Friday's House Judiciary Hearing on Impeachment: A Victory and a Challenge

I am now reading Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." I love the way he builds up his case piece by piece using logic, fact, emotion, outrage. It is a Clarence Darrow like exercise.

Especially important is the discussion of how after 1-20-09 any State or County prosecutor will be legally entitled to bring murder charges against Bush for deaths of soldiers withing their venues. It gives me hope I can believe in.

I haven't finished the book yet, but one thing that puzzles me is the placement of Cheney in such a secondary support position in the administration. I have been under the impression that Cheney has been the neo-con point man, although I have no specific information to that effect. Maybe it's just the evil sneer. You cannot get a face like that without years of practice.

(Of course, I mean as healthy as possible considering the damage done by the awesome arrogance and stupidity of corporatism.)

"Words like "freedom" and "democracy" mean nothing to the corporatists that run the Democratic/Republican duopoly."

That's because freedom and democracy are antithetical to corporatism, not just inconvenient. We can't have both. It is not necessary to know the theoretical foundations of criticism of corporatism. (It can be criticized from the left, from the right, or from a populist or civic perspective.) All it takes is an honest assessment of the empirical evidence. Trouble is, it's difficult to be honest in the midst of what seem like political imperatives. And the "political imperatives" never end.

I'm sure many readers think the idea that a grassroots uprising is necessary is utopian and impractical. Actually, it is not. It is the best hope for the world and it is happening right now, stronger that it has ever been in my lifetime.

It is most visible outside of the U.S., but (undoubtedly accompanied by intense "pain") citizens of this nation must eventually come to realize that there is a limit to dehumanization and oppression, that they can no longer put the realization somewhere in the dark corners of their minds (where it creates a general unease...admit it) while they continue to dumb down to corporate specifications.

It is not easy to be a corporatist. Corporatists have to juggle all kinds of things, keep them in the air to fascinate and divert the masses, but someday there will just be too many things to juggle and it will all come tumbling down. I hope everyone will be ready in their minds, spirits, and communities to take up a responsible and healthy life once again.

(Far astray from impeachment, I realize.)

10.) Over 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of Gulf War II. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/ ...

A million death is, evidently, not enough. Not for McCain and not for Obama. Quoting from an article by Patrick Martin, "Obama Backs Long-Term US Military Presence in Iraq" ...

"In an interview with Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, published on the magazine's web site Saturday (July 26th), Obama emphasized that his policy in Iraq was one of 'phased withdrawal,' in which US troops could remain in large numbers in Iraq for many years. 'They're going to need our help for some time,' he said."

11.) Obama voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees.

12.) In 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman.

13.) Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

14.) Obama voted for the F.I.S.A. bill – after vowing not to.

15.) Many right-wing supporters are *delighted* with Obama's move to the right. So delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" -- whose editorial board generally reflects not just the right-wing but the right-wing within the Bush administration -- so delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" regarding Obama's recent lurch to the right that on July 2, 2008, they published an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term." In it, they gloatingly stated: ""Maybe he (Obama) is worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate running for it (Bush's third term)."

Wow! So the Wall Street Journal feels that Obama may be worried that *he's* the guy running for Bush's third term.

Sounds to me like Obama wants to be a "wartime president" -- just like McCain and Bush.

When is enough enough, Dave Lindorff? What is your breaking point? Is it not enough that the Democratic Party is criminally complicit in Bush's invasion of two countries? At what point do you and the other DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists) finally admit that the party you're trying to salvage is beyond salvation?

Words like "freedom" and "democracy" mean nothing to the corporatists that run the Democratic/Republican duopoly.

For plenty more reasons NOT to vote for Barack Obama, click here -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

15 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA. ... (Vote 3rd Party instead!)

1.) Barack Obama supports the US presence in Iraq. His position went from that of a "peace candidate" during the primaries to what it is now. That is to say, Barack Obama *now* says that he will defer to the judgment of the commanders in the field. On July 2, 2008, in a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama stated:

"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability."

In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if conditions change, I may not.

Meaning: Obama's current position on Iraq is essentially the same as that John McCain and George Bush.

2.) Months ago, Barack Obama, along with the rest of the Senate, gave George Bush the green light to invade Iran. (The Senate to Bush – "If you invade Iran, we won't object.")

3.) Obama now wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama proposed sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan. ...
Interestingly enough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, also feel that there are an insufficient number of troops in Afghanistan. … And guess how many additional troops they recommend be deployed in Afghanistan -- the same number as Barack Obama, 10,000.

NOTE: Less than 24-hours after Obama's aforementioned "New York Times" op-ed piece, George Bush, in a White House press conference, indicated that the US and its NATO allies were already initiating a "surge" in Afghanistan.

4.) Obama has threatened to invade Pakistan. Quoting Obama from the above-cited op-ed piece:

"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

5.) In the same July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs cited above, Obama praised the US military and vowed to increase its ranks. Obama has called for an overall increase of American ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and "investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."

Last year, writing in "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Barack Obama wrote:

"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale."

In short, Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan). … Does that sound like a critic of the military-industrial complex or an enabler of the military-industrial complex?

6.) Afghanistan is the 20th country the United States has bombed since the end of World War II. *Before* Bush started bombing Afghanistan, one out of every 7 Afghans were either starving or in imminent danger of starving. I don't have a statistic on what the current ratio is. I assume it's much worse. … This is the country that Obama wants to send more US troops to -- more US firepower to -- more US military contracts and more military contractors to.

7.) Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $450 billion.

8.) The Pentagon budget is over $500 billion dollars a year. Obama wants to increase that budget.

9.) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing the US taxpayer
15 billion dollars per month. See http://www.costofwar.com/ Note: The vast majority of the 15 billion dollars per month is going into the hands of those who profit from America's military-industrial complex.

(Continued)

As we all know, the Democratic Party has *enabled* Bush and Company on virtually every issue, domestic as well as international -- on virtually every appointment, judicial as well as executive.

And for this the Democratic Party deserves our support?

The Democratic Party deserves our support for their criminal complicity in the Bush Administration???

The Democratic Party betrayed the antiwar sentiment in this country four times -- count 'em -- FOUR TIMES in the past six years!

1.) In 2002, the Democratic Party told the voting public, in no uncertain terms, that the Congressional elections that year would not be about whether the US should or shouldn't invade Iraq -- invading Iraq was a done-deal, a bipartisan decision -- instead, we were told that the 2002 elections would be about "other issues." ... In other words, peace was "off the table."

That's 1.

2.) In 2004, what could have been a national referendum on Iraq, a national referendum on war or peace -- a war candidate, George Bush, versus a peace candidate, Howard Dean --instead became a choice between two war candidates: John Kerry and George Bush.

That's 2. That's the *second* betrayal in the past six years -- by the Democratic Party -- of the antiwar sentiment in the United States.

3.) In 2006, the Democrats captured both houses of Congress, chiefly because millions of Americans voted Democratic, hoping the Democrats would end the War. ...

However, in the days that followed their stunning success, the Democratic leadership wasted no time making it clear to the American public that ending the War in Iraq wasn't in the cards, it just wasn't going to happen.

Ending the War ... off the table!

Impeachment ... off the table!

But just so the table isn't completely bare, guess what? ... The possibility of war with Iran: *ON* the table! ... The possibility of war with Pakistan: *ON* the table!

That's 3. That's the *third* betrayal in the past six years -- by the Democratic Party -- of the ever-growing antiwar sentiment in the United States.

4.) Which brings us to 2008 ...

Enter Barack Obama. King of the con men.

Wonder of wonders, Barack Obama the peace candidate, has now become Barack Obama the warmonger!

And oh, thank-you-thank-you-thank-you, Barack Obama, for finally "clarifying" your position on Iraq -- Obama's position now being that if the commanders in the field say we should stay in Iraq, we stay.

The fact that Obama's now-clarified position is essentially the same as that of John McCain and George Bush has yet to make an impact on mainstream media, specifically, left-liberal media.

Moreover, Obama has the hopeful audacity to claim that -- Hey, you misunderstood. I'm not a flip-flopper. That's what I meant all along. No, really! Would I lie?

(In other words, it was *our* fault for not listening carefully.)

Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan); and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan).

He's four-for-four!

Evidently, Obama wants to be a war president just like George Bush and John McCain want to be war presidents.

All of which guarantees that the 2008 election will, once again, *not* be a referendum on war or peace.

Four Democratic betrayals of the antiwar sentiment in the past six years. ... With polls now showing that two-thirds of the American public want out of Iraq.

The Democratic Party to the oligarchic elite ... "Don't worry, we, your loyal functionaries, have once again done what we've been doing for decades. We've defused yet another grassroots progressive movement. ...

"When it looked like the Populists back in the 1890s were getting out of hand, we neutralized them. ...

" When it looked like the labor movement in the 1930s was getting out of hand, challenging the status quo, we defused, diluted and eventually neutralized them. ...

"When it looked like the civil rights movement and the environmental movement were getting out of hand, threatening the status quo, we diffused, diluted and neutralized those broad-based, mass movements, too. ...

"And now, the growing antiwar movement -- not to worry -- we've neutered those trouble-makers as well.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

metal -- Can't get into this much now, but if we were to carry on the conversation we would have to: 1) define what is "progressive" that we are always talking about, 2) determine what we think is necessary and the sine qua non of our national and global existence 3) determine how exactly Obama or anyone else on the inside can bring the country into alignment with those necessities.

I'm not at all as optimistic as you that after 6 to 8 months the revolution will come if nothing is done. I think it is more likely that the Democrats will say, "Give us 6 to 8 more months" and the so-called progressives will say, "Well, it is very difficult to accomplish much and there are so many interests that must be acommodated. That's not asking too much." And on...

I think it is also likely that Obama and the Dems will sit down with corporate leaders on crucial issues and the so-called progressives will say it is so nice that we are again "united". Trouble is we will still be "united" with a cancer cell.

What will be the criteria that we set forth for a Democratic congress and Obama presidency that we can support? Out of Iraq? Clean elections? Repeal of Military Commissions Act and the USA"PATRIOT" Act? Reinstitution of the "Fairness Doctrine"? What constitutes the bottom line? We have to be specific or things just kind of dissipate into an lotos land in which time stands still as we continue to disintegrate.

I personally think there is no cure but a grassroots uprising against the system represented by whomever has been elected in the sea of corporate influence.

But, as I said, we really need to get into specifics and how to best bring about the results we want and think are necessary.

Thaks for the great comments Metal. I hope people took the time to read all the text of those lengthy comments. You and I are in agreement on nearly every point. Thanks again.

metal -- Just for the record, I'm not a Nader supporter. I have been in the past, but I think it is high time for people to recognize that he is screwing up he growth of a strong third party.

On CD, it's Nader, Nader everywhere and the Green Party fades into the background. Nader should be campaigning for Cynthia McKinney and for Green candidates around the country. I've never quite understood why that is such an unthinkable thought.

Nader must know that he is keeping the Greens in the background. I don't like that much at all.

I lost much of my enthusiasm for Nader a few years ago when he and his supporters kept sending bullying emails to the Green lists I participate in, emails that arrogantly tried to say if we didn't support him we were ignorant and know nothing of history, psychology, and just about everything else. They overdid it for me and lost me.

Time to quit giving Nader a free ride.

Despite his all-too-obvious flaws, Obama nonetheless offers the possibility of change; McCain clearly does not. It's that simple. If you like what Bush has given us, then vote for McCain and enjoy at least four more years of the same. We are running out of alternatives. The R word begins to have increased credibility.

To Arry:

I know you are weary of all the DLC-type betrayals and I am weary too. But it is the present unprecedented combination of domestic and world events, titanic economic and environmental pressures, almost insoluble botched foreign policy debacles--yet the very real possibility of the strongest Democratic Congressional majority (able to out-vote regressive Republican obstacles) in decades that will be presented to the next president. Obama can use the Congressional power flow or McCain can effect more gridlock and travel farther down the "Unitary Theory of Executive Power" path laid out for him by the neo-cons.

The Democratic Party will have the best situation in two branches of government with which to redeem itself that it's had in over 30 years. I want to see what they'll make of that chance. If they are truly hopeless even with the legislative deck so obviously stacked in their favor, then we will know in a matter of 6 to 8 months. And then progressives will have much more enthusiasm from significant numbers of the general public--especially alienated young people--to work with in terms of building a broader and truly effective coalition.

If the Dems tank and blow their chance--which they may very well do with Frau Pelosi and Harry Dweeb at the helm--other more urgent events by that time will fuel the fire for a progressive revolution. Hopefully, one prays, this will give a man like Nader, for example, access to the scale of media platforms he needs to get across his sober message of logical, regulatory based and balanced good government that operates from realistic priorities. He needs to calm down and smile a good deal more and learn to joke off-camera with the parasites of the McPress.

Most Americans do not now understand how their government is supposed to work on paper--let alone what it has degenerated into in real life. Especially in terms of the nuts and bolts of the process at the department and agency level and with respect to the courts (another partisan kettle of piranha). Nader's difficult task of education takes an audience of middle-class comfort critters suddenly facing real hardships who are willing to listen. If those 80 to 150 banks fail as analysts predict over the coming year, unemployment, foreclosures and prices continue to soar the audience for progressives like Nader must only improve.

But not now this close to a general election with the depth of the current economic slide still unplumbed and so many other domestic and world-shaking crises in play. People are too confused and scared to opt in any numbers for a perceived "radical" choice right now. The immanent future looks and is too stark. Most of them don't clearly grasp just how radical neo-conservatism is because the corporatist press sold it to them as "mainstream."

They just know they're dyspeptic and they want something somewhat familiar. The fading memories of the old Democratic Party in its halcyon days of the New Deal, Civil Rights and Great Society still evoke positive feelings for many. Many of those people are part of the 80 million eligible Americans who typically do not vote. That dream of reforming the Party is still shared by millions and Obama represents the best chance they think they'll ever have. Like I say, its his and the DLC's opportunity to lose

If the economic guillotine comes down and the country is too divided we might see violent Balkanization before a progressive revolution has time to cohere. We need a man in the White House who can work with the Congress he is dealt--not a Republican or a Progressive without a broad coalition of support who must fight Congress at every step. So I say give the Dems one last chance to make good.

I truly believe that Obama is more flexible and willing to listen and change his perspective than both the Right-wing and Left-wing anti-Obama crowds make him out to be and that the next president must be a flexible person. McCain is as inflexible as petrified wood.

Most importantly, this election is 3 months away. Organizing progressives has always been like herding cats. Do you see ANY organization of progressives on anywhere near the scale it needs to have to significantly push "those initiatives that should be happening right now" in time to effect the outcome of the elections? And effect it in what way to what end? Simply defeating Obama in order to have McCain rub in the wounds and toxins of 8 years of Duhhbya even deeper and more dangerously as an object lesson to the American people? Wasn't that what the last 8 years were or should have been?

Harsh economic realities will soon dish out all the object lessons I care to live through and I damn sure don't want to live under Great Depression conditions with that pig McCain in the White House. Have you looked at his "economic plan?" No thanks. Maybe I'm just not as independently wealthy as some of the more zealous posters on this site.

Arry, I think the most important thing progressives can do now is ORGANIZE: Reach out to each other's organizations, establish a short list of mutually shared plank ideas and have all their members bring their united pressure to bear on Obama to accept those planks (or as many of them as possible) both before and, especially after the election if he wins. Obama will be more susceptible to that pressure than McCain and conditions looming up on us all will press Obama even harder to listen and re-think.

I also don't believe in the statement that "Obama's supporters are secretly not progressive." Many of his would-be handlers, advisors and bankrollers are OPENLY not progressive, which is no secret since he was backed by the Democratic Leadership Council. Some of his closest advisers are very progressive. I think one of the most important decisions he has to make is to refrain from accepting neo-con apologist Richard Holbrook as a foreign policy adviser. Thank God he doesn't have the likes of Phil Gramm as an economic policy adviser the way McCain did.

But his appeal to the youth vote in America is the strongest I've seen since 1968. Even the activist groups that I worked with who included college kids could not motivate other young people--particularly young people of color--the way Obama does.

What Obama brings to the table that all the other candidates including current Third Party candidates do not is his primary-established appeal that crosses barriers of race, class and age. With that appeal he can forge a new broader liberal voting coalition that defeats the old Republican "Southern strategy" of pandering to bigoted, disaffected but now aging and dying Dixiecrats. The demographics of America now work to an educated, highly intelligent black man like Obama's favor.

I grew up and live in the Deep South and I have never seen black people as motivated--from the destitute to the middle-class--like I've seen them motivated for Obama. They may not know from labels like "progressive" to "DLC," but they see hope in him. That hope is his to screw up or lose, but I think he deserves his chance. His organization with them is impressive. I love Nader but I don't see him making the connection to younger people and people of color like Obama does. Most Hispanics I talk to who are not Cubans of a certain age like Obama and think that he will be less harsh to deal with than McCain.

The Congress is ripe for a strong Democratic majority where they don't have to take too much shit from the GOP or its media thralls if they don't want to--and I want to see what the Dems will do with that voting majority with Obama in the White House.

metal -- Don't you see that the Obama phenomenon is siphoning off those initiatives that should be happening right now...not in the future? Why should the plan be that after Obama is elected we'll do all these things?

I haven't seen a clue that Obama is interested in the least in "people power". And a true progressive movement wouldn't need a presidential buddy who is also plays the corporate game which in essence is hypocrisy (which makes it so difficult to deal with.) In fact, it would eschew such an idea.

My fear (which involves a prediction) is, as jlocke astutely posted on another thread, that it isn't so much that Obama is a secret progressive but that his supporters are secretly not progressives. I personally think that is what we'll see. Those who can endure "pain" (from which good is born) are those with a sustaining fire in the heart. I'm wondering about that fire which involves risk-taking and creative offense.

Which stabs me in the heart. I'm not a supporter of progressive issues because I like belonging to a club. It is because I think corporatism is the deadly enemy of everything valuable and meaningful. It's a enemy that must be vanquished. Obama shows no promise of being an ally...none at all. He'll just be another drag. ("We'll sit down with corporate leaders and work things out.")

It's not like I am saying this out of thin air. I'm 58 and have seen the old societal "fall back into somnambulism" time and again. It seems to be the way the system works in the U.S., built right into the incessant corporate invasion of culture and politics. Unfortunately, we are at the end of the rope this time.

Well, dang-it, I never did catch that cockroach and my tabby was more interested in his snack tray. This particular roach is a cunning devil and expert at hit and run food sorties. Good at laying low for a long time and it doesn't panic. I've been hunting him for three nights now. One has only to rent the DVD Mimic to see what they'll be like when they inherit the earth.

To tailcap who asked what was the difference between Obama's war policies and McCain's:

McCain has a long track record of describing Iraq in terms of "war" and "victory" and opting always for the most hard-core military strategy and tactics. Iraq is not a war between nations in any traditional sense. What it is is a horrifically botched illegal occupation for the purposes of coercing control of Iraq's oil (and via Iraq's oil the global oil market margins, and thus, the global oil market).

McCain's use of the term "victory" is deliberately vague. None in the Mcpress have asked him to define it so far as I know. He represents "stay the course" and I find no difference between him and Shrublette in this.

Obama wants a clearly defined timeline out of Iraq that is endorsed by Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki who also wants a gradual, but not too gradual defined withdrawal. That is a major difference between McCain and Obama. McCain has already lied about a fixed withdrawal--eschewing the word "time-line"--but I'd sooner trust Obama's loudly declared time-line than McCain's muttering dissembling.

Another major difference is that Obama takes the situation on the ground in and between Afghanistan and Pakistan much more seriously. This is because the growing instability in Pakistan and Pakistan's nuclear weapons merits this seriousness that McCain lacks because he is hell-bent on Iraq's oil despite the soaring cross-border violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These significant policy differences will determine how hundreds of billions of dollars and human force structures and diplomatic overtures and State Department budgets are allocated in a time of worsening fiscal nightmares at home. Obama is still wrong-headed (probably as yet ill-informed about the complexity of these foreign policy issues), but he brings the vigor of youth and a record of work on behalf of all levels of society--poor as well as rich. So I think he is liable to be much more efficient leader with better political tendencies and a shorter learning curve than Grampa McCain--who is already showing true signs of senility and can't seem to keep his facts straight from his lies.

Once Obama starts getting the daily Oval Office briefings, and hopefully hears from Ray McGovern and other more level heads not poisoned by neo-conservatism (something much more unlikely under McCain), and receives the nuclear football, the awful responsibility will weigh upon him much more clearly than old Cold Warrior McCain who is still endlessly re-fighting Vietnam.

My own long held opinion, which has been belatedly and ironically seconded by the old MIC think-tank known as the Rand Corporation (see Chalmers Johnson elsewhere on CD for a riveting history of this organization), is that after 9/11 the attacks should have been treated as an international police problem and not a military problem. That is, if they weren't an inside job and I increasingly over the years believe they were. Either way, terrorism is an idea, not a nation upon whom you declare war and with whom you later negotiate decisive peace treaties. Ideas, especially in the Information Age, cross borders almost as freely as capital among pirate banks.

The Clinton administration handled the first World Trade Center attacks as a police problem and arrests of 14 of the key individuals were made in less than 3 years. Bin Laden and his top advisers are still running around loose (or they've been protected by their handlers to periodically produce doctored psy-ops videos to help keep the fear levels high among the GOP and other cattle here at home so they will keep towing the fascist agenda).

There were neo-conservative, Project For a New American Century reasons of global military and petroleum hegemony for bastardizing the panic produced on 9/11 into Trillion dollar oil wars that are essentially Corporate Welfare for Big Oil and Big Weapons on the tax payer dime. Three weeks after 9/11 Karl Rove was speaking at a GOP fundraiser in Virginia when he said, "We have to milk these attacks for all we can get out of them politically."

The 9/11 attacks themselves were estimated to have cost, in terms of time, training costs, food, housing, transportation, etc., around $500,000. Flight training in take-offs and steering, plastic knives and box cutters. Team Bush's post-9/11 political reconfiguration of the entire U.S. federal budget, all its priorities plus war costs will be in terms of tens of Trillions of dollars all told. McCain is an obvious part of this agenda and I have yet to see strong proof that Obama is, either in comparing his voting record to McCain's or his foreign policy statements.

Treating the 9/11 attacks as a police problem instead of a military one would have entailed an entirely different strategy based on the development of more solid global law enforcement partnerships, and old school shoes-on-the-ground human intelligence networks. Such networks have been utilized from time immemorial until the mid 20th century when corporate lobbyists started cuddling up to Congress members and the quid pro quo squid orgy resulted in hundred billion dollar surveillance/intell systems that can no longer significantly help fight and win a decisive major military engagements of short duration.

In fact the producers of these systems (which NEVER have enough trained analysts to cope with the oceans of data produced) have more interest in prolonging weapons contracts and their related wars than in ending them. HUMAN intelligence networks take more time to develop but yield better quality intelligence and more effective outcomes. Certainly better than torture. I can definitely see McCain continuing the torture regime in secret to obtain dubious intell and to justify the open-ended continuation and deepening of Bush's Police State--while continuing Bush's personal habit of publicly denying and/or condemning aspects of it even as he secretly enables it. I don't see Obama continuing it.

The Al Quaeda "movement" has now grown into hundreds if not thousands of small cells, most of which are not connected in any organizational way to the original cell operating out of Afghanistan that intermarried with the Taliban. The only thing all those loose affiliates share is the desire for revenge and they are scattered all over the globe. This makes Bush's "With us or against us" gibberish all the more stupid.

It is insupportable to attack enemy nations with terrorists operating within them (who are not aligned with a given regime whom we happen to dislike or whose oil we covet) on one hand and back-slap allied nations with terrorists operating within them under the oversimplified premise that a country is either "with us or against us." Why? Because whether the NATIONS are with us or against us, the TERRORIST CELLS operating within both "good" and "bad" nations are definitely against us.

The only way for Bush's gibberish to even seem to make sense would be for the military to attack allied and enemy nations alike who have terrorist cells operating within them. The political/media code for maintaining the present situation is to describe terrorists operating in "good" nations as "infiltrators," and to describe bad nations (too often with resource goodies we want) as "harboring terrorists" regardless of whether they sponsor terrorists or not.

Nor is it morally supportable to lie our way into a war with a nation that did not support the 9/11 attacks in order to lure in outside terrorists and use said nation of 27 million people as a bloody killing field for foreign terrorists resulting in the death or displacement of 5 million of its CIVILIANS--all the while claiming, as the Republicans uniformly still do--that "if we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq we'll be fighting them here in Amurka!" Obama clearly understands the immorality of this. McCain just as clearly does not. That's why Obama is looking for a way out and McCain, all pink-pated and beady-eyed, INSISTS we remain until "victory" is achieved--loss of Iraqi and American blood and treasure be damned.

To Richard Paine who asked me what I thought about dreamwarrior's ideas about making and taking a stand: I was intensively involved in street protest actions until the Nov. '06 elections and the various groups I worked with all had two major problems: (1) How to educate, energize and motivate a youth movement with no military draft to light a fire under their asses and (2) How to get the attention of mass media in an era where both the variety of media platforms has multiplied and the audience is more divided among those hundreds of viewing and listening and texting options. These are the two hardest nuts to crack.

In the days of Vietnam long before cable news networks there were just three (3) TV networks to choose from and sizable majorities of the American people could be moved to action by images of a certain protest action or a certain example of police brutality on a given night.

The Civil Rights movement would NEVER have been as effective as it was if certain local news affiliates of the Big Three networks hadn't aired video footage of those black kids being kicked, beaten, fire-hosed and set upon by police dogs to show Americans that this was what their country was infected with at the end of Jim Crow.

Of course Americans then had a clearer sense of national pride and were more concerned at how their nation appeared to the rest of the world. And the news industry--print and broadcast--had not yet been swallowed up by massive multinational parent companies with thousands of corporate bottom lines to protect (including munitions, oil, nuclear, etc.) and it had more fair-minded owners, editors and reporters. They still told more than one uniformly corporatist/fascist side of a story.

Individual reporters with real passion for a story could still persuade reluctant editors, editors could sit down with one owner--still many family owners then (not an anonymous consortium board operated committee-style by suits with zero knowledge of actual journalism) and explain journalistic and cultural merits of a particular take on a particular story. Editors and reporters alike had more guts because the owners gave them more play. Sure there were sins of editorial and reportorial commission then, but there are far many more dangerous sins of omission now--calculated on the Oligarchical level.

I am old enough that it is still embarrassing to me to see journalists publicly bowing and scraping before the present Machine. The way the White House press corps' knees now routinely all hit the floor the moment Bush enters the room. The way the Fox info-thugs and certain other cable news swine practically go into porno drool with their unquestioning praise of the most incompetent president in U.S. history (by any measure). I remember when they used to shout at Richard Nixon across the White House rose garden DEMANDING answers. I was so proud of them then. They are such cowards, fools and tools now.

So the problem is not taking actions. The problem is getting enough mass media to COVER these actions in order to spread the message to enough Americans to motivate them for positive change. The major media, especially the pundit class, now routinely mischaracterize or falsely reduce the size estimates and, thereby, the significance of protest events in America even as they exaggerate protest numbers in foreign countries--for various reasons useful to their corporatist agenda.

To command the presence of enough major media to do some actual good these days would entail the organization of truly massive protest events in terms of 1-to-3 million strong that are prepared to last long enough to the point of almost triggering the National Guard to rout them out like the Army did the old WWI bonus armies.

So, in short, there needs to be a MASSIVE simultaneous NON-VIOLENT gathering of the tribes--across age and race--in one city with a lot of concentrated media already located there: Either Washington D.C. or New York. And I mean massive, prepared to sacrifice time and money, mutually supportive, NO BICKERING between factions on the Left, and willingness to share and help each other cope with what comes--come what may.

First there should be a leaders-only summit of all the various protest groups to organize and systematize.
Adequate water and port-a-john access should be a top priority. Medical teams should be incorporated into the planning as well. They should be prepared to endure at least half as long as the WWI bonus soldiers did. And if the Machine sends in the troops, the men (and what women who do not have children and are willing) should be prepared to help the other women and children evacuate while they hold on as long as they can--hopefully without being "detained," maimed or killed. I think that's what it's going to take.

That or the immanent economic collapse that will probably produce food riots and general chaos in the over-populated urban areas dependent on our overly expensive, far-flung, diesel-fueled tractor trailer system of distribution. Who will the masses be depending upon then--FEMA? Better to struggle organized together sooner than starve in a land of divided, disorganized and violent chaos later.

Our demands: An end to the war in Iraq within 8 months; a restoration of the Constitution to begin with inherent contempt trials, impeachment or (post Jan. 2008) criminal charges and trials; environmentally sustainable middle-class jobs and the regulations and regulatory apparatus and regulatory enforcement funds necessary to implement them; a phased-in industrial sector-by-sector moratorium on the "free trade" treaties until an independent economic analysis can be done on a sector-by-sector basis of their effects on American middle-class jobs over the last 15 years, and they can be re-negotiated to include labor rights, small land ownership, indigenous tribal land preserves, and environmental protections including access to clean water as a human right.

Personally, I would like to combine the above event with a barbeque contest (with a catchy political name) and a free music festival only for protest singers and protest bands from around the country to help motivate and entertain the crowds. All musical styles. There should be at least four stage areas scattered out far enough for electric bands to perform at nearly full volume. And since I'm imagining all this, I would invite the remaining members of Led Zeppelin, Jim Page (not the same guitarist as Jimmy Page), old Neil Young and Crazy Horse to perform. Songs I want to hear include: When the Levee Breaks, In My Time of Dying, The Powder and the Finger, and Collateral Damage.

"Without pain nothing good is born. Even the seed must burst to make the grass."

I think tailcap would be even happier with a copy of "The Prosecution of Barack Obama for WHATEVER"!!

yes Arry I agree with the part about our obligation; democracy requires ongoing work. it's just that so many laws are broken every day that I have to pick my battles.

anyway, I sent an email to about 40 friends and relatives on Tuesday night asking them to sign Dennis Kucinich's petition before tonight's deadline. It was a multipurpose email since I also told them about Gore's 10 year challenge petition and local disaster preparedness efforts.

a strong showing - and of course this is theatre, but the arts can reach some who are not going to respond to people who call them stupid idiots - of petitions with the names of tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans who favor impeachment does at least send a message to the electeds. Maybe we won't have to throw out the bums.

if we had true campaign finance reform - or even free TV air time - and they didn't have to beg for money all the time from sleazy sources - we might see different priorities in Congress. For example, we might have had in place laws to prevent the egregious subprime lending practices that are now wreaking havoc in capital markets around the world. This chaos is no surprise - legal services, fair housing and consumer rights advocates have been lobbying in DC and state capitals for at least 15 years against these types of loans, but the banking industry always squashed any real efforts at reform. And some of those people are advising Obama - yuck. But McCain is worse.

Hey guess what dogs? I am getting ready to go with my girlfriend to meet.................................yea, you guessed it buddy- Vincent Bugliosi! THE MAN himself is signing books in Pasadena CA. Guess what hosers? Yea buddy I will have my very own copy of Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder ISBN 978-159315-481-3(2008)" signed by none other than Vincent Bugliosi!

I know you dogs are jealous. Aren't you? Kiss my butt!

Oops. circled part - "it's not only our right but our obligation to hoist out of office any and all govt officials that arent upholding the rule of law as clearly outlined in the constitution" Well, the timeline is a bit skewed re the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, but I think we all get the point...

Obama is a coward and a chicken hawk. Never been in a military uniform but more than happy to send my son and yours to fight in Afghanistan and die there for the profits of the Military Industrial Complex.

What's the part of Obama's war plan the retarded DPAs don't get? Do you want me to draw you a picture you stupid idiot!@

fields4ever, I guess by now you've noticed that tailcap isn't honest in his criticism of Obama.

fields4ever July 31st, 2008 5:45 pm writes ""...so I said that I prefer Obama..."
-fair answer, no difference in war plans between Obama and McCain but you prefer Obama. Fair answer.

Oh, and be sure to send extra copies of the circled Declaration of Independence to Sens. Obama and McCain.

"the part where it states that when our govt is no longer the govt that our forefathers fought to put into place but some tyrannical mess of the sorts that we currently are witnessing… its not only our right but our obligation to hoist out of office any and all govt officials that arent upholding the rule of law as clearly outlined in the constitution"

Do we hoist out Mr. Obama now or after he is president?

well, as other posters have mentioned, there is the math. I assume that either Obama or McCain is going to be the next president, unless Bush cancels the election. so I said that I prefer Obama. I am not a huge fan of his but I definitely don't want McCain.

and there are many other issues facing us besides the war in Iraq, even though that is a huge tragedy and waste of money.

metal says, "But you resolved devotees of the man need to start working within his movement to include a plank that demands impeachment and/or post 2008 charges and trials and compels Nader himself to address this issue at every public media event he speaks at. He doesn't always mention it."

We do, of course, have a political party in which impeachment is a major issue. That's the Green Party, of course.

http://www.gp.org/impeachbush/

As a long-time Green activist, I sometimes am amazed at the seeming invisibility of the party's positions and substance. Here it is front and center and so many people don't seem to see it, wilfully, and I'm not sure why.

I agree with MikeBinSC in this case. A mass re-registering to the Green Party would shake up things, make the dyed-in-the-wool Beltway types look around, and would be a good indication that the precious storyline is changing.

And re-registering your political affiliation is such an easy thing to do.

It is so late in the game, but better now than never. To be massive, however, serious organization is necessary. (Sigh, agreeing with Mike again.:) )

There is still a mind-set, though. In 2006, we brought our impeachment petition and resolution to the state Democratic convention in Sacramento, hoping to influence it. We found we had much in common with the PDA members there and had some sympathetic listeners, but many people who basically agreed with our positions were irrationally opposed to everything with a Green tinge and were so self-involved in the *Democratic Party* convention process that we made little progress. Hope a couple of years have changed things a bit.

BTW, dream warrior, sure I'll participate. But the day off work, staying home, etc, will be tough. It's been tried with very little success.

fields4ever July 31st, 2008 4:07 pm writes "Nicely put. Dem Party Apologists are too stupid to understand that a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain and his Bush policies."
-Bingo!

fields4ever then writes: "And I would rather have Obama, as flawed as he is, making the judgment calls when it comes to preventing and alleviating suffering, than McCain."
-in terms of policy and alleviating the suffering associated with the wars/occupations, fields4ever what is the differnce between Obama and McCain's war policies?

Obama: "And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?"

What about:
1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.
2. Obama wants to increase military spending.
3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.
4. Obama has wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.
5. Obama wants to add an additional 90,000 troops.
6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.
7. Obama wants to keep over 50,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.

So what's the difference fields4ever?

forgot to list the appointment of judges, which matters too, as an earlier post mentioned.

tetti tatti July 31st, 2008 8:13 am wrote:

"HailCODEPINK nails it: "There is a Green Party, there is Nader. We must permanently spoil it for the Dems, even if it takes decades, and intense suffering."

Nicely put. Dem Party Apologists are too stupid to understand that a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain and his Bush policies."

well, I guess it depends on whether a reader thinks his or her self and loved ones are going to be in the group experiencing "intense suffering' for decades. What exactly does that mean? A lot of people in this country already suffer. One in four American children lives in poverty; 40+ million Americans have no health insurance, hundreds of thousands are homeless, etc. I think many former residents of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast would have preferred in September 2005 to have a Democrat in the White House, no matter how compromised or corporate, rather than Shrub & co. There are many aspects of our lives affected by the Federal government and I think it does make a difference who appoints the leaders of federal agencies, and how the federal budget pie is sliced, etc.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, wild weather and wildfires seem to be on the rise, due to climate change, probably. Add in peak oil, the bursting of the housing bubble, etc and we are all in for varying degrees of 'intense suffering' from environmental, economic, and interrelated causes in the future, if we personally have not yet been affected. And I would rather have Obama, as flawed as he is, making the judgment calls when it comes to preventing and alleviating suffering, than McCain.

Interesting how Lindorff calls revolution "quixotic" and then quotes Lenin, the most prominent revolutionary of the 20th century, who described all those who don't embrace Lindorff's prescriptions for impeachment as "infantile." Except that Lenin never said a word about impeachment. Lindorff disses revolution talk, then quotes a revolutionary in a totally different context to make it seem as if he endorses Lindorff's dismissal of those who don't fully agree with him. How convenient!

I said earlier how often I had signed online petitions for impeachment, to no avail, for about 7 years. I must have signed on to Ramsey Clark's petition at least a hundred times. After all this one does grow a bit cynical regarding the whole futile process of petitioning Congressmembers to impeach. They don't respond to such pressure. Continued calls for impeachment begin to sound like a form of sadism, constantly stoking progressives' hopes that something is about to happen, only to discover that once again, nothing is going to happen. We get a little tired of hearing about it, and then Lindorff comes along to lecture those of us with impeachment-talk fatigue that we're infantile. Tell you what, Dave, when you get that impeachment hearing underway, I'll be the first to apologize and acknowledge your superior wisdom in the matter. But when it doesn't happen, I don't expect you'll be writing a column in CD or Counterpunch admitting it was never going to happen no matter how much pressure was applied. You're right and the rest of us are wrong who can't get enthused at this pathetically late date. Besides, Bush and Cheney need to be brought before an international criminal court and charged for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Impeachment is going too easy on them. And even that isn't going to happen. But again, when and if it does, I'll eat crow.

One tends to remember Ken Starr and his band of blood thirsty hounds going after Bill Clinton. It was above- the-fold-giant font-front-page headline news for months. I don't remember any milk toast hearings protecting the integrity of the man accused of impeachable offences. Times have changed. Sexual indescretions are definitely more offensive than outlandish executive privledges run amok. An independent council to investigate the current impeachable offences would certainly gain more ground than the current ongoing Mad Hatter's tea party. At times being an American can be down right embarrasing.

"President Bush's top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas, a federal judge ruled Thursday in an unprecedented dispute between the two ..."

Looks like there was at least one judge that the DOJ didn't replace with a Bush Family Retainer.

metal, your post was worthy of Gore Vidal.

Dave, according to the TRDs (Tricky Republican Devils) and the MOBs (McKinney's Obama Bashers) here, you could be a DPA (Democratic Party Apologist).

Arry July 31st, 2008 12:10 pm
"Supreme Court Judges" — Bet we get Cass Sunstein!

Yes, anything is possible, but I'm hoping for John Edwards!

"Supreme Court Judges" -- Bet we get Cass Sunstein!

Blacked Out by The FAUX Media!

Edited from the News.
Controlled disinformation.
Censorship.

The Chimp has no cloths!
The Chimp has no cloths!
The Chimp has no cloths!

The Corpirate Clown smirks and frowns
The Chimp has no cloths!

The Media Controls the News!
The Media Controls the News!
The Media Controls the News!

Hi Ho the(Genetically Modified)Cheerios
The Media Controls the News!

Condition and enslave the Sheep!
Condition and enslave the Sheep!
Lull them fast to SLEEP!

Hi Ho the Frankenfoods
Poison them while they Sleep!

Chainey shoots you in the face
Puts your nuts in a vice
Ran 911 from the Dungeon in The Black House

Gives you the Finger and
Says, "Everything is real nice!"

How long can you eat The BU__! SH__!?
How long can you eat The Corpirate BU__! SH__!?
How long will you last when they toast your Balls?

The King has got no cloths!

dream warrior July 31st, 2008 11:06 am

I think that there is a deep recession/depression on the horizon, and I think it would be better to slide into it down a steep hill, rather than falling into it as we race over the cliff!
See the comments on the article below. The last one contains an economic solution at the end.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/18/10439/
MikeBinSC July 18th, 2008 1:48 pm
MikeBinSC July 18th, 2008 1:50 pm
MikeBinSC July 18th, 2008 1:53 pm

Metal
what do you think of Dream warriors 4:51am ideas about making and taking a stand? You seem to be well informed how does this strike you? I would add that if a site/sites could be set up where people could say yes they were willing to do such a thing we might get an idea of the numbers willing and ready which would allow others to grasp the import and realize this is more than a don't buy gas day.
And although I can see the validity of your thought on voting Obama......I find 3-4-5 party in need of numbers now, as I don't believe the present system has any recourse but to be what it is, which in my opinion is Constitutionally illegal, criminal, shameful, corrupt beyond our wildest dreams....you get the idea
There are many both sides of the aisle which fall into the impeachable category. Are you aware that if Impeached and Prosecuted asides from all you lose you may never work at any elected office of government in this country again local on up....aaahhh a good cleansing....good for the system.
Also did you catch the cockroach cause they seem to be many in Washington who need to be caught too.
John C might not dream warrior's idea be the viagra which might solve the impotenance problem to which you mention.
Read the label for side effects: Caution this September 11th event has the possibility of becomeing bigger than the powers that be are used to handling.

I agree with those who either have doubts about or are disillusioned with Obama.

I have never trusted him concerning Iraq and I have never embraced him as an agent of change (or at least significant change). I've always thought there was less distance between Obama and his opponents than the popular view would have us believe.

Having said that, I believe there are many reasons to vote for him, thus not allowing McCain the Presidency.

One of the most paramount reasons is Supreme Court Judges.

That alone should be a sobering notion and get the progressively inclined off any ideological or philosophical fence they may be sitting on.

The term "far leftist" is a term used to discredit someone in the eyes of "centrists" and the right wingers who call themselves Democrats.

If the Democrats didn't have so many right wingers in their midst Nancy Pelosy wouldn't be their leader and Dennis Kucinich would be their candidate.

"Impeachment activists need to now redouble their efforts to make Congress do its Constitutional duty, and initiate a formal impeachment proceeding."

I sent the following message to my Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro:

The failure of Congress to fulfill its sworn duty to defend the Constitution against a president that has usurped powers far beyond his constitutional powers, is an utter disgrace - especially when his actions have caused such mayhem in the world, and have transformed our nation into a pariah.

What a farce this week's hearings on the charges against Bush made by Rep. Kucinich were, under the constraints imposed by the Democratic leadership.

It is not only a disgrace for the Congress but it is a national disgrace shared by the legislature (especially the Democrats), the judiciary, the media, and all of the national leaders who have "looked the other way" for so long.

Any Congressperson, including you, who fails to personally advocate and press for the impeachment and removal from office of POTUS George Bush and V.POTUS Dick Cheney is a traitor and should be recalled. This issue is far above any Party loyalty or discipline demanded by Pelosi.

It looks to me like the only way to avoid a third war now is to place the president under impeachment, prefaced by a resolution preventng him from attacking Iran.

So, get with it dammit !!!! Impeach the bastard, remove him from office, and then charge him with his war crimes, so that he truly gets what he deserves.

In November, I'm voting for somebody other than a Democrat or Republican. To my mind (a lifelong Democrat), these two parties no longer serve the public interest.

I have no objection to anyone wishing to plagiarize (or modify) my letter to send to his/her representative.

Dave Lindorff July 31st, 2008 11:02 am Thanks for the article, it was a good one.

Dave Lindorff:"...there are people (who do sneer) on the far left..."

-what is "far left"? Someone opposed to the wholesale sellout by Democrats, the trampling on our Constitution and the Democratic refusal to end the war and impeach Bush- is that what a "far leftist" is? What is "far left"?

Dave Lindorff: "My point is that every time progressives achieve something–for example getting a public airing IN Congress of Bush's crimes–there are people (who do sneer) on the far left who diss what they do and have done, saying it doesn't matter."

-We believe the "impeachment" hearing or rather the hearing about Bush Administration's controversies are very important. Will the Democrats impeach Bush? Not any more likely than us getting a third party elected president. Is it good?-yes. Will Bush be impeached?-probably not. Should the hearings be held?-Hell yes! Should we call our Congress people and demand impeachment-Hell yes!

Dave Lindorff: "But let's get real. Third parties haven't succeeded in the US even in much more revolutionary times than this. It's a feel-good exercise, or at best a means to force the Democratic Party to become more responsive to demands from the left."

-Conclusion, vote for Obama? Why? To prevent McCain? How do Obama's war plans differ from McCains?

The "Don't vote 3rd party because they can't win" argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy. What else do they need to sell us out on? If it's not time now to break with Democrats then when? When?

dream warrior July 31st, 2008 11:06 am

I think you you are heading in the right direction, but this struggle is going to require a much longer, much more sustained effort with greater commitment to achieve the desired results. I posted a comment on another thread with those ideas and plans. I will find it and repost it here.
Stay tuned, I'll reply to your comment.

When Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table, against the wishes of this country to hold the catastrophically failed Bush Administration accountable, she branded this Congress a "do nothing" Congress. She bears the responsibility now to undo her bad strategy. She said on the view that she was responsible for holding this country together, in her very patronizing manner, missing the loud message that the voters had given the Democrats that we wanted the mess cleaned up! The trouble with Pelosi and Congress and the Senate is that they do underestimate the People's wisdom. Let us keep pushing for impeachment -- the proof is all over the place and justice is waiting.

Dave Lindorff -- Well, I searched for "waste of time" in this thread and yours is the only instance of its use.

Also, I wish you'd get over the obsession about people acting "morally superior". It's a cop-out and diversion. It's beginning to look like *you* are the one with the problem. (Neurosis?) Most people who have responded to your post gave reasons for their responses. Mind talking about those? Isn't that what discussion is about?

I salute your work.

Dave Lindorff July 31st, 2008 11:02 am

Dave, there are many here like the commentor before you that are advocating political suicide, but there are also more realistic, reasonable voices as well.

dream warrior July 31st, 2008 4:51 am

I applaud your activism, and I am not trying to piss on your parade, but what you are proposing is way too little, and way too late. The economic impact of less than 1% of the people staying out sick one day will not have any significant effect on the economic system. It has been done before and I DID participate. Also, all of our Congressional Reprobates in DC have access to the original Constitution and copies, the problem is, the only time that it is pulled out and used, is to wipe feces from their mouths and asses.

_____________________________

lol... thanks for not pissing on my parade... ;)

and i totally understand what you are saying... but at this point i'm at a loss as to what to do to get ppl to start thinking... even if its just one percent that wake up to whats going on... its better then doing nothing...

i guess its my way of feeling like i'm not mired in a situation where all hope is lost... and right now its feeling a little like that...

so its either despair or act... and i'm sure that as time goes... we'll think of a more powerful non-violent statement to send that will get more ppl to open their eyes... if it happened to me.... someone that was very insulated and cocooned from this political mess for so long... it can happen to anyone.... and its this faith that i have that keeps me going...

better to do something then nothing at all...

make sense?

I don't sneer, for the record.

My point is that every time progressives achieve something--for example getting a public airing IN Congress of Bush's crimes--there are people (who do sneer) on the far left who diss what they do and have done, saying it doesn't matter.

These critics argue that the only proper response to creeping fascism is to vote for a third party, or in extreme cases to abandon the electoral system and "make revolution".

I have no fault with those who want to back Green candidates, or Ralph Nader for president, or to back third party candidates for Congress. In fact, I support Cindy Sheehan's independent campaign against Pelosi in San Francisco wholeheartedly and hope everyone else does. I don't even fault those who quixotically back revolution. But let's get real. Third parties haven't succeeded in the US even in much more revolutionary times than this. It's a feel-good exercise, or at best a means to force the Democratic Party to become more responsive to demands from the left.

Therefore, it seems clear to me that we need to support efforts to combat this fascist trend that is undermining the constitution and democratic freedoms on all levels, and that includes things like the impeachment campaign, and efforts to get impeachment "on the table" in Congress.

Sure, impeachment wouldn't cure the nation's ills. sure the Democrats are complicit. But the campaign is exposing that to the American public, which has a hard time believing it.

Those who act morally superior and simply diss impeachment efforts as a "waste of time" are actively harming efforts to educate the American people. I don't know why some people on the left get such satisfaction out of dissing those who are acting in good conscience to try to right a wrong. It's actually pretty pathetic.

Lenin, who knew a thing or two about revolutionary change, had a word for such people: "infantile."

metal July 31st, 2008 6:10 am writes "...and has a long track record of doing or saying ANYTHING to get to the White House. Obama has flip-flopped two or three times, but McCain wrote the book going back to before the Keating Five."

Conclusion McCain, unlike Obama is willing to do ANYTHING to get into the White House. This is pure rubbish, Obama has even turned his back on his friend of 20 years and spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright, when it appears a controversy over something Wright said might cost Obama some votes. Obama is more than willing to lie or DO ANYTHING to become president.

Obama would actually be worse for American than McCain because it is Obama's job to prop up and try to rescue the imperialist aims of the US in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is Obama's job to put a fresh face, a minority's face, on imperialism and do the bidding for Big Business. To claim that Obama is our savior is to delude yourself and ignore all the signs he has given as to what he's really up to.

McCains policies, being even worse than Obama's will actually do us the service of dealing imperialism a much needed blow. McCain will accelerate the decline of the US which may have the benefit of turning a good number of Republicans agaisnt their Party. Hopefully they won't join the Democrats and will flock to 3rd parties.

The sell out by Republicans and Democrats is SO OBVIOUS! But still, some folks will need to be knocked in the head in order to wake up. And like a few bloggers I know, some probably never will.

dream warrior July 31st, 2008 4:51 am

I applaud your activism, and I am not trying to piss on your parade, but what you are proposing is way too little, and way too late. The economic impact of less than 1% of the people staying out sick one day will not have any significant effect on the economic system. It has been done before and I DID participate. Also, all of our Congressional Reprobates in DC have access to the original Constitution and copies, the problem is, the only time that it is pulled out and used, is to wipe feces from their mouths and asses.

metal July 31st, 2008 6:10 am writes:
"And a Third Way if not a Third Party are urgently needed that must take America down new roads with new existential forces of change shoving them all the way."

Then writes: "I would rather support a man of color like Obama who at least has experienced and understands what it's like to be a racial underdog and has some demonstrable social conscience, than another mean-spirited warmongering lily-white Republican..."

metal exhibits the confusion I sometimes detect in DPAs. First he makes a case for third parties then flip flops and endorses Obama on the flimsiest of reasons: that he is Black!

Nevermind that:
1. A vote for Obama will not end the occupation.
2. Obama wants to increase military spending.
3. Obama's advisers want to keep Bush's Defense Secretary Roberts Gates.
4. Obama has wants more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones.
5. Obama wants to add an additional 90,000 troops.
6. Obama wants to intensify the war in Afghanistan.
7. Obama wants to keep over 50,000 troops in Iraq to guard "our" oil.

The conclusion is nuanced lesser-evilism: Vote for Obama because he is Black and McCain is a White warmonger. So Obama is not a warmonger?

Obama: "And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?"

Obama: "We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support," Obama continued. "We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective."

Obama:"Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."

Okay folks you figure.

metal July 31st, 2008 6:10 am

I can't disagree with anything you said.

On November 16, 2006, Pelosi, who was then the House Democratic leader, was selected by her party to be the speaker during the 110th Congress. Speakers are elected following each biennial general election and serve two-year terms.

Seeing as Democrats are likely to retain control of the House after the election it will be interesting to see if Democrats retain the discredited Nancy Pelosi as their Speaker and leader. To do so will further discredit the Democrats.

"The dramatic hearing on presidential crimes and abuses of power held on Friday by the House Judiciary Committee was both a staged farce, and at the same time, a powerful demonstration of the power of a grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution"

It can only be one or the other - and it was in fact nothing but a staged farce, choreographed by the spineless Democrats.

And it was also a powerful demonstration of the total impotence of a "grass roots" movement to have any effect at all against this already entrenched fascist government.