for Peace
A comment regarding the AIPAC hypothesis. As an investigative reporter it galls me when people throw this out without evidence. We all know, and there is plenty of documentation to prove it, that AIPAC weilds untoward influence in Congress, but that doesn't mean you can just yell "AIPAC" every time someone in Congress does something you disagree with in the Middle East.
Russ Feingold, as far as I can recall, has been pretty much off the zionist reservation, and has been better on Israel/Palestine issues than 95 percent of Congress. Maybe he's in AIPAC's pocket, but unless you can prove that, just saying he has a jewish name is simply being a racist.
My wife is Jewish, and she supports a Palestinian state and does not support Israel as a Jewish state. I have plenty of Jewish friends (and Israeli friends too) who despise AIPAC and the Israeli right, and who support Palestinian demands.
Show me where AIPAC has bought Feingold, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, all you're doing is substituting rabid racism for thinking.
Clearly something's gotten to Feingold, but let's find out what it is and then fight him on it.
Sorry, PJD. I guess we really ARE better off being represented by Sen. Norm Coleman.
I understand that every politician has skeletons in their respective closets, however, the sanity of this nation rests on not being bullied by corporate cronies. Impeachment is a must. It is shown that we don't have much faith in our Congress as it is. Obviously they don't care about the people in their country if they can't even take that hint.
In this scripted age, do us a favor and impeach!
"But Sen. Wellstone's courage, integrity and honesty could not be tolerated in the US of Today, so he had to go..."
You mean the same Wellstone that supported Clinton's wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq?
This sounds like Bush saying "It's hard work." Of course there's lots to do. Maybe they should trying working. Maybe that means a little overtime/staying late at the office. Roll up your sleeves, get to work, and do it.
Contrary to most public comments, I always thought Watergate was a highlight in our history in that it proved the Constitution worked. I look at what's going on today in the same way. Our leaders are breaking so many national and international laws that it's crazy and they should be held accountable for it. I always thought Henry Kissinger should be in jail for war crimes. I think the same of the idiots currently in our Executive Branch. See how bad it will get if they are encouraged by getting away with all this. See if we ever have a fair national election again. We have to get to the bottom of all these atrocious actions so it doesn't get worse. These guys are sitting back thinking they can get away with anything. We have to show them otherwise. If Congress won't do it I agree with those that want the people to march on DC big time. Show them they can't ignore us.
The president is going to be impeached.
The president is going to be impeached.
And the democrats who don't support impeachment will not get reelected.
Words Have Meaning, the difference between 9/11 and September 11, 2001-
http://www.wordsareimportant.com/wordshavemeaning.htm
so it goes,
"What would Sen. Wellstone be doing today?" He'd be President of the United States! No one will convince me that his plane crash was an accident, so flame on if you must. But Sen. Wellstone's courage, integrity and honesty could not be tolerated in the US of Today, so he had to go.
As recently as this spring my dream ticket for '08 was Kucinich / Feingold. Ha! Guess "they" got to ol' Russ. Wonder what they have on him, or is it a small plane scenario he fears?
Or maybe he's just being practical, and going along to get along. Ya think?
It is not that he changed his mind , he got a call from bodies in AIPAC , so he had to change his mind
after all he is Jwish like the 37 other senators
guess a country of 300 million with a population of 4 million 1.5% Jewish 30% of its senator are from a single ethnicity Jewish how come nobody can talk about that
- Login or register to post comments
- report this comment
<