It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conyers Flip-Flops on Impeachment

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Great find, BH!


Too bad that the American public, or as I like to call the sheeple, 'Pavlov's dogs,' have been trained to respond negatively to anything Cindy Sheehan ever says.

I'm sorry, I'm just being a pessimist today... but I'm still not too confident in this Congress.




posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Too bad that the American public, or as I like to call the sheeple, 'Pavlov's dogs,' have been trained to respond negatively to anything Cindy Sheehan ever says.


Anyone who needed training to respond negatively to Cindy Sheehan has obviously never seen/heard her speak. The woman is clearly and understandably mentally distressed. Her only claim to expertise is knowing a corpse.

"Dear highly educated, duly elected policy makers,
Our country's sovereign right to make war, of which my ADULT son CHOSE to be an instrument, got my baby killed. Please send a clear message that any president who ever exercises this right for any reason whatsoever may end up on trial for it. PS, the post office was busy so I'm just making it an open letter- I'm sure the media will publish it since I am one of the foremost political theorists of our time.
Signed,
Me the People"


Nowhere in Sheehan's letter (yes, I read the whole thing before using it as toilet paper) does she enumerate any specific crimes by Bush. Infact, the most specific allusion to a constitutional violation was actually perpetrated by the 108th Congress when they delegated the decision on the use of force, and considering the War Powers Act, that was more or less a proceedural snafu.

Now if Sheehan or her ilk would like to demonstrate any wrongdoing not germaine to war itself that would be an entirely different animal, however civilian and military casualties in and of themselves are not a warcrime. There isn't a legal system in the world (well, maybe Sharia) that would consider these vague charges a legitimate indictment.

Name the specific act to be alleged and the treaty it purportedly violated and let's talk about it: I'm sure there are a few to choose from. Name the specific violation of American law which could most reasonably be interpereted as applying to government as well as private citizens, again I'm sure there are a few, especially given the generality of high crimes and misdemeanors.

But for the love of God, if that kind of hackery is to become heralded as political genius or leadership, I'll just be withdrawing my application from Stanford and I'll go adopt a 17 year old so I can send him off to Iraq next year and make my political start that much faster.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The last thing we need in this country is for a person with such little empathy as yourself attending an institution such as Stanford. Leave off man. We can only hope you're denied entry so you can apply to the University of Chicago, which hosted the group which spawned the neocon revolution of idiocy that led to the attempted destruction of nearly every principle everything this nation has stood for these past 200 years. So off to UC with you to foster your prejudices against mothers whose only crime is to lose their children in illegal wars which openly derogate and violate constitutional and international treaty obligations simply because we (as in the royal 'we') can.

I do not ask for your sympathy for the woman's plight for it is readily apparent that you do not entertain sympathy or empathy when considering the merit of a stated political position. For people such as yourself, humanity constitutes widgets to be cast about, added or subtracted, in a mathematical formula designed to assess utilitatrian concepts of value rather than any inherent notion of value such as in the perhaps over-used "all men are created equal.." blah blah blah. 'Equal my eye' you would undoubtedly protest with all the eloquence of a Hitler or Mussolini or perhaps Stalin - all great men in their own minds. Which reminds me that you are also a great man in your own mind from which self adulation I can only presume that your "application" to Stanford is just that, an application, which any moron could complete and submit with the requisite fee of $75 or whatever.

Best of luck in the world of the loveless and forelorn. My advice is that you not become hoisted by your own petard for those who live by the sword are surely doomed to die by it. Res ipsa loquitor, my good man.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
The last thing we need in this country is for a person with such little empathy as yourself attending an institution such as Stanford. Leave off man.


You want a group hug, major in psych. I'm about policy. I don't empathize; I calculate. So does the law by the way, mr Seattlelaw. All I'm saying is that Ms. Sheehan's complaints would be significantly more influential if they were specific enough to be actionable. Governments shouldn't rise or fall on empathy, or as the case may be between Sheehan and Bush, antipathy, but on the viability of their policies. I have invited, and continue to invite with the utmost sincerity and with no prejudice towards the defense of this administrations policies, anyone who cares to make a calculable argument for impeachment to do so. That's how you have a fruitful policy discussion. Legislating from the heart might feel good, but it has the substantial weakness of being subjective and possessing the ability to condemn the many out of sympathy for the few.

An empathetic government would fall to anarchy in only a few years time. The only question is as to cause: economic, social, or foreign. There is no consistent, sustainable policy to be had in any of these realms which would not at times offend the conscience.


We can only hope you're denied entry so you can apply to the University of Chicago

Are you nuts? Do you have any clue what the weather is like in Chicago?


every principle everything this nation has stood for these past 200 years.

I take it you didn't do the outside reading for your history courses. Last I checked, the past two hundred years of politics were characterized by the growth of corporate power as a faceless, nearly unassailable, utterly unchecked replacement for nationalized tyranny which has been quick to usurp any revolution which came along, be it democratic or otherwise. The neocon revolution of which you speak is alien to me however; I see no revolutionary antithesis to the afforementioned order in neoconservatism.


So off to UC with you to foster your prejudices against mothers

One, you're the only one who has accused her of any crime at all. It's still legal to not know what you're talking about, thank Christ for your sake. A criticism and a prejudice are not one in the same. Prejudice (think hard, you should know what this one means law dog). I took in the facts (the letter) and made a logical judgement. You, rather than defending the point in any substantive manner, take the low road, attempt to characterize me in an unsavory light and throw around accusations such as prejudice, poison the well by associating me with everyone's least favorite political ideology, and while you're at it refer to the UC system as somekind of nitwit's gulag. On that last point, you'll have to tell me; I haven't even bothered putting in applications to any UC schools. Either you don't know, oops, or you've been there and you do know, bigger oops.


I do not ask for your sympathy for the woman's plight

You could have saved us a lot of time if you'd said that to begin with. It does leave us with a rather puzzling question though; if you wouldn't have me be sympathetic, what is this little dance we're doing all about?


for it is readily apparent that you do not entertain sympathy or empathy when considering the merit of a stated political position.

What you said is right. What you think it means is wrong.


For people such as yourself, humanity constitutes widgets to be cast about, added or subtracted, in a mathematical formula designed to assess utilitatrian concepts of value rather than any inherent notion of value


While I am rather utilitarian in my thinking, you've characterized it about as badly as anyone I've ever heard. No serious scholar could use the principle of utility to reduce life to a spreadsheet. Utility really demands an object. The merit of a thing must be judged by it's utility to someone/something generally speaking the person doing the judging. Unless said judge is a monarch, the word for making that judgement on a strictly personal level is "daydreaming". In my case, I concern myself with public policy and as such I make my utilitarian judgements based on the utility to the general public.

You believe that I am a neoconservative. Infact I have been sober of that particular vice for some time, as is not particularly a secret to those who follow my posting. Why would utility prejudice me towards pushing widgets across the spreadsheet to the benefit of this or that cabal, this or that corporate entity, etc etc when I have no stake in their profit? My stake lies at varying levels descending from my lot as a lifeform on Earth, to being a resident of a particular block, a student at a particular school, etc. I calculate utility according to those various factors (admittedly disowning the notion that a man can empathize, and you will note the distinction of the word empathize from sympathize, with circumstances wholly alien to him). I share the results I get and they get what recognition they may, never unilaterally shaping anything.

So, that pretty well covers rational self interest and democracy for the purposes of this post. Civics class is over Seattlelaw. Be sure to read page 666 in the text and be early tomorrow, we have a quiz.


Which reminds me that you are also a great man in your own mind from which self adulation I can only presume that your "application"

Is this the part where I get all huffy and say "I will too get into Stanford"? I hate to burst your bubble but number one, I'm nervous as hell about that application, and number two I don't care what you think about it. Reexamine the context in which it came up, kick yourself in the backside, and reply in the morning. Afterall, I'm a legend in my own mind, why the hell would I want to impress little old you? Perhaps you think you're that important too?


those who live by the sword are surely doomed to die by it.

That's what the Jewish Carpenter tells me too, but I think he just got unlucky.


Res ipsa loquitor, my good man.


You don't think I'm good and you wouldn't know latin if it jumped up and resipsa'd you a brand new loquitor. But I appreciate both gestures.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by The Vagabond]

[edit on 19-11-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Your denials speak volumes. But dilly-dallying with uneducated middle-aged women made bereft from the ineptness of power directed by moral-less corporate greed mongers does not a scholar make. Take on a sincere challenge to hone your rhetorical skills or you may yet suffocate under a blanket of fellow freshman who have both intelligence and the morality necessary to give it meaning.

Your dilemma is that your life's argument (I presume uniformly) is grounded in the largely meaningless diktat of what matters in the physical world. This rather brutish conceptualization of reality bears striking resemblance to that of Neanderthal. Are you German? We can agree that our lot in this third dimension is limited to a degree by laws of physics which restrain us, but it is also evident that many of what previously seemed immutable laws preventing our species advancement have been overcome.

For this reason I suggest that your narrow, if not shallow, focus as to what constitutes reality represents that type of individual who, like our incurious president, would ridicule anyone who might suggest the earth is other than flat. What say you?

p.s.
And by the way, I don't believe anyone (certainly not Ms. Sheehan) needs to provide a legal foundation for the prosecution of the president's impeachment and imprisonment. He has done so quite adequately all by himself. The question is, Mr. Utility, will he be held accountable for the many lies he has told and the deaths he has caused? And that will hurt us all in the long run. Perhaps by the time you grow a little gray you will understand how.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Her only claim to expertise is knowing a corpse.

As usual, women produce and nurture the sons (and daughters) that the warmongers use for cannon fodder, and that's okay. When these same women get involved in the dialogue of war, they're told to mind their business.

Typical.

Even the Nazis respected the mothers of their soldiers.

Cross of Honor of the German Mother



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
This isn't about Sheehan. I didn't mean to make it about Sheehan. She agrees with the original post here and has some public audience and that's the only reason I brought her up.

Can we get off her? Thank you.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   
For your entire post, but more specifically for this part


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Anyone who needed training to respond negatively to Cindy Sheehan has obviously never seen/heard her speak. The woman is clearly and understandably mentally distressed. Her only claim to expertise is knowing a corpse.

"Dear highly educated, duly elected policy makers,
Our country's sovereign right to make war, of which my ADULT son CHOSE to be an instrument, got my baby killed. Please send a clear message that any president who ever exercises this right for any reason whatsoever may end up on trial for it. PS, the post office was busy so I'm just making it an open letter- I'm sure the media will publish it since I am one of the foremost political theorists of our time.
Signed,
Me the People"



you deserve this:


You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

You will do well in Stanford.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
In a way, it's a shame that Bush will probably never be impeached. I agree with others that he has made mistakes, but they were not malevolent, and that he acted in good faith. And I doubt very much that any accusations would hold up in court.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
jso, If you think his mistakes were not malevolent, then why should he be impeached? People make mistakes. But I don't think that's a reason to impeach. I'm curious about your thoughts on this.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But it seems now that the Democrats are coming into power, he's backing off his widely known and held opinion that this administration should be impeached ...


OF COURSE he is.

For years and years he could blather on and on about 'impeachment' and not have to prove anything. He could just mouth off. Now that there is a dem majority that could actually do something about it, he has to put his money where his mouth is. He has been basically writing checks that bounce. Worthless.

He's obviously just a bag of wind. Nothing to back it up. If he actually had something to back it up with he'd be head-over-heals in joyful rapture over the dems taking over. Instead, he finds that he has to show his cards or fold. Obviously he has to fold because he's been bluffing (for votes) all along.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
Cheney, as president, would be able to nominate anyone to fill the vice presidency. In order to prevent McCain from winning in 08, Gingrich would be chosen, because he's the one guy who has a chance of beating McCain in the primaries.


Cheney would nominate Dr. Condi Rice. That way the republicans could claim a victory of sorts over the dems. They would be able to say that they have a black and a women in the highest offices whereas the dems haven't gotten that far. She'd be nominated/appointed so that she wouldn't have to go through the vote-in process. Considering anti-black feelings that are so widespread in the deep south (yes, I lived there for a while, it was AWFUL), she wouldn't be able to be voted in by the usual conservative republicans. She'll have to be appointed to break that barrier.

Gingrich (republican) doesn't have a prayer to win in 2008. He's a just a pudgy doughboy.

McCain (republican) has a real chance but the one to watch will be Guiliani (republican).

I predict a battle for the white house between Hillary and Guiliani.

I also predict that McCain will run for VP - as a republican - on Hillary's ticket. She'll invite him to cross over and they will run as a 'healing' ticket. A dem and a republican.

Clinton/McCain vs Guiliani/?? I'm not sure who Guiliani will pick for VP. Someone outside of the North East and someone conservative since Guiliani is socially liberal (pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, etc.).



[edit on 11/14/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
jso, If you think his mistakes were not malevolent, then why should he be impeached? People make mistakes. But I don't think that's a reason to impeach. I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

Because he would be cleared of charges. I'm conservative, but like many, am disappointed in many of his decisions. But I don't think he should be railroaded because of them. Regardless of what many think, he is not trying to take away our rights or hurt us. He truly cares about this nation.

Of course, that's just my opinion, of which I am now raising my electronic shield to deflect the incoming zingers.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Lest we forget seattlelaw, she’s no longer merely an anguished mother; or so we would be led to believe. She is, if we judge by the content of her letter and its publication, a considerable political force, indeed, a force worthy of the same title adopted by a document which held itself to the standard of acceptance by 70% of the states. She is “We the People”. She is the force which made national issues the focus of congressional campaigns and delivered the United States Congress to the Democratic Party. This is not The Vagabond picking on some poor widow. This is a sound challenge to a nationally published political argument. It is telling that you still do not wish to engage on the issue, but would rather attack me or try to dismiss the issue.

As for morals, take a look at the world around you. Do you honestly believe that what the average American needs most right now is a preacher? I believe that what we need is a shrewd, calculating, vicious SOB who can go tit for tat with the Karl Roves who spend most of their time bending us over for the military industrial complex. We’ve had this debate before, and yet again you are too concerned with your bleeding heart to realize that I’m not even defending the object for your animosity. What I’m telling you is that your side is still pursuing its aims in the misguided fashion that kept this administration safe from the opposition in 2002 and 2004, and it could very well mean whatever respite the Democrats might be willing to get for us could be short lived indeed.


Your dilemma is that your life's argument (I presume uniformly) is grounded in the largely meaningless diktat of what matters in the physical world.

I’m comfortable with that. I’ll worry about win or lose, live or die, suffering or comfort, and you can worry about centering yourself with the intangibles of the Universe or whatever the hell you think you’re talking about.



This rather brutish conceptualization of reality bears striking resemblance to that of Neanderthal.

I find it interesting that you claim to know whether or not the Neanderthal ever pondered deep thoughts, when all you could possibly have to go on is physical evidence, which is my domain.


Are you German?

Actually yes, 1/16. I suppose that makes me a Nazi? Such a ridiculous generalization seems a little strange coming from someone who fancies himself an intellectual, doesn’t it lawdog?


For this reason I suggest that your narrow, if not shallow, focus as to what constitutes reality represents that type of individual who, like our incurious president, would ridicule anyone who might suggest the earth is other than flat. What say you?

I say that your logic (I’ll call it that to be kind) would make a heretic of every mathematician, ridicule everyone who ever so much as balanced his checkbook, and suggests that policy should stand still and wait for evolutions of humanity which have neither arrived nor have shown any promise of arriving necessarily arriving at all.

If or when quantum physics or whatever discipline has reveals to us a universe in which the concept of mutual exclusivity is merely an illusion, in which the human ego (in the sense of identity, not vanity) can be banished in favor of a higher existence, and/or in which other aspects of reality become as practically potent as the admittedly perhaps illusory experiences to which we are currently limited, any need for the profession I intend to pursue will likely vanish and I’ll probably spend the rest of my life writing poetry (yeah, I know I don’t come across as a poet probably).

In the meantime, I am convinced that there are considerable forces in powerful positions which are content to treat me in exactly the manner in which you mistakenly believe that I would treat others, and for want of a readily apparent scumbag mean enough and slimy enough to trade backstabbings with those powers on my behalf, I’ll throw a hail marry at doing it myself. Narcissistically over-ambitious? Bet your ass. But I figure if a bad guy can go from corporal to dictator of Europe, there’s no reason that someone who isn’t hell bent on raping the populous couldn’t make at least a modest rise and put up some kind of a fight.


And by the way, I don't believe anyone (certainly not Ms. Sheehan) needs to provide a legal foundation for the prosecution of the president's impeachment and imprisonment. He has done so quite adequately all by himself.

We’d have to tear down the justice system even more than the patriot act already has to do anything on those grounds. Even in an open and shut case, you’ve still got to present a specific charge and make the case to prove it. THEN we can get to the fun part, specifically removing him, shooting him, and mounting his stuffed corpse in the Oval Office as a reminder.


The question is, Mr. Utility, will he be held accountable for the many lies he has told and the deaths he has caused?

And the answer is only if the opposition gets its act together. The further answer is that even if Sheehan could get the dems to impeach him and succeed (they won’t succeed if they attempt it on the “everyone knows” charge that has been floating around), there are still varying effects depending on how we go about it. We want to establish a precedent and set an example that guards the future, not unlike Nuremburg, do we not? That’s why it was so important to have warcrimes trials, rather than simply shooting the Nazis in the streets of Berlin then going home for a parade.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
LOL!

Thank you. That was fun. And seriously, best of luck with the application. I'm not certain how you kids can afford the tuition at such institutions but perhaps the dems will successfully move repayment of student loans to a tax deduction status in the near future.

I agree with you. Accountability is absolutely necessary in order to sustain the appearance of validity which the federal government must have in order for the people to be willing to continue to engage in the game of democracy.

Which brings us full circle to the Conyers, et al, move away from impeachment as a goal. I understand both points of view. The dems wish to get things done. They're chomping at the bit. Impeachment hearings would prevent them from getting much else done in the next two years. There is a real risk that the public would, by that time, become so disgusted with the dems that the GOP would be thrown back in power.

On the other hand, this isn't your father's president. It's not about a break in at the dem's HQ to rifle some paper files. What Bush has done has rocked the foundation of the Constitution. Presidential mendacity has new meaning under Bush. The evil must be rooted out or the patient will risk a relapse. Investigations would be the chemotherapy to the cancer that these people constitute. Chemo is not pleasant. The goal is to kill the cancer before the chemo kills the patient. Risky? Certainly. But if we don't investigate and hold hearings the next time we may be forced to resort to street mayhem.

So, for the sake of utility, we should impeach and imprison. But we will not do so in all likelihood.






posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Cheney would nominate Dr. Condi Rice.
[edit on 11/14/2006 by FlyersFan]


Cheney hates Condi Rice.

I mean literally hates her.

Condi Rice takes her orders from Bush Sr. She's the reason Rumsfeld was fired. Gates is her man. She's been circling the wagons in the tall grass, sharpening her knives, waiting to pick him off.

This really goes back to the hatred between Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld, dating back to the Ford administration.

Right now there's an internal White House civil war. Not between Conservative and Liberal, but between Realist and Idealist.

Condi Rice is a realist, but also the leader of the the Realists in the White House. She worked under Bush Sr. and was personally selected by Sr. to tutor Jr. on foriegn policy matters.

Cheney is the leader of the Idealists. Rumsfeld was his best friend. He's also the guy responsible for most of the problems we have right now.

The notion that Cheney would listen to ANYONE in the Realist's camp, and select Condi Rice is crazy. Not even for the good of the party would he choose her.

Some things reach beyond the party.

That said, however, I think you're partially right. But, it's not Cheney who'll nominate her, it'll be Bush.

See, unlike that other guy in this thread, Seattle, I'm a pretty rationale, pragmatic guy. I'm gonna win, but I'm not out to have anyone hanged for it.

With Bush Sr. basically back in control of the White House, things are going to change. Jr. will be more apt to play nice with others, and be bipartisan.

It's what the country wants and needs. And, it was the resounding message for the elections. 29 Gerrymandered safe seats were lost as a message to the President. And, if his body language the following morning was any indicator, he recieved it loud and clear.

But, somebody still has to pay for Iraq.

I would imagine that a few phone calls have been made between Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, discussing how the situation should be handled. For the good of the country. And the good of the son.

I would imagine that both men probably happened upon the same name. Probably the same time. The same man hated by George Bush Sr. The same man who turned his son against him. The same man responsible for leading us down the path to war.

Dick Cheney

And I think the reason he'll be forced to resign will be the congressional findings on the energy commission he chaired. With the new Dem Congress, a quiet investigation will be launched. They'll dig up some bombshells. They drag some people under oath. They'll find some crimes he committed.

And I think this will be a bipartisan attempt to find a fall guy for Iraq.

They'll make Dick Cheney look bad on energy, and Bush Jr. will ask for his resignation. Bush Jr. will then nominate Rice to fill the Vice Presidency.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   


You have voted brimstone735 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


I pretty much agree with everything you said.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Cheney steps down for "health reasons" in the near future for the good of the party. But he really can't be forced out except by conviction on articles of impeachment.

[edit on 11/14/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Brimstone, you certainly have the insiders information on the doings at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Very impressive summary. Generally lacking support, and yet compellingly presented. Much of what you contend is unassailable as there is no evidence presented to counter. But do tell us the source from which you conclude that 41 is now back in control of the White House?

How does the Democrat's landslide congressional victory translate into White House control transferring to an ex-(by 14 years) president?



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Thank you. That was fun. And seriously, best of luck with the application. I'm not certain how you kids can afford the tuition at such institutions


To be completely honest, neither do I. I'm knocking out 60 credits at a community college and I'm in a decent position for a few scholarships, but I do see myself repaying some serious loans in the future. I may be one payment away from having my brain repossessed for the next 20 years but at least I won't have to work 84 hour weeks in the quarry.


but perhaps the dems will successfully move repayment of student loans to a tax deduction status in the near future.

One would hope so. Get me a shovel and sturdy boots when that one comes along and I'll try to lobby whatever republican votes they might come up needing (whether I'd end up shoveling S for the cause or just bludgeoning Hastert with the shovel I'm not sure, but either way I'll have the right tools for the job).



Which brings us full circle to the Conyers, et al, move away from impeachment as a goal. I understand both points of view.

for the sake of utility, we should impeach and imprison. But we will not do so in all likelihood.


That sounds right to me.

Given the "tactical" situation: An unpopular administration on the decline, now apparently ready to sacrifice its own leaders for the sake of its underlying ideology (and the puppet masters behind that), which still has just enough die-hard support (courtesy of electoral division on state and district lines) to weather the last two years and escape without being made an example (which amounts to "getting away with it" and thus a major tactical victory for them despite the rough ending), my advice would be as follows.

You've got to make a Nixon out of Bush. For some reason which I might understand if I were a group-hugging psych major rather than a Spock-esque Political Science major, the American people revile burglary more than war... even when the burglar breaks off a war as his way of saying sorry. It may have something to do with the politicization of impeachment after the attempt on Clinton (incidentally, if the Republicans did that on purpose, which I doubt, dirty as it is it would still be the most brilliant thing I've ever heard of). So Bush has to be taken out in with a great deal of investigative and legal pomp and circumstance, so that it feels like he's on trial for breaking the law as opposed to doing the wrong thing- high crimes, not misdemeanors, IS the operative clause in this case, and to really cinch that, high crimes has to be made to mean felonies in this case.

That's going to be very hard to do in the current political climate. Bush's remaining supporters (upon whos vocal support the ability of Senate Republicans to acquit him rests) are pretty vulcanized at this point. So we've got to rediscover the charges in a very different seeming way.

What this calls for is a fishing expedition. A thorough, careful, polite, sophisticated, dignified, exceedingly formal fishing expedition. You bring in a few people for inquiries: Richard Clarke and Janet Karpinski would be good places to start, until you can pin prisoner abuse to Cheney either by order or inaction- and I don’t mean waterboarding- I mean beatings, dogs, and naked twister. Then you use the Cheney trial in the Senate to dig up evidence on Bush himself. Create the appearance of discovering what everyone basically knows in the back of their mind, and for the first time connect the dots between the “wrong” acts and the laws they were forbidden by, and do it all not in the “liberal media” or some aloof think-tank, but within the somehow mystical and hallowed walls of the Capitol.

I think that’s the way they’ve got to go down. It’s psychologically and historically important that the case against the Nazis moved from the news reels to a court room, and so must go the charges against this administration if enough people are to accept a radical departure from business as usual instead of recoiling from it as just another political ploy.

Edit to add: Brimstone's notion of going after Cheney over energy is probably actually the even better route. Missed that one earlier.

[edit on 14-11-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
But do tell us the source from which you conclude that 41 is now back in control of the White House?


I've heard bits of this in the media as well. Some people seem to believe that Bush 41 is invading this administration to try and salvage this god awful mess for the sake of the dynasty- I could see why I suppose; I'm sure the master plan never included JEB hitting his peak as Governor of Florida.
I don't know how good the support for this view is though. I did a little looking but haven't got time to dig deep enough to endorse or dismiss it really.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join