FOXNews' Brit Hume Compares Democrats To Failed Iraqi Government
By Logan Murphy Saturday Jul 14, 2007 2:40pm
FOXNews wanker anchor Brit Hume spoke with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) this morning about the situation in Iraq and the failure of the puppet government to show any measurable signs of progress. In typical Fox fashion, Hume floats out the ridiculous notion that the Democrats have failed to live up to their agenda and getting nothing done -- attempting a veiled comparison to the Iraqi government.
Download | play 
Download | play MP4
Hume: "So let me ask you about um, how the Democrats in Washington, for example, have done in terms of the agenda that they outlined to the public in the last election. My understanding is that uh - you got the minimum wage increase, but nothing else has passed. Does that make you a failure?"
Brit isn't used to seeing a working Congress in action. He much prefers the rubber stamp version the Republicans gave us before they lost power -- who are now using the filibuster as a matter of standard operating procedure to thwart the agenda of the American people. The Democrats are trying hard to mop up the mess the 109th Congress left behind, including desperately needed oversight which the Republicans failed miserably at before America voted them out of power.
Login or Register to post comments.
wanker hume
Hume's face is showing signs of global warming - looks like it's about to slide off and float around in the ocean.
Oh look ... Calling the Democrats in Congress ineffectual is a REPUBLICAN talking point.
Link to videos does not work!
About Democrats invited to appear on FOXNOIZ..
Just say "No."
Has there ever been a Democrat who hasn't been log rolled by these lying assholes?
Hume is echoing the WH. Bush has already called this congress a failure. The surge isn't failing because we haven't given it time, but congress is a failure after six months. LOL
Hey Brat, why don’t you ask the REPUBLICANS why they filibuster nearly every bill that comes up?
If you choose to compare democrats to the failed iraqi goverment.
To which group in Iraq would you compare the group that is blocking progress?
That would be Al-Qaeda wouldn´t it?
links to the video doesn't work! ooops! :shock:
Thanks, we're working on the problem now.
Comedy.
He's right though. Current congress is a failure. Not on the same level as the Iraqi government, but a disappointing mess in it's own right.
How about comparing Brett Humus to a propagandist…
Hume is hooked on Kool-aid. GOP crookery was tolerable when people thought them smart. Now the GOP is still just as crooked and even more incompetent than Democrats.
Congress is a failture because one half of it is GOP.
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY, that would raise their score. In fact, that is what we voted for them to do. Duh.
Offthetable is not an option, Nancy. Or do you want to get into a world war when Bubba bombs Iran. There's lotsa money to be made on that one, lemmetellya. Got stock?
He would be correct if he included the ENTIRE US govt. and not just the dems. They're just puppets in suits producing nothing but wind and noise in the hopes of maintaining their place at the trough.
The Republican controlled congresses of yesteryear didn't fail to oversee the administration, they didn't even try. You can't fail if you don't try.
Congress can only be considered a failure if you realize that the Republican half of Congress is obstructing every bill the Democrats try to pass. Then when the bill gets to the Chimp in Chief, unless it's what he wants he vetoes it as well.
The level to which Congress functions is directly related to Republican obstructionism at all levels. Remove the Republican blockade, and Congress will 'function' just fine.
I'm "desperately" awaiting the soon-to-be-released twin 'companion books' authored by Shit Fumes.......
'Dynamic Facial Expressions' and 'The Secrets to Being a Non-Partisan News Anchor' .
MCMetal @ 19:
LOL!! 'Dynamic Facial Expressions' Excellent! My god, he looks like an effing pallbearer.
I can just envision Fume , wearing an ill-fitting suit , exclaiming :"Oh yes , we have something very nice for you in mahogany".
Shit Fumes.......Your friendly neighborhood undertaker.
Wait just a goddamn minute there, Herman Munster. Iraq has told us to leave whenever 'cause they are ok to go it alone. Didn't Malarky say as much? Isn't that progress? WTF?
Capabilty Jones @ 5:
I think the best defense is a good offense. People like Levin need to realize that with Fox, manipulation and lying are the M.O. They need to adopt the position of a tough streetfighter like Michael Moore did with Wolfie. Put these clowns back on their heels for once.
If the Dems want to continue to go on Faux News and get sucker punched by the liars like Shit Hume..................then they deserve that punch.
If they were smart, they'd just declare Faux to be a propaganda arm of the Rethug Party and boycott all of it altogether.
But, they'd rather be subject to lies and be part of the propaganda machine, for reasons completely unclear to me.
Link works now.
Still trying to figure this out....strike comment 24.
HUME IS THE VERY PERSONIFICATION OF CHIEF WANKER!
When will the Dem's bring charges to the FEC that Fphucks nOoze is an illegal 527 group that is nothing more that a front for the Repugniscum, corporate loving, fascist worshipping, boy touchers who are rolling up the Constitution and smoking it!!
Pardon to Medical Diagnosis...my comment concerning comment 24 meant nothing to do with yours. I made a mistake.
But, I do repeat: HUME IS ONE BIG CHIEF WANKER!
First off, Levin is not very bright for appearing on Faux. He WILL be set up with a well-prepared question designed to trap.
Second, if he just cannot refrain from going on the worst possible excuse for news network, he should be well prepared to go on the attack against the Repubs. This was his opportunity to name specific Repubs for obstruction of American-supported legislation and turn the frame, for Christ's sake, and he blew it.
What was Levin's response, though? Did he even have one? Had he the quickness of wit to mention even one of the multitudinous Cheneybot/Gop failures?
It’s “all al Qaeda, al the time”.
Wonder if the sheeple will notice.
Probably not.
Hume spews the same WH talkingpoints that Cokie Roberts did on NPR on Monday. Not sure if Cokie or Brit is worse.
Regarding the comment below, I think "FOXNOOSE" is more like it...
=================
Capabilty Jones @ 5:
Yay for Dems, they're our heroes, they're gonna ask hard questions, give as good as the opposition, take no shit from the WH ...
oh wait...
One Year Wonder @ 33:
The Sheeple are Shopping
LOL. Wanker (Anchor). Oh well, just another Presstitute. They should write a law to show how much these wankers get paid and by who as subtitles under their image.
Yes - republicans should leave *this* country alone as well.
"Wanker" Hume won that exchange because he succeeded in putting Levin on the defensive, even getting him to use the same "We're making progress" language as the neocons. Levin should have rejected the comparison outright and reminded Hume that the subject at hand was Iraq. If Levin got outsmarted by a wanker, what does that make him?
Levin was being a gentlemen after Hume asked him that question. Levin should have stopped the interview at THAT VERY MOMENT.
Levin should have told Hume that you cannot compare U.S. congress and the Iraqi parliment. There's not way you can judge the two. Shame on Hume for being a hack and shame of Levin for having no spine.
"Republicans failed miserably at before America voted them out of power." -- Logan
That's true, until you consider that America never voted them into power.
File under: Karl Rove's Caging Lists, RNC vote-fraud, Diebold and ES&S, Kenneth Blackwell, and terrorist attacks if Dems win.
Jo @ 15:
'We' voted for 1/3 of the Senate, only. While 'we' voted for Dem Representatives, not one Dem incumbent lost their job if they ran.
• Hard to see how this common statement of 'why' we voted for them is anything other than a LIE.
There are not enough votes for conviction in the Senate. The indictment track, well underway, provides the exact same oversight, without the total stagnation of the House during a labeled exercise that makes leftists feel like something is happening, when in fact it would take a year at least.
On the indictment track, the most important next event is replacing the crooked AG. Pressuring the HJC or Speaker Pelosi is not an effectual method for starting an impeachment without a conviction, but pressure on both Dems and R SENATORS will help remove the AG for his manifest criminality.
I'm tired of this whining about filibuster. It's not an exclusive tool of the GOP. The DNC could use it as well.
[FYI: No, John Amato, I'm not calling you irresponsible. This is about the DNC in general, not you; Thank you for your blog. ]
The majority of Americans support the DNC is defending this constitution. That support is irrelevant -- it is a legal requirement, through 5 USC 3331.
I would hope the DNC leadership learn from the GOP: Filibusters can be used to block action. Time for the DNC leadership to start blocking what this President wants: Money. Time for the DNC to stop playing into the GOP hand. Block the bills that give the President money. The President cannot veto what is not there.
I would hope the DNC leadership accept: The refusal to filibuster Alitos and Roberts' nominations have given s what the DNC must endure: The prospect of judicial support for an illegal dictatorship. Obviously, the DNC leaders intended this result.
Time for the public to accept: The DNC has the option to filibuster, but refuses. The DNC leadership needs to explain why it is not using the Filibuster to block the GOP. IF the DNC cannot lead its faction, then we need new leaders in the DNC who will lead. If they're not serious about ending what we called to be ended, the DNC needs to accept: We the People are calling them on their refusal to end what could be ended. It does not appear the DNC leadership is doing all it can. Those reasons need to be addressed, otherwise the public is not likely to trust you. be honest: Are you serious about ending this war, or not; are you serious about asserting your oath fully, or not.
ON the table is the Constitution. Either the DNC can defend it using all options, and stop making excuses; or it can go home. I mean that: No sense for the DNC to continue with what was supposed to have changed: Rubbers stamping budgets; or not using filibuster to stop the illegal funding.
This illegal funding for this illegal occupation in Iraq could stop. This DNC Senate refuses to block the bills with a filibuster. This DNC refuses to put zeros in the original bills; and it reuses to make the GOP -- with Amendments -- put the money in.
Stop whining about filibusters. The DNC was inducted "not to filibuster" to pass the illegal MCA, Habeas Destruction, and the Patriot Act. Time to wake up: The DNC is not required to put money against those illegal bills. A legal requirement on the President is meaningless if he has no money to put that illegal requirement into effect.
DNC leadership needs to stop making excuses. Time to learn from the GOP: The claims of "filibusters mean you are not patriotic" was a ruse to induce the DNC not to block what the DNC refused to block with filibusters: Alito, Roberts, and the illegal bills. Time for the DNC to stop making excuses, and start filibustering. If the DNC refuses, then the DNC has no excuse.
Either lead and assert your power; or accept you are not willing to do what you must to end this dictatorship. Tired of the whining. start acting like responsible adults.
What I Would Prefer
1. Every time the GOP uses a filibuster, the DNC filibusters something the GOP wants: Money.
2. When the GOP uses the filibuster, the DNC needs to accept it is reminded: The DNC inducted the DNC not to assert its power against Alito and Roberts.
3. DNC leadership needs to zero-out budgets; and force the GOP -- with an Amendment -- to put money back. If the President vetoes these zero-bills, then the President still gets nothing.
4. There are options to end the funding for Iraq. However, if the DNC refuses to end the funding (for what it says it "understands" what the public "wants' to end), the only reasonable conclusion is the DNC is publicly saying one thing, but not doing what it could do. That is not leadership. It is a smokescreen. The DNC needs to explain why it is not using all options to end this war -- including a filibuster, zero-budgets, and assent to this President's veto, leaving him with nothing -- as opposed to making excuses. Find solutions. Tired of the excuses.
5. Stop taking feedback and suggestions personally. These ideas are to help the DNC. DNC members need to stop taking the feedback as a personal attack. It's not about you or your party: It's about giving the leadership the information they need to change course: WE the People expect something different than what the DNC is doing. This is the price of leadership. Live with it, or get out of the kitchen.
6. Remember what the agenda is: It's not a race to see who can make [a] the most excuses to avoid the President; or [b] distract attention from illegal Presidential activity with legislation; nor [c] Pretend Congress "has" to pass legislation. No. The President is ignoring the existing legislation. There's no reason to pass new legislation that he'll ignore. Time to put the brakes on the legislation. Time to put the accelerator on the accountability for the failure to enforce the existing laws -- those things that were once bills. The President's argument of "we need t solve this problem now, Congress needs to pass a bill" is just a smokescreen. Non-sense. This country has had these problems for years. Waiting until the 111th Congress isn't going to make a difference. Again, we don't need to address the "minor" problems when the "big problem' -=- that of a Chief Executive who defies the law -- remains non-confronted.
7. Recall where we were last year. The RNC had convinced people they were going to gain seats int eh House. SO much for Karl's "math." Time to learn the lesson: The feedback from the GOP is worthless. They're not speaking to help the DNC: but to make the DNC lose. Time for the DNC to start acting Presidential: Assume the DNC controls the White House in 2009. Now, pretend you're in 2009: Look back to 2007 and ask, "What would have been good to have done in 2007?" Do that. Prepare to lead. Get ready. Stop reacting to the GOP. Start doing now what needs to be done: Gathering evidence, finding out what went wrong, then discussing a solution to these problems. Before we can change or pass new bills, we need to gather facts. Impeachment investigations will shed light on what went wrong; and what needs to be solved. Once we confront the problem, we can discuss the needed bills to remedy the issues. Listening to the GOP about "what should be" the priority is meaningless smokescreen from the priority: The Constitution.
8. Start thinking about solutions, not excuses or why things cannot happen. Last year, we were told -- not asked -- incorrect that states would "never" consider a proclamation to call on Congress to impeach. How many states are we up to, KagroX -- I think there are at least 10 that have considered the bill; and more than half that have discussed it at the local level. Stop saying never. Start thinking: "What can be done today."
9. Keep going. We have this President and his reckless legal counsel on the run. They have annoyed the wrong citizenry: We the People. This President and his reckless legal staff are the domestic enemies. The Framers intended for them to be prosecuted, impeached, and removed from office. Timely. Going forward, we need to determine how this reckless legal community is going to be compelled -- not asked -- to assent to Our Will through intrusive audits, oversight, and public showings that they are not doing against what they have done: Nothing or assenting illegally to war crimes and attacks on Our Will.
10. Work together. I appreciate there is much disagreement on what can be done, or whteher anythign will be done. stop wasating yoru time making excuses. Start focusing on what could work if the momentum was right. The momentum will appear and build. To those who are offering concerns or other views, those are welcomed: You're providing valuable feedback; and helping to ensure the momentum is more sustainable downt he road. i expect you to give feedback, especially when you believe someone is wrong. But after you've said your peace, and have been disredited, let it go. Your contribution was to show the world that the reasons for inaction are frivolous. Thank you. Please come back. Tell your friends. We teh People are here. You are going to lose.
November 2008, vote for a Democrat. Maybe with enough of them in office the repugnants won't matter. We'll worry about the balance of power after the initial Democratic abuses. The country cannot afford a repugnicant majority in anything but the court because they should have term limits too and the only way that's going to happen is with a Democratic White House and Congress. For Jebus's sake I'm going to run, don't worry folks I have lots of dirt because that's important!
Paul in LA @ 39:
Actually they voted them into power in 94 with Newt's Contract on America. They were in power throughout the balance of the Clinton Presidency and were voted out of power in 2006-barely.
Now if yer talking about Bush-I'm behind you 110% on that, PiLA
The only thing wrong with that segment is Carl Levin, Democrat, was there.
Otherwise it just would have been another propagandist telling lies and illegally working for the Republican party.
miss_kitty @ 43:
No, Miss Kitty, we won more seats in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. It is only that it took until 2006 to get anything at all like a legal election (*it wasn't).
2008 is going to be LANDSLIDE. Why? Because with new, honest, SecStates in CA, FL, and OH, the RNC vote-fraud machinery is in real trouble, and the R party is going to be a wall-to-wall indictment by them.
HAVA voter lists, though, currently required in every state, are still being used as caging lists -- so there is still a lot of work to do to get a fair vote.
well iif you say so. paul
It is the insolent speech of Hume that makes me vomit. It is a sad day in America that those who profess to call themselves Christians are in reality beacons the darkness around them.
Hume, you are a disgrace!
I come provisioned with examples, miss kitty.
For instance, Busby WON in San Diego in 2006, one of the crookedest elections in Amerika. The ROV sent big stacks of certified machines home with high school students (*chosen because they are too young to form legal contracts, as required by state law), where any of them could have been tampered. It was also demonstrated without doubt that ONE tampered machine could infect the rest.
But Busby didn't get to take her seat. Why? Because before any of these issues could be vetted in court, according to your CA Constitutional rights, Bilbray was rushed to DC and sworn in, using an illegal (and previously unheard of) 'Provisional Certification' from the CA SecState (since removed).
Many other cases abound.
I really think Hume must've had his brain surgically removed. I don't think there's any other explanation for his vacant mindless expression.
He's clearly programed. Maybe they replaced his brain with a hard drive and they just download the Daily Drivel right to it.
*
Hume and Chris Wallace are Roger Ailes buffoons. Fox//Pravda News is pure neoCON fascist propaganda TV network.
As you read mroe into the comments, you're going ot read more frivolous reasons not to act. I'm aslo sensing some concern by the GOP that their arguments are not going to work: Namely, GOP Staff counse are worried that they could be personally targetd for war crimes. Making excusdes to delay are frivolous. Also, once PUTUS is impeached, he --- himself -- cannot be pardoned.
Targeting GOP Staff, COntractors: Think DNC President
GOP Staff counsel can be disbarred. If the prosecutions are late in 2008, then with a new President, that proseuction of the GOP staffer -- that would start now -- is not likely to get a DNC President pardon. All the more reason to accelerate the prosecution of GOP in 2007: By the time they could be pardoned, the DNC President will ignore them. BUsh would have to pardon them before all the trials are done, implicating the GOP and causing more losses in the GOP SEnate in 2008. Again, the reasons for delaying are more for the GOP benefit than anything. GOP staff are alson on the target list for these prosecutions. They have to choose between themselves, the President, or the Constitution. They're running out of time.
RNC Senators can be prosecuted for not fully asserting their oath, or engaging in malfeasance. The voting decision is not the only way to wake up the GOP Senators. They can be prosecuted.
- - - --
Get Over This
The DNC and GOP have both betrayed their oaths and the voters. This doesn't address the question: What is a solution?
"Hard to see how this common statement of 'why' we voted for them is anything other than a LIE."
- -- - -
Impeachment of Bush, Cheney: Denies President, VP A Pardon
This is speculative, and irrelevant:
Let the GOP Senators explain their vote; let's not pre-judge their decision. If the GOP senators -- despite the evidence warranting conviction -- do not convict, let them explain that inaction to the restless voters. The voters are ahead of congress; they have not seen all the evidence.
Even if the senate refuses to convict, impeachment does something important: It means the President cannot be pardoned.
- -- - -
Non Federal Action
Indictments are not only at the Federal level. State AGs may prosecute this sitting President and VP. Sate AGs have worked on civil issues in re NSA violations; same can happen on the criminal side.
This is irrelevant:
The Time to start for the post-Presidential prosecutions for war crimes is now.
- - - 0- - -
Not Compelling"On the indictment track, the most important next event is replacing the crooked AG."
Hay, we had a conviction of Libby, and Fitzgerald talked about the "dark cloud", but still no impeachment: The connection between "prosecution first, then impeachment" doesn't hold up. Libby's conviction should have trigger impeachment of Cheney. Explain that.
- - - - - - -
Big picture on impeachment
In the old days of England, when the King refused to remove an officer, the Parliament could impeach. Notice hat happened: Normally the King would enforce the law; but if he didn't, the Parliament had a tool to enforce the law against the King's agent.
On the table were two options: Prosecution by the King; or impeachment. Today, we have neither: The Congress is waiting for the President to do what he refuses; and the President is arguing through his proxies, "You can't impeach until we have a prosecution." That will never happen.
Either the President will prosecute [which he refuses/blocks]; or the Congress can impeach [which it won't, given it's waiting for the President to "not block" what he has blocked]; or we can support the state AGs to prosecute outside impeachment outside Congress.
You can support all you want. The evidence suggests that Congress is waiting -- stupidly-- for something that will not happen. Stop that non-sense argument.
Multiple fronts at the same time:
This is not either or. It's with one goal: To defend the Constitution. If you don't want to impeach, then work on something else that is going to work: Prosecute. Not impressed with the public and US government pointing at each other waiting for the other to move first.
While you're at it, start gathering evidence of GOP legal counsel reckless conduct and refusals to remove themselves from this illegal activity. DC Bar rules could leave them disbarred once the scope of their Knowledge of the illegal activity is known; but they chose not to leave, as required.
Someone please tie one end of a rope to Brittany's tongue an the other to the hitch of GW's pick-em-up-truck. I live to see the day this man is muted, and I'm sure Brittany would be happy to have his mouth so closely associated with the presidents tailpipe.
Others are comparing them to slugs... and I'm stumping for us to man the salt shakers.
miss_kitty @ 43:
Why should that matter to you mk? You've already stated that Republicans and Democrats are identical and that Bush = Gore.
not only is bush/cheney working to destroy American and the constitution, so are all the gop congressmen/women. these are the real enemy combattants attacking us on American soil. time to do away with All the gop rightwingnut neocon bastards.
The bedwetting Rethugs. stand for complete failure at everything, so they continue to cry crocodile tears and lie about everything.
Yes there is a failure that failure lies with the TRAITORS that back this administration that failure lies with MORONS like hume who FAILS to acknowledge the F A I LO U R ER of the RACIST NAZIS COMMITTEE (RNC) to pass any legislation. Failure of the media to find a BACK BONE to stand up and call the TRAITORS of the RIGHT the TRAITORS they are. Failure of the PRESS to hold the OBSTRUCTIONIST of the RIGHT accdountable for NOT meeting the peoples will. Yes hume there is failure and it is you and the clowns at FAUX NOISE who worry more about putting a double lip lock on the love muscle of the ones you admire than doing your job and REPORTING the NEWS , but then again you would have to be a MAN to do that and you and the RIGHT DO NOT qualify (want to compare combat records you GUTLESS SCUM.
Limp-Dick Blimpaugh @ 56:
Total B.S.
The Republicans successfully started two wars, and have won neither of them.
The Democrats can not even stop the funding despite majorities in both houses and the support of 70% of the American people.
The Republicans successfully eroded civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution that have survived over two hundred years of American history.
The Democrats can not even vote as a block to end torture and ensure Americans their rights.
The Republicans have successfully run up the debt, further enriched the top one percent of earners and caused the earnings of the vast majority of Americans to stagnant.
The Democrats have done . . . nothing to correct the problem.
So, I'm sorry, you are very wrong. I think the Republicans have been very successful. Their success has, of course, impoverished Americans, made them less secure, threatened our liberties, and resulted in the image of the U.S. being at its lowest point in history.
The Democrats . . . they've raised a shit load of money from people who actually think they will do something. They won't. But at least they have a shit load of money.
Anon @ 51:
Oh no, let's not PREJUDGE the votes of Senatorial co-conspirators of the defendents.
Would not be prudent. And then when conviction FAILS, the R will suffer at the polls? HILARIOUS.
You also claim that the president cannot be pardoned if he is impeached but not convicted. WHAT would he be pardoned for, then? This highlights the fact that impeachment is a POLITICAL process. It is not a criminal process.
INDICTMENT IS. It is a grand jury -- it is ten grand juries, working on these bastards until they are indicted and CONVICTED. And if we cannot remove them until their term expires, with it goes their chance of pardon -- while the indictment track just keeps on giving.
Each pardon or further obstruction of justice harms them. It is time, long ago time, to restart the legal system, and use its powers to do the work that Congress cannot and will not do.
[deleted]
Please consult the commenting policy.
A failed war, a failed presidency, in fact, we have a failed government... we are in crisis... and we can lay it right at the door of the media... like FOX NEWS... not doing their job but instead parroting everything the white house tells them. As the fourth estate they are suppose to protect us from just this kind of crisis... instead they are in collusion with the very people who will strip them of their freedoms! Talk about idiots!
Iraqi politicians? The ones that must obey the Americans? They're not politicinas, that's just for show: democracy, you know.
Brit Hume can eat warm feces out of my ass.
Levin should have answered, "Oh, yes, Brit. In exactly the same way that Fox News Channel is now a failure because you have lost your ability to spin the public into supporting President Bush's failed policies. For several months now, longer than we Democrats have controlled Congress, Fox News Channel has been going down the toilet as far as your past ability to act as Svengali hypnotizing the public into GOP support." At least that’s what I would have said, if I were him. It would have been worth it just to see Brit sputter and spit eyes blinking wildly that someone finally called bullshit on him!
I suspect BushCo's approval rating would be significant lower if it wasn't for the Faux News 24/7 cheerleading squad spinning the facts and events for the past seven years.
Hume , a horses ass with a horses face
Sorry, but the 110th Congress, so far, is a failure.
Does anyone here ever see Brit Hume in public, say, walking down the street, leaving his condo in the morning, stopping at starbucks? If you have nothing to lose, don't you think he needs a serious (apologies in advance to the ladies) bitch slapping?
Just make sure he doesn't have an armed detail accompaning him- which wouldn't surprize me in the least.
Wow. What a bunch of bullshit. Hello, FUBAR. Blaming the Iraqi government? Boy, that Maliki! He's got some nerve with all that power he has. We are in a huge mess of our own making here. Who makes up the Iraqi government? And it derives its power from where? Can we please get real?
The United States went in there and bombed a people back to the stone age who had been under iron-fisted political and social control for decades and decades. Not to mention sanctions that had already left their infrastructure in shambles. Now it's way worse. And let's not forget the fact that Iraq itself never really existed until Great Britain cobbled it together in the first place. It was a group of tribal lands forced into a country carved out of the former Ottoman Empire so there was already a long history of extreme differences.
Now we've gone and thrown together a poodle government in a cobbled together fake democracy in some kind of inexplicable mad rush with little more than a monster stick and no brain. You can't FORCE democracy on people. That's an oxymoron. (Hi Vietnam) You also can't force a capitalist American viewpoint upon the minds of those who live in a culture that predates western ideology just because you kill them and tell them to do so. I know that was the way it worked with the American Indians but this is a different age for the murdering-invader type. Things have evolved since the gun against the bow and arrow with a special thanks to the military industrial complex who ply their wares all over the world without discrimination. "Al-Qaida" is there because we left the opening for them to come in. They WERE NOT there before we decided to start dropping bombs, no matter how much Cheney lies about it.
Iraq is in a civil war because there is a total power vacuum and ages of resentment and hatred built up between its people that predictably EXPLODED all over hell when we decided to start blowing them all away and opened the door for foreign terrorist groups to gain entry and start practicing modern urban warfare tactics. Where was the plan? What is the plan? If it was just to get oil, well, that's not exactly working out but I'm sure Putin would like to give us a hat tip because he's doing just fine in that arena.
Carl Levin, get a spine. And hey, Brit Hume, you mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch, you really need to SHUT THE FUCK UP but your boss is the one who needs to be muzzled and put in jail.
Are these people totally insane or just criminally out of touch? Or is it something more sinister like being under the influence of their corporate overlords where the tree in front of them is the only thing they will ever be allowed to acknowledge?
Time to make a plan to start throwing out the lobbyists and examining the hows and whys of the few people with all the money. Over-simplifying this nightmare by pointing fingers in the wrong direction is a path that continues to lead straight into the abyss.
Here's a perfect moment for a big SMACKDOWN by Levin, but instead he tries to answer in a reasoned, rational way. Sorry Levin and Reid...calmly reciting the Dem talking points doesn't get through to Joe SixPac...stop playing ball with aholes like Hume and call BS for what it is...elephant excrement! WHY oh WHY do we have guys like Levin and Reid talking for the Dems...let's get some new blood out there like Chris Van Hollen...(know he's a Rep) who can give some Kennedyesque answers with wit and wisdom and not be afraid to show some anger and outrage...
wagonjak,
It's a macabre game show and it's called "let's be polite", (unless you are a licensed Republican.) That's because we are all so dumbed down that we are losing IQ points by the nanosecond while we fumble around and try to figure out the best way to get the right result from our mental-midget masters who have the ability to crack a hardcore whip. It's like the people we thought would save us are actually reduced to braying infants who need to relent and simply MUST go on FOX or do what his or her handler's at CNN tell him... or do whatever is laid out for them on any given day, no matter how bad one's wise-self tells one's soul it is.
Waiting for the media or the "elected" members of our government to save us is like waiting for the guy who ties your hands behind your back while he robs you and then shoots your friend or your own child or father in the head while you have a chance of cutting that rope with your own razor blade but wait for the bullet instead.
Congress has so far FAILED to stop this compound and serial criminal administration. I blame the republican minority controlled senate.
I think Levin should have replied to Brit Hume that,
Brit should have been asking tough questions of the Republicans when they controlled congress and Senate and White House. But as the Republican senate and congress ignored their oversight duties of the white house. So did Brit Hume ignore the Republican majority.
And there is an abundance of this oversight that is detremental if not done.
And while we are on the subject, " Brit Ol boy " I'd like to point out that the same Republicans you give passes to and powder puff questions, and the same Republicans you Identify with, are the same republicans that are filibustering legislation to stop things from getting done(playing obstructionists). These are the same republicans that were threatening the "nuclear option" simply because they wanted their way and did not want the Minority Dems to be able to represent their voters.
And Brent, you know damn well how congress and the senate works. You know the Dems have not enough party line votes (seats) to over ride a veto?
So why do your Republicans use the filibuster now when they threatened the nuclear option as a majority party, but now believe in filibuster and use it to exploitation?
Brit, Do you think the Dem majority should go with the nuclear option that the republican majority threatened? So to get things done as you ask me? Or should the Dem majority allow the republican representatives to represent their voters?
Well Brit?
That is how one can reply to Brit.
If you watch the Brit/Fagan clip just prior here on Crooks & liars you will see a remarkable difference in the way Brit interviews Fagan on Iraq's surge. Incredible.
Why do Democratic guests on these shows let the anchors get away with asking questions like this? Why do they engage in the permise of the question? Why don't they disect the question and point out the spurious nature of the premise? Don't they know that you cannot give a smart answer to a stupid question? Why dont they reach across the table and smack these guys in the head, figuratively of course. They are all lawyers, some are former prosecutors they should know how to handle cross examination type questions.
Levin should have retorted that the Democrats in Congress are faced with an insurgency .... of evil Republicans who, much like the Iraqi insurgents destroy schools immediately after we build them, are obstructing all the good the Dems are trying to accomplish. :)
Impeached Presidents May Not Be Pardoned
Ford's pardon of Nixon belies your assertion that a criminal proceeding must be underway before there could be a pardon of Bush. There is an excellent reason to impeach -- regardless the results of the Senate trial -- Bush would never be able to be pardoned. Ever.
Let the GOP Senators explain their vote. Let's not prejudge their vote as an excuse to say, "We can't impeach." No, let's impeach regardless what the GOP Senators might do; then let the GOP Senators -- who refuse to convict for the criminal activity -- defend themselves for failing to assert their oath.
Blocking impeachment and prosecutions and state level efforts is arguably a violation of the 5 USC 3331 oath of office: Let the GOP Senators explain that in their defense. Again, just because the GOP Senators "may" not convict, isn't an excuse for the House not to impeach. The House and Senate are different. The Senate "potential for not convicting" should be irrelevant to whether the House does or does not impeach.
Paul in LA @ 59:
How that GOP funding raising going. . . Note the attempt at humor to distract attention from the GOP's problem: Once impeached, regardless the outcome of the Senate trial, Bush cannot be pardoned. A very good reason to impeach this sitting President. How's that Pardon of Clinton? Will never happen, as it should be for Bush.
You're using speculation about what may or may not happen. Doesn't have much bearing on what is happening: Nothing. This is a smokescreen to stifle action. Again, if the GOP Senators refuse to convict -- on the basis of evidence which has not yet been developed, but the Voter will see -- that will be a problem for the GOP Senators to confront: Their loss of campaign funding, their loss of voter support, and their suffering at the polls.
I don't see John McCain laughing all that much: The GOP is losing support, their "front runner McCain" is bleeding staff and dollars. The DNC may win the Presidency, but it's not because they're doing the right thing: It's because the GOP is making a bigger mess faster than the DNC can.
I fail to see why there are "so many" legislative agendas that are above impeachment. No, the Constitution is the agenda. Not much sense in Congress passing new bills when the existing acts of Congress are getting ignored. The Country has been fine since 1789 without these bills. They could be passed in the 111th Congress. Doesn't make sense, unless you're in the GOP, for the President to pressure Congress to act on bills that he'll veto. Makes more sense to put pressure on Congress to do things the President cannot stop: Impeachment.
. . . . .
Future Prosecutions
the President, even if impeached-but-not-convicted, can still be tried after he leaves office. If he is not impeached, then he could be pardoned for the post-election criminal proceedings. Rather, without impeachment, he could be pardoned. Recall Nixon: He was not tried, but was pardoned.
Also, Libby-commutation shows that not all criminal proceedings can be exhausted before a President pardons him. The next President may be a DNC president; but one day, the GOP might likely soon have another President in the White House -- even if Bush were convicted after he left office under a DNC Presidential term, a future GOP President could pardon him.
This is merely an assertion that is not relevant and meaningless:
Also, the fact that you're making an irrelevant comment, and using this as "proof" of something doesn't support your argument. Indeed, some may believe that impeachment is or is not a political-legal process; the issue is irrelevant: It is the assertion of power by the legislature against the Executive and officials when the Executive branch refuses to enforce the law. That the impeachment may or may not be a criminal process is curious, but meaningless to your point.
......
This is misleading, and covoluted:
Pardon-option does not disappear after the term experies; nor does a President have to be prosecuted for a pardon to be used: Nixon-Ford example again. As to the claim that it is only impeachment that will remove a President; This is false -- A sitting President can be prosecuted and jailed, in effect removed, although not impeached.
It makes no sense to talk about what a Grand Jury can or cannot do when it is the Congress that says, "We will not impeach; and we will not appoint a special prosecutor." A grand jury is linked with that special prosecutor/office of independent counsel. The only way to take Congresses out of the equation -- that of it [ blocking/not calling for ] a prosecutor or Grand Jury -- is to put the pressure on the State AGs to lead the state grand juries to do this.
Indeed, indictments may continue, but they must start for them to continue. Today's world: We have excuses not to act using circular logic: "We can't prosecute because there's been no impeachment; and we can't impeach because there's been no prosecution."
Without Impeachment, President Pardonable By Any Future GOP President
Remains to be seen whether a DNC President would pardon Bush. As with Nixon -- who was not put on trial -- Ford did pardon him. Your assertion that Bush -- to be pardoned -- must be convicted or subject to criminal proceedings is contrary to what Ford did in re Nixon. Your argument/assertion fails. Whether your argument is relevant is a secondary issue: It is not.
You are not correct: Once the President leaves office he is always eligible for a pardon unless he is the subject of an impeachment while in office. It's up to the House to decide if they want to defy Precedent and impeach a former US President after he left office. Just as the President can commute any sentence without review, so too can the House impeach anyone without review. House is not bound by precedent to only impeach officials. They could impeach anyone.
. . . . .
Continuing "Harmful" Acts Not Harmful: No Consequences
It depends on how you define "Harm". If you measure "harm" by loss of public support, waning campaign dollars, then the GOP is getting harmed. However, if you look at Congress -- which is not engaged in active illegal activity, just being complicity -- it too is harmed: Loss of public support. This reasoning is circular:
Suppose you're right: That a pardon would "harm" them: Why isn't this "harm" translating into calls by the GOP to impeach? No answer on that one. I agree, the prosecutions should start; but given the unfavorable weather, the Congress and prosecutors are jointly refusing to act.
I do not agree with the assertion that prosecutions is an alternative; no, today's environment says it is a mandatory option which is being thwarted, just like impeachment. It's a waste of time to argue, "Oh, well impeachment may not have a successful outcome in terms of conviction; so let's try prosecutions." Hay: Prosecution has always been an option, but it hasn't been used.
The same non-sense thinking stifling action on impeachment is being applied to stifle prosecutions.
You have some strong opinions. I agree with your sentiments in general: Prosecutions are needed. I'm not agreeing with your method of getting to that conclusion: Your arguments are not supported by the Constitution, or what the future Presidents might do. You're also dismissing problems that are real; and asserting speculative outcomes in the Senate are reasons for the House not to do something. The reason for separating the function was to start the impeachment in the House, and ensure the President cannot be pardoned, regardless the outcome in the Senate.
It makes sense to impeach Bush, even if the Senate refuses to convict: Once impeached, no president -- DNC or GOP -- can do what Ford did: Pardon someone who was not necessarily subject to a criminal proceeding.
Impeachment would ensure Bush cannot be pardoned, regardless the outcome of any post-term criminal proceeding. The above does not apply on internal war crimes which no President has the power to pardon: International law is different; and there is universal jurisdiction. Other nations are not required to recognize a Presidential pardon.
Every time I see Humes face I think of George Carlin's description for Richard Nixon:
"The Man looks like he hasn't taken a shit in six months!!"
Hume is a bully. He's more subtle than O'Reilly and Hannity, but he's a rank partisan pretending to be unbiased. Here, he completely and willfully ignores Republican obstructionists. Way to represent for the American people, Brit.
I wonder if these spineless Democrats are ever going to wake the fuck up and stop coddling up to these repiglican scumbags....
Remember the nuclear option...
But then again.. Its all just rasslin anyway ...isn't it...
If they go on the show with those wankers, they should be ready like Clinton to shut them down when they start their partisan. Clinton made wallace look like the ignorant feeble-minded drone that he is. That "land of milk and honey" comment should have been thrown back at Bush by Levin. If we stay the course will we have the land of milk and honey?
Why would ANY Democrat appear on Fox Entertainment Channel? Democrats need to marginlize Fox and treat them like the mouthpiece they are for the Republiskunk party. Please Dems, let Fox just be the republiskunk party mouthpiece and DO NOT appear with these unAmerican traitors like Hume. They are only there to lie to the American people. Without their lies, the Boosh crime family would have even lower approrval ratings.
Let Brit Hume spout all he wants-everyone knows Fox news is no better than Goebbels and the nazi propaganda machine.
Login or Register to post comments.