...of Arthur Silber....He talks about the upcoming attack on Iran and why the Democratic Party will not impeach BushCo... (link fixed, sorry for the confusion)
 |
Lawrence O'Donnell: The Single-Payer Solution |
| Plays: 320 Downloads: 27 | |
 |
#StopColbert: Pelosi Says Stephen Doesn't Even Like Kittens |
| Plays: 315 Downloads: 24 | |
 |
Breitbart: 'Crooks and Liars is a Radical Leftist Website' |
| Plays: 228 Downloads: 12 | |
 |
Stuart Varney Thinks Pro-Obama Ad Directors Tricked Clint Eastwood Into Chrysler Ad |
| Plays: 216 Downloads: 20 | |
 |
Rick Santorum's Bizarre Revisionist View of the French Revolution |
| Plays: 92 Downloads: 104 |
 |
Ellen Responds to Anti-LGBT Group: 'My Haters Are My Motivators' |
| Plays: 3166 Downloads: 136 | |
|
#StopColbert: Pelosi Says Stephen Doesn't Even Like Kittens |
| Plays: 2724 Downloads: 112 | |
 |
YouTube Yanks Clint Eastwood Chrysler Ad After NFL Copyright Claim |
| Plays: 2324 Downloads: 145 | |
 |
Michael Steele Loves States' Rights Argument Against Gays, But Not Against Blacks |
| Plays: 1936 Downloads: 82 | |
 |
Emails Show Handel Behind Komen's Planned Parenthood Decision: Report |
| Plays: 1708 Downloads: 100 |
 |
SNL: GOP 2012 Undeclared Candidates Debate |
| Plays: 9651 Downloads: 437 | |
 |
UPDATED: Audience Boos Gay Soldier At GOP Debate |
| Plays: 5698 Downloads: 135 | |
 |
Homer Simpson Does Glenn Beck |
| Plays: 5601 Downloads: 202 | |
 |
Bill O'Reilly: There's No Question That Mr. Stewart is Going to Hell for Criticisms on Fox's 'War on Christmas' |
| Plays: 3882 Downloads: 149 | |
 |
Chris Hayes on the Iraq War Architects: Where Are They Now? |
| Plays: 3231 Downloads: 128 |
Russia announced its intention to come to the defense of Iran. What's Silber's position on the effort to remove Pelosi, to make way for impeachment?
I'm not so sure now. What I see is Bush Co maneuvering right now to slap together a quick Middle East "peace plan" . . . . . . and whatever coalition he can slap together with bailing wire and duct tape.
AP - 4 minutes ago
HAWIJA, Iraq - Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents joined a security pact with American forces Wednesday in what U.S. officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for extremists flushed from former strongholds.
Also you see the Arabs coming in to bail out U.S. investment houses and banks. No doubt Pop (Bush Sr) has been busy on the phone.
My take is this is all political gamesmanship to try to set the Republicans and their Nominee for a "Victory In The Middle East Mission Accomplished" image.
As well as a desperate attempt to keep the U.S. economy afloat for another year so it doesn't all fall apart in 08 while Bush is still in.
The Black Friday numbers are starting to trickle in and it isn't looking good.
The link is wrong, C&L. It sends me to a Bill Moyers video clip.
Oops E_I beat me to it
Challenging US Govt @ 1:
And another interesting move was made in the "Great Game" today.
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said Wednesday that he viewed a U.S. plan to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe as targeting Russia, not Iran.
I have great sympathy for Arthur Silber: A very smart fella. I can attest, it is not a good idea to be right too often. Especially when being right comes at the cost of liberal illusions.
If the US -- as Sibler suggests -- attacks Iran, and does nothing about these impeachable offenses, there is a major problem: The US could be lawfully attacked. We've got Russian bombers flying missions near Alaska; and visits between Russia-Iran-Venezuela. [ Read Prof Turley information for more. ]
If We the People will not put impeachment on the table, and remove all obstacles to accountability for these alleged war crimes, then other nations -- under the principle of reciprocity and retaliation under Geneva -- can use deadly force to do what Congress has failed to do: Enforce the Geneva conventions.
This is getting serious folks: Either time to force this US government to do what it needs to do and not make excuses; or we need to not be surprised when other nations use force to do what We the People refused to do: Constrain power.
And another one just off the wire
Reuters via Yahoo! News - 16 minutes ago
President George W. Bush on Wednesday reiterated his pledge the United States would defend Israel if it was attacked by Iran, a country whose president has urged that the Jewish state be "wiped off the map."
Challenging US Govt @ 7:
Putin made it clear just this week he will use full uncompromising force if necessary against any threat and has put Soviet Nuclear Forces on full and permanent round the clock alert.
L.A. Confidential @ 2:
Good points.
Small problem: Diplomacy doesn't change history, or the war crimes evidence.
It's untimely for Bush -- as a possible effort to divert attention from impeachable offenses -- to be "concerned" with diplomacy. That didn't appear to be of much concern when Saddam (supposedly) offered to resign, if the US would not invade. Bush had legal options on the table, but refused to assert them; Congress has legal obligations on the table, and refuses to assert them. Congress and the President are on two sides of the same crime-complicity coin. [See Legal problem for Congressional staff counsel ]
Other than the DNC assenting to war crimes (through a decision not to investigate, or agree with frivolous excuses to suppress evidence of war crimes), not seeing much evidence Congress is doing much to distance itself from the war crimes. What's the Congressional-DOJ Staff counsel going to do, other than issue more frivolous legal arguments to pretend they are immune to accountability for inaction in re war crimes? It does not appear they have much defense. Time for the public to get access to these Congressional memoranda, and find out which delusions the DNC-leadership is working under to "justify" inaction in re Geneva violations and grave breaches of laws of war by the President.
Voters need to see the information to make an informed Presidential-voting decision. Until the voters see the evidence, We the People have no basis to evaluate how these Presidential candidates will or will not embrace the needed reforms to ensure this abuse of power, inaction, and Congressional malfeasance does not occur.
If Congress will not investigate or impeach, time to gear up for grand jury indictments of Members of Congress; and mobilize the states to support direct prosecutions of the President, VP, and Members of Congress in re Geneva violations.
L.A. Confidential @ 8:
Here we go again. Flip Flop? Insane Madman? Or is the MSM playing games with peoples heads? Which is it?
AP - 15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush told the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian territories on Wednesday he is personally committed to their mission of peace, urging them to stick with it and not lose sight of their goal.
More propaganda in re "translation issues":
L.A. Confidential @ 8:
This, of course, relies on a mistranslation of the Iranian President. He said words to the effect that Israel, as the Jewish state, would not last, but -- in effect -- blow away, eventually, in the winds of history.
When the Iranian President talks about the "myth of the Holocaust" he's not saying it didn't happen; he's talking about Israel saying, "Woe is us, the Holocaust: Now be silent about our abuses which are not different than Nazi Germany." The "myth" is Israel has carte blanche after the Holocaust to invoke "the Holocaust" as verbal armor to justify abuse against the Palestinians and Arabs. They do not.
A real settlement means for the Israelis to stop relying on the legacy of WWII as pretext to justify mistreatement of others -- one of the issues behind the opposition to Isreal.
Challenging US Govt @ 12:
I saw a credible article also claiming Irans Loony in Chief never made that statement. "Wiping Israel Off The Map". But the U.S. media decided to run with it, give it legs, their own interpretation of course. Exaggerating for maximum fear effect.
No surprise there.
I would not at all be surprised if there is a false flag attack against Isreal giving Boosh the excuse he needs to bomb Iran. And when he does we will be attacked, either directly or economically.
Challenging US Govt @ 12:
exactly
Arthur Silber: Posing questions, then theories that mock the questions, then mockings that theorize the questions--but leaves out theories which question the mockery.
I love the idea that Democrats won't impeach because it would hurt them politically. What rank nonsense.
Go back to the anthrax attacks, Arthur. I know none of the leftists think we've had a coup -- hell, they have ALWAYS hated American politics, which is why they apparently think it is normal to have an executive coup.
After leftists can't find a reason other than 'politics' (because they, with their endless third-party Quinceaneras, categorically refuse to count the votes -- ever), they then bash the Democrats for apparently not having the testicles to invent votes and bash their way through our fiction of a government as if it was Noam Chomsky Day in the cloakroom.
And then cycle through sarcasm, irony, fatalism, and paranoia, one after the other. Well, Arthur, FEMA Camp this -- WE DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES. We are 30 votes shy in the House, and 75 votes short in the Senate (OK, 40 on a good day).
You start MANIFESTING votes -- like the Civil Rights movement did, contacting and pressuring THE REPUBLICANS, organizing their states' clergy and powerful people to bring some pressure-- there might be some sort of action.
But as long as the gameplan is to bash the Dems and do nothing about the Republicans, it's Go Fish time in Havana.
Democrats and Republicans care more about the Zionist Regime in Israel then they do about the U.S. Constitution or the American People. That's why I support Ron Paul. No more wars for Israel.
Post American @ 17:
The invasion of Iraq has ZERO to do with Israel, and everything to do with setting down permanent airbases in a dismantled Iraq in order to access the Caspian sea oil, rolling tanks over the rubble left in Iran if they can manage it.
Ron Paul, arch extremist nutcake, is not going to save you. Blaming it all on Israel is not going to save you.
As for "care more about the Zionist Regime in Israel," there is more to Israel than a "Zionist regime." Bush has actually harmed Israel to the point that many now wonder if it will survive another year or two (along with its neighbors). IF we can restore democracy here, we might be able to save Israel. If not -- if Bush nukes Iran or something truly terrible -- then Israel will also sooner or later, be a smoldering ruin.
As for AIPAC and 'Zionist regime,' what you fail to notice is that there are a lot of Jews in the United States. They are organized just like you Libertarian clowns with your Ron Paul dollar alternative economy, and your concern over the making of too many pennies. Speaker Pelosi, as an example, 30% of the people who send her to Congress are Jewish. Should she not represent 30% of her electorate? She should, she does. That doesn't make her the pawn of AIPAC or accepting of all the crimes of Zionism. But it does FLESH OUT the basis for her support for Israel, in terms of our democracy.
I know, all you Ron Paul guys have to tolerate YOUR constituency, the KKK. It must be hard having such powerful cultures pushing your representation, eh? Burn a cross or two, it will make you feel better.
Challenging US Govt @ 1:
He doesn´t have a position on such an effort. And here is why:
Quote:
"For many months, I have been saying that this Democratic Congress would never, ever impeach anyone in the Bush administration. I said it in, "Blinded by the Story":
But for the reasons set forth above (and a full case would fill many volumes), the Democrats are not going to impeach any of these criminals, barring events entirely unforeseeable at present. And they will not for one overwhelmingly significant and determinative reason: always with regard to the underlying principles, and frequently with regard to the specifics, the Democrats are implicated in every single crime with which they would charge the members of the administration. The Republicans' crimes are their crimes.
I said it in, "From the Department of Not Going to Happen":
Of course, if the Democrats had any convictions that were genuinely opposed to the corporatist, authoritarian, warfare state, they would begin impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney immediately upon Congress's return in September (and they would have begun them months ago) -- because impeachment is deserved 1,000 times over in both cases, and because such proceedings might make an attack on Iran less likely. That would also assume that the Washington Democrats had some strategic smarts.
Democrats with deeply held convictions that impelled them to principled action that was not guaranteed to be successful, and clever about the implementation of a plan -- one that didn't directly concern an election -- that demanded their careful attention for more than a week or two? Excuse me for a moment.
Sorry. I had to collapse to the floor in helpless laughter for a few minutes, and then slowly pull myself back up so I could get to the keyboard.
I said it again recently in, "Get Out the Razor":
So impeachment WON'T hurt the Democrats politically. Not even in terms of 2008. Why, it might HELP them -- and help them to an overwhelming victory. Not incidentally, it would also signal to the world that there are at least some people in our national life who give a damn about the Constitution, about the law (including international law), about moral law, about the value of human life, about civilization, about decency. It might save us from being unceremoniously heaved into the filthiest of trash heaps, where we deservedly belong.
More and more Democrats themselves admit that impeachment is the unquestionably appropriate remedy, and fully DESERVED. It won't hurt them politically. So why won't they do it?
One more time -- first, what I said that is excerpted above:
[Impeachment] is the one method the Democrats will categorically, absolutely not utilize -- because the Democrats are a crucial, inextricable part of the identical authoritarian-corporatist system that has led us to these horrors. They have all worked toward this end over many decades, Democrats and Republicans alike, and now the horrors manifest themselves explicitly, without apology, even with the sickening boastfulness of the mass murderer who is proud of what he has done, and who vehemently believes he is right.
Or as I put it in an earlier essay:
...
Try to grasp this finally, before it is too late: the Democrats may differ from the Republicans on matters of detail, or emphasis, or style. But with regard to the fundamental political principles involved, everything that has happened over the last six years -- just as is the case with everything that has happened over the last one hundred years -- is what the Democrats want, too.
This should not be a difficult point to understand. The historical record is compelling in its clarity, and overpowering in its length and volume. A corporatist, authoritarian state is what the ruling elites want, and it is precisely what serves their interests, Republican and Democrat alike. They know it; they count on your inability or refusal to see it.
That's why they won't do it. That's why impeachment is "off the table." Try, please try for crap's sake, to understand this. I am weary of explaining it.
But I will keep explaining it, until at least 15 of you get it. At the current rate, I expect that to take until 2018.
Even now, I'm an optimist. Go figure.
And I've said it in a number of other posts."
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/
Why don´t you just go to Arthur´s blog and read his essays instead of asking funny questions?
@ Paul from LA # 16
Did you read/ watch this earlier post:
Turley: “It Is Rather Clear That What The President Ordered Was A Federal Crime”?
Olbermann: “With or without this new law, suppose one of the anti-wiretapping civil lawsuits succeeds, what does that legal victory actually mean then in terms of stopping the government or punishing Alberto Gonzales or any other top officials who were responsible for this?”
Turley: “Well, it can mean a lot and that’s one of the reasons there’s a lot of people, both Democrats and Republicans, who don’t want to see it happen. They don’t want a court to say that the president did something that is a federal crime. That’s why they’re trying to get all these cases thrown out of court because it is rather clear that what the president ordered was a federal crime, clearly defined in federal law. But that causes a problem because many of the Democratic leaders and Republican leaders have promised each other that they would not start impeachment proceedings, but when a federal judge says the president committed a crime, it’s pretty darn hard to ignore that.”
Tune in tonight at 8p.m at Kucinichtv.com for a townshall meeting.
the 4th Reich is rising @ 20
Turley: “...there’s a lot of people, both Democrats and Republicans, who don’t want to see it happen. They don’t want a court to say that the president did something that is a federal crime."
What a pile of cow turds. There are a "lot of people" (name some) "both" D and R" -- ALL of the R, and the D are DINOs like Feinstain.
But Turley, who is not beyond making a snide reference, doesn't specify what or who he is talking about. Well, the Dem leadership of the House has been outing Bushco's crimes for YEARS now, and would very much like the Judicial branch to do something.
Turley doesn't seem to notice that the Justice system suddenly stopped prosecuting the Abramov criminals. What's up with that, Jonathan? Could we be having a coup? No, in true 'Amy Goodman Propaganda Hour' style, he just dumps his VAGUE "lotta" slur -- suggesting that the D = R, even when it is clear that the R are en block voting for THEIR OWN conspiracy, along with known D problem figures like Feinstain -- who do NOT represent the Dem caucus.
(sorry, I didn't notice the tag from the quoted material)
Paul in LA sez:
WE DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES. We are 30 votes shy in the House, and 75 votes short in the Senate (OK, 40 on a good day).
I agree that this is the reason Democrats will not push impeachment. I don't think it's because they're afraid that THEIR complicity in Bush's crimes (which is substantial but likely not illegal or impeachable) keeps them at bay.
Which is to say, if the votes existed in the Senate to remove, BushCo would have been removed.
Nonetheless, I still assert that failure to impeach for mere lack of the likelihood of conviction is inherent dereliction of duty.
The responsibility to impeach is not bound to the odds of conviction. It is bound to duty to truth.
We owe the future an accounting of this extraordinarily criminal regime.
In Watergate, the handwriting was on the wall...the votes were there to remove Nixon, and he knew.
Now consider, if the Republican caucus had held firm during Watergate, would you say that the Democrats would have had an affirmative duty NOT to pursue the case? To let the Nixon White House define his legacy? To let his version of the Watergate affair be tacitly affirmed? To allow that lie to sit, officially unchallenged, as HISTORY?
The Vichy Democrats would never try to impeach, be it the Blue Dog Appeasers or the Pelosi-style cowards they just don't have the stomach for it. They are too afraid that even one percent of the population might be against it. The poll driven decision mindset that drives Hilary Clinton has overtaken a large section of the alleged opposition party. Hell we saw how fast they turned on Pete Stark for temporarily having the guts to say what we all know about Bush. His subsequent apology destroyed what respect I gained for him that day.
Maybe we should open a pool on which day the first bomb falls on Iran. I'll pick the day after the election; if they do it before hand it would cause an across-the-board Democratic sweep. Also it would fit Bush/Cheney/GOP morals to stir up another hornet's nest and dump the cleanup on the incoming Democratic president. Looks like the new prez will inherit a Bush recession, too. How can one man do so much damage to this country without it being a crime?
JasonS @ 24:
Also, if we don't find the facts with an impeachment investigation, how are we going to establish the facts needed to correct this problem, much less put pressure on the President and future Presidents to adddress the needed reforms?
we need party discipline god damnit. The grassroots raise all the money and make the buzz for the candidates and they slap them in the face
Facts For Reforms Says:
Also, if we don’t find the facts with an impeachment investigation, how are we going to establish the facts needed to correct this problem, much less put pressure on the President and future Presidents to adddress the needed reforms?
Exactly. There is a duty here to country, truth and history that simply belies any vote-counting, caucus-wrangling, party-building, election-winning argument against it.
It is the constitution itself that is under attack. It is the foundation of who we are, not as liberals or conservatives or Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans.
Anyone who says otherwise is asking you to put party and/or politics ahead of our foundational beliefs.
I'm all for horse-trading, vote-counting and wheel-greasing when we're talking about funding federal projects, regulating industry, deciding where we want mount the fucking ten commandments next and all that. I've never been one to rail to the heavens and abandon the least-worst party over day-to-day business.
Being someone who generally supports Democratic candidates, I've held my nose and voted with the best of them.
But this is decidedly different. No calculus about the next election or whether it's a "waste of time" to do your constitutional duty may be permitted in the debate, any more than arguing about cotton futures may be used to justify slavery.
Not often, but sometimes, right is simply right and wrong is simply wrong.
Not often. But sometimes.
JasonS @ 24 "I agree that this is the reason Democrats will not push impeachment. I don't think it's because they're afraid that THEIR complicity in Bush's crimes (which is substantial
That's nonsense. No one in the leadership of the House bears any substantial complicity -- the Senate is a more mixed case.
"Nonetheless, I still assert that failure to impeach for mere lack of the likelihood of conviction is inherent dereliction of duty. The responsibility to impeach is not bound to the odds of conviction. It is bound to duty to truth."
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Kyle @ 25:
Representative Pelosi would vote for impeachment in a heartbeat. She has greenlighted and supported the Chairs in outing Bushco's crimes, and if you remember her OTHER statement last year (besides "off the table"), she said (paraphrased) 'We intend to do hard oversight and hopefully what is outed will produce an impeachment.'
Calling Pelosi a coward is a brilliant piece of slander. IF she was a coward, she would have allowed the impeachment to go forward -- it would have FAILED -- and then she wouldn't be the target she made herself BEING BRAVE ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION from the Bushco traitors by NOT putting it to a vote.
Kyle @ 25 " Hell we saw how fast they turned on Pete Stark for temporarily having the guts to say what we all know about Bush. His subsequent apology destroyed what respect I gained for him that day."
Your view of this is rank ignorance. Maintaining the Rules of the House is the Speaker's primary duty. The Rules of Debate BAR any reference to the President's motivations. Rep. Stark broke those rules. He was corrected, accepted the bitter pill, and went back to work for the country -- your 'respect,' based on ignorance and anger, notwithstanding.
Chairman Stark is the dean of the California caucus in Congress. If you needed some latter day act to 'gain respect' for this amazing man, then you are ignorant of his record. You ought to inform yourself.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pete_Stark
Facts For Reforms @ 27 "Also, if we don't find the facts with an impeachment investigation, how are we going to establish the facts needed to correct this problem,"
Those facts are already in the public record. You might even want to read Conyers' book, which spells them out. It only costs about $10 at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Crisis-Administration-Blueprint-Impea...
JasonS @ 24:
If the Senate defeats the impeachment motion Bush and Cheney will be [b]exonerated[/b] in the eyes of the law. In the case of Watergate there were enough moderate Republicans willing to turn on Nixon - but the party apparatus made sure over the course of the following two decades that when they got a second turn at Imperial Presidency that would no longer be the case.
Your second sentence above sounds great in a Hollywood movie with a stirring string crescendo, but here in dull ol' reality it will bash its head repeatedly against the brick wall of obstruction and party loyalty constructed by the Nixonites who wanted their revenge on America for sopiling their fun.
The official democrats are just republican's in lamb's clothing.
The only reason they're getting so much support from the sane people in this society, is that the sane people are totally rejecting the republicans of The Dummy's administration, and have nowhere else to turn but the 'democrats', in this 'two-party' system.
Which is really 'one-party', the 'fascist-corporate-bribery' party, which owns both the 'republicans' and the 'democrats' by 'contributing to' (bribing) both, though usually a bit more heavily to whichever branch is in power at the moment .
As soon as the sane people realize this, they may try to do something about it, though their chances are slim, since they are in the minority.
Has anyone paused to think for a second, just for a second, that Bush has not been impeached because there isn't a 2/3ds majority to do so? Patience.
Something to go with dese dose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djQdI1t9_Ag
If Bush & Cheney are not impeached then all faith in the American Democratic system is lost for this will be proof of it having been totally corrupted beyond salvation.
WWIII anyone?
Just imagine the oil profits!
greg white @ 38:
The Constitution is not dependent on the impeachment clause as many people think.
Comments are closed on this entry