Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






The Underground Girls of Kabul


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

Olbermann Calls on Bush to Resign

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 4, 2007
Olbermann

In another of his not-to-be-missed special comments, Keith Olbermann takes the president to task over his commutation of “Scooter” Libby’s sentence. The “Countdown” host compares Bush to Richard Nixon, who, he says, at least had the decency to resign once his abuse of power was exposed.

Watch it here.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Inherit The Wind, July 18, 2007 at 9:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bukko in Australia on 7/18 at 12:24 am
(85 comments total)

Yeah, I tried to like the guy, because he’s not like the garden-variety troll who leaps into a thread, flings some poo and then doesn’t respond. Hondo returns to “debate” as you’ve noted, but it’s the debate of a record that skips to the same phrase in the song, over and over. I don’t bother responding to people like that either, because there’s no changing a mind that’s concreted over.

BTW, spirited defence against the anti-Semites on that other thread! Even down here, where the Jewish presence is minimal (although I live next to the Jewish suburb, where men in black coats and big fur hats fill the sidewalks outside the synagogues on Friday night) it’s amazing how much casual anti-Semitism there is. I think it’s some sort of subconscious reflex in Christians.

FWIW, I’m not Jewish but my only child is. You figure it out.

Yeah, I find Hondo goes back to the same Rovian talking points—but it least he’s not an anti-semite.

Thanks for the words of support. It’s good to see them. Casual anti-semitism is all over, like casual racism: “Jew the price down” “Dumb Polack/Guinea” “they are all thieves” “lousy beaner”, etc.

But “International Banking” has LONG been a code word for Jews used by the Nazis and their fellow travellers. So when I see it, I KNOW I’m no longer seeing casual anti-semitism, but, instead, the serious stuff.

Isn’t it amazing how your perspective changes when it involves your kid—my second kid is from Guatemala so we are now FAR more interested and informed about that region.

Tom Paxton wrote about his daughter, Katie:
“Mix an angel with a devil in the twinkling of an eye
and that’s my Katie, Little Lady,
and I love her!”

I know EXACTLY how he felt when he wrote that! smile

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, July 18, 2007 at 1:24 am Link to this comment

Yeah, I tried to like the guy, because he’s not like the garden-variety troll who leaps into a thread, flings some poo and then doesn’t respond. Hondo returns to “debate” as you’ve noted, but it’s the debate of a record that skips to the same phrase in the song, over and over. I don’t bother responding to people like that either, because there’s no changing a mind that’s concreted over.

BTW, spirited defence against the anti-Semites on that other thread! Even down here, where the Jewish presence is minimal (although I live next to the Jewish suburb, where men in black coats and big fur hats fill the sidewalks outside the synagogues on Friday night) it’s amazing how much casual anti-Semitism there is. I think it’s some sort of subconscious reflex in Christians.

FWIW, I’m not Jewish but my only child is. You figure it out.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 17, 2007 at 5:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bukko in Australia on 7/16 at 6:11 pm
(84 comments total)

ITW, are you aware that Hondo is a public school teacher? He had a post on his blog a while back about how he would not let his class attend an optional AIDS education lecture because he thought it was a ploy to recruit them into the homosexual lifestyle.

You should read his blog, mate. You’d see Hondo is a lot like your Mr. Margro. Those character types do not disappear from society. And here you are as a grown-up, debating another one…

************************

Of course you are correct, Bukko.

But I really want to counter the propaganda that Hondo regularly posts here.  He presents the rightwingnut talking points and if they aren’t debated says “See? Everyone’s afraid to debate my superior facts and logic!”  If someone does, he posts back for a while, then disappears for a couple of months.

Then he RE-appears and posts the same damn thing that was proven wrong months ago as if there never had been a discussion of it.  And, if it’s ignored, he says…“See? Everyone’s afraid to debate my superior facts and logic!”

So I’m not really addressing Hondo.  I KNOW his motto is “My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with facts!”  And I know he’s trolling.

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, July 16, 2007 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

ITW, are you aware that Hondo is a public school teacher? He had a post on his blog a while back about how he would not let his class attend an optional AIDS education lecture because he thought it was a ploy to recruit them into the homosexual lifestyle.

You should read his blog, mate. You’d see Hondo is a lot like your Mr. Margro. Those character types do not disappear from society. And here you are as a grown-up, debating another one…

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 16, 2007 at 11:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you can give me one solitary example of you being forced to worship Jesus Christ as you were growing up, I sure would like to hear about it.

The fact that you think it’s perfectly OK to spend MY tax dollars on promoting Christianity and isn’t a violation of the 1st Amendment shows you don’t understand the Separation Clause at all.

It’s perfectly within the rights of any and every church to display a creche on their lawn or at their parochial school lawns at Christmas time—or an any time.  It’s in public view but it’s private property—I would fight to the death to protect that.

But it is NOT within their rights to put such a creche on a PUBLIC lawn.  At that point the government is ENDORSING Christianity. It may not do that—that is what Thomas Jefferson fought to prevent.

Personal example:

When I was in 8th grade (public school, of course, or this episode would not be meaningful), in the 1968/1969 school year, my English teacher had this habit of facing us with arguments for and against a position.  He would have his position, then he would set up a straw man with the opposite (and always weaker) position. He was an incredible martinet. He didn’t ask US to make either argument, he just did it, and HEAVEN HELP the kid who questioned his Perfect Logic! He did this on a number of topics.  After nearly 40 years I only remember two.  1) Is cramming an effective way of studying? (Yes, I am baffled STILL by this)

2) Is beauty subjective or objective? Is it in the Eye of The Beholder or is it Absolute?

Mr. Margro went through a long, torturous (boring)“logical” path of which I remember only the ending…“and thus because God gave the world His only Son we can conclude that beauty, indeed, must be objective”.

He was the teacher, in his 40’s or 50’s. We were 13 year olds. A number of us were Jewish.  If that is not CRAMMING Christianity down our throats, what is? If that wasn’t a violation of OUR 1st Amendment rights, and the right of OUR parents to raise in the religion of THEIR choice (not the teacher’s) then what is?  As I said: Disagreeing with Mr. Margro was tantamount to suicide.  He was a teacher with a vast reputation, seniority and widely respected.

He was also a collosal asshole and a MAJOR (albeit, negative) influence on my life.  He inadvertently helped make me a skeptic.  He also personalize for me EXACTLY why religion MUST be kept out of public schools. You want your kids to get a religious education? Send them to parochial school or a yeshiva, or at least Sunday School, Catachism or Hebrew School.

Report this

By Hondo, July 15, 2007 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind: As I read all of your comments about being “forced” to worship according to the principles of Christianity, I noticed that you didn’t provide one single example of being “forced” to worship according to the principles of Christianity. All you talked about was watching others practice their religious faith in accordance with the protections of the 1st Amendment. What’s wrong with that? Nobody forced you to do anything. You, however, and like-minded liberals, have forced the Christian majority to go along with the principles of secular humanism. Too many Christians have meekly allowed you to do that. It’s not the Christians that you have to fear. It’s the 1st Amendment-hating liberals that are stripping our religious freedoms away from us.

If you can give me one solitary example of you being forced to worship Jesus Christ as you were growing up, I sure would like to hear about it.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 11, 2007 at 5:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo on 7/10 at 7:35 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind—

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the whole perjury thing. It seems so simple to me—you lie under oath and you have committed perjury. The judge in the Paula Jones case ruled that the questions pertaining to Monica were material and allowed them to be asked. Clinton lied. Was he convicted of perjury? No. Does that mean that he didn’t commit perjury? No. Just like a not guilty verdict for O.J. doesn’t mean that he didn’t kill anybody.

You need to review the facts of the case—Clinton’s lie came when he gave a deposition.  That’s not the same thing as testifying on the stand—the judge isn’t there to decide on relevancy issues.  Clinton’s lawyers made a HUGE mistake in allowing him to answer any questions about Monica Lewinsky—but that’s tactics.

You can think what you want about perjury. It’s simply wrong, legally.

By the way, I noticed that you completely ignored everything I said about Gingrich and DeLay, about Sandy Berger, and about Clinton’s national security record. I’ll take that to mean that you agree with all of my points. Either that, or you were unable to refute any of my facts/logic/reason.

You can assume whatever you want.  That won’t make it so.

One final point—What kind of crazy statement was that about Christians FORCING other Americans to worship Christianity. As Ronald Reagan once wisely said, “There you go again!” There aren’t any Christians attempting to force anyone to convert to Christianity. That’s what Muslims, among others, do. That’s also what the secular humanists, like yourself, attempt to do. Christians aren’t attempting to force anyone to worship in any specific way. It would be nice if the anti-Christian forces would show us the same courtesy.

Growing up NOT Christian in America you become EXTREMELY aware of the thousands of ways Christianity is shoved down your throat.  As an Agnostic I was even MORE aware of how all religion is shove down our throats in complete violation of the 1st Amendment.  I know it’s a hot button for you all about “In God We Trust” but did you know that Teddy Roosevelt had it REMOVED from the money because he, as a devout Christian, thought it sacreligious?  It’s true—look it up. 

Christianity is shoved down our throats in ways you cannot imagine, but I can. I grew up in the 60’s and entered HS in the fall of ‘69.  So in elementary and middle school we learned “World History”.  It was the history of Christian Europe, not the world, and the Crusades were taught as “liberating” the Holy Lands.

Christians “discovered” America and brought Christianity and civilization here…but they left out the part about bringing disease and FORCED conversions.

Asian history was barely touched in HS.  How can you understand the motivations of Japan prior to Pearl Harbor if you don’t understand Japanese history?

We are still taught that the Pilgrims came here to have religious freedom and escape English tyranny.  Remember how they first went to Holland?  Did you know that Holland was the first European nation to embrace religious tolerance and the Pilgrims were free to worship as they would there?  So why did they leave—and 70 years later they were hanging each other as witches.

Every year, as I was growing up, some group or other wanted to put a creche on the HS lawn.  There was (and is) a huge church on one side of the HS, another one on the other side, and an even bigger one across the street, each with their creches (there were other churches as well, and one Conservative synagogue).  WHY did they have to have a Christian symbol on the public school lawn as well? Why?

These are only a few of the ways it’s shoved down our throats, ways that would bother YOU if Moslems insisted kids face Mecca and pray to God with Arabic Islamic prayers.

As my mother would say “It depends on whose ox is being gored.”

(sorry if this repeats)

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 11, 2007 at 5:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo on 7/10 at 7:35 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind—

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the whole perjury thing. It seems so simple to me—you lie under oath and you have committed perjury. The judge in the Paula Jones case ruled that the questions pertaining to Monica were material and allowed them to be asked. Clinton lied. Was he convicted of perjury? No. Does that mean that he didn’t commit perjury? No. Just like a not guilty verdict for O.J. doesn’t mean that he didn’t kill anybody.

You need to review the facts of the case—Clinton’s lie came when he gave a deposition.  That’s not the same thing as testifying on the stand—the judge isn’t there to decide on relevancy issues.  Clinton’s lawyers made a HUGE mistake in allowing him to answer any questions about Monica Lewinsky—but that’s tactics.

You can think what you want about perjury. It’s simply wrong, legally.

By the way, I noticed that you completely ignored everything I said about Gingrich and DeLay, about Sandy Berger, and about Clinton’s national security record. I’ll take that to mean that you agree with all of my points. Either that, or you were unable to refute any of my facts/logic/reason.

You can assume whatever you want.  That won’t make it so.

One final point—What kind of crazy statement was that about Christians FORCING other Americans to worship Christianity. As Ronald Reagan once wisely said, “There you go again!” There aren’t any Christians attempting to force anyone to convert to Christianity. That’s what Muslims, among others, do. That’s also what the secular humanists, like yourself, attempt to do. Christians aren’t attempting to force anyone to worship in any specific way. It would be nice if the anti-Christian forces would show us the same courtesy.

Growing up NOT Christian in America you become EXTREMELY aware of the thousands of ways Christianity is shoved down your throat.  As an Agnostic I was even MORE aware of how all religion is shove down our throats in complete violation of the 1st Amendment.  I know it’s a hot button for you all about “In God We Trust” but did you know that Teddy Roosevelt had it REMOVED from the money because he, as a devout Christian, thought it sacreligious?  It’s true—look it up. 

Christianity is shoved down our throats in ways you cannot imagine, but I can. I grew up in the 60’s and entered HS in the fall of ‘69.  So in elementary and middle school we learned “World History”.  It was the history of Christian Europe, not the world, and the Crusades were taught as “liberating” the Holy Lands.

Christians “discovered” America and brought Christianity and civilization here…but they left out the part about bringing disease and FORCED conversions.

Asian history was barely touched in HS.  How can you understand the motivations of Japan prior to Pearl Harbor if you don’t understand Japanese history?

We are still taught that the Pilgrims came here to have religious freedom and escape English tyranny.  Remember how they first went to Holland?  Did you know that Holland was the first European nation to embrace religious tolerance and the Pilgrims were free to worship as they would there?  So why did they leave—and 70 years later they were hanging each other as witches.

Every year, as I was growing up, some group or other wanted to put a creche on the HS lawn.  There was (and is) a huge church on one side of the HS, another one on the other side, and an even bigger one across the street, each with their creches (there were other churches as well, and one Conservative synagogue).  WHY did they have to have a Christian symbol on the public school lawn as well? Why?

These are only a few of the ways it’s shoved down our throats, ways that would bother YOU if Moslems insisted kids face Mecca and pray to God with Arabic Islamic prayers.

As my mother would say “It depends on whose ox is being gored.”

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 11, 2007 at 5:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo on 7/10 at 7:35 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind—

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the whole perjury thing. It seems so simple to me—you lie under oath and you have committed perjury. The judge in the Paula Jones case ruled that the questions pertaining to Monica were material and allowed them to be asked. Clinton lied. Was he convicted of perjury? No. Does that mean that he didn’t commit perjury? No. Just like a not guilty verdict for O.J. doesn’t mean that he didn’t kill anybody.

You need to review the facts of the case—Clinton’s lie came when he gave a deposition.  That’s not the same thing as testifying on the stand—the judge isn’t there to decide on relevancy issues.  Clinton’s lawyers made a HUGE mistake in allowing him to answer any questions about Monica Lewinsky—but that’s tactics.

You can think what you want about perjury. It’s simply wrong, legally.

By the way, I noticed that you completely ignored everything I said about Gingrich and DeLay, about Sandy Berger, and about Clinton’s national security record. I’ll take that to mean that you agree with all of my points. Either that, or you were unable to refute any of my facts/logic/reason.

You can assume whatever you want.  That won’t make it so.

One final point—What kind of crazy statement was that about Christians FORCING other Americans to worship Christianity. As Ronald Reagan once wisely said, “There you go again!” There aren’t any Christians attempting to force anyone to convert to Christianity. That’s what Muslims, among others, do. That’s also what the secular humanists, like yourself, attempt to do. Christians aren’t attempting to force anyone to worship in any specific way. It would be nice if the anti-Christian forces would show us the same courtesy.

Growing up NOT Christian in America you become EXTREMELY aware of the thousands of ways Christianity is shoved down your throat.  As an Agnostic I was even MORE aware of how all religion is shove down our throats in complete violation of the 1st Amendment.  I know it’s a hot button for you all about “In God We Trust” but did you know that Teddy Roosevelt had it REMOVED from the money because he, as a devout Christian, thought it sacreligious?  It’s true—look it up. 

Christianity is shoved down our throats in ways you cannot imagine, but I can. I grew up in the 60’s and entered HS in the fall of ‘69.  So in elementary and middle school we learned “World History”.  It was the history of Christian Europe, not the world, and the Crusades were taught as “liberating” the Holy Lands.

Christians “discovered” America and brought Christianity and civilization here…but they left out the part about bringing disease and FORCED conversions.

Asian history was barely touched in HS.  How can you understand the motivations of Japan prior to Pearl Harbor if you don’t understand Japanese history?

We are still taught that the Pilgrims came here to have religious freedom and escape English tyranny.  Remember how they first went to Holland?  Did you know that Holland was the first European nation to embrace religious tolerance and the Pilgrims were free to worship as they would there?  So why did they leave—and 70 years later they were hanging each other as witches.

Every year, as I was growing up, some group or other wanted to put a creche on the HS lawn.  There was (and is) a huge church on one side of the HS, another one on the other side, and an even bigger one across the street, each with their creches (there were other churches as well, and one Conservative synagogue).  WHY did they have to have a Christian symbol on the public school lawn as well? Why?

These are only a few of the thousands of ways it’s shoved down our throats, ways that would bother YOU if Moslems insisted kids face Mecca and pray to God with Arabic Islamic prayers.

As my mother would say “It depends on whose ox is being gored.”

Report this

By Hondo, July 10, 2007 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind—

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the whole perjury thing. It seems so simple to me—you lie under oath and you have committed perjury. The judge in the Paula Jones case ruled that the questions pertaining to Monica were material and allowed them to be asked. Clinton lied. Was he convicted of perjury? No. Does that mean that he didn’t commit perjury? No. Just like a not guilty verdict for O.J. doesn’t mean that he didn’t kill anybody.

By the way, I noticed that you completely ignored everything I said about Gingrich and DeLay, about Sandy Berger, and about Clinton’s national security record. I’ll take that to mean that you agree with all of my points. Either that, or you were unable to refute any of my facts/logic/reason.

One final point—What kind of crazy statement was that about Christians FORCING other Americans to worship Christianity. As Ronald Reagan once wisely said, “There you go again!” There aren’t any Christians attempting to force anyone to convert to Christianity. That’s what Muslims, among others, do. That’s also what the secular humanists, like yourself, attempt to do. Christians aren’t attempting to force anyone to worship in any specific way. It would be nice if the anti-Christian forces would show us the same courtesy.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 10, 2007 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo,
You were proven wrong.  You don’t get to make up “facts”.  I guess you didn’t bother to READ what I posted or where I got it from.  You can write1000 times that if you don’t answer truthfully under oath you are committing perjury and 1000 times you’ll be wrong.  Curiously, I got the “relevancy” argument re: perjury from a right wing-nut who makes YOU look like a liberal—His argument exploded on that very point (He, too, believed Clinton committed a crime, but cited “relevancy” in another argument and found egg on his face re: Clinton).

“Relevancy” OBVIOUSLY is not decided by the witness.  I never said it was, nor would I. It is DECIDED by the JUDGE. THAT is the Judge’s JOB—to decide what is admitted into evidence, to inform the Jury of the Law, and what they should and should not consider.  The JUDGE in the “Paula Jones” Case DECIDED (as was her duty) that that false testimony WAS NOT RELEVANT!

Clinton received sanctions because he was a member of the Bar and held to a higher standard.

I know Stare Decisis is a liberal concept. After all, Justices of the US Supreme Court cite it all the time(including the late Chief Justice Rehnquist).

Live in your fantasy world, guy, where you imagine the economy is booming, your civil rights are safe, your homeland is protected, your air and water are safe to breathe and drink, your tax dollars are being wisely spent, and you can FORCE every American to worship Christianity. 

And pray to your God that nothing like Katrina or the WTC attack happens near you so that you don’t have to wake up from your delicious dream to learn that your nation is run by incompetent, corrupt tyrants who see you and me as nothing more than slaves whose lives have no value, and will give billions of YOUR dollars to their buds, but not spend a nickel wisely to protect YOU.

Report this

By Hondo, July 10, 2007 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind—I have spoken nothing but truth, which can easily be verified by looking in places other than these crazy left-wing blogs. You, on the other hand, continue to spread lies. We have arrived at another teachable moment. Here’s the lesson:

1. First, you say that the impeachment of Clinton was over “trumped-up charges.” That is a lie. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. That’s called “perjury” and it is a crime. We can debate all night about whether or not it was proper for questions about Lewinski to be asked under oath, but that misses the point. A person under oath cannot pick and choose which questions he thinks are “appropriate” to answer truthfully. You are legally required to answer all questions truthfully. Clinton perjured himself, and that’s a crime. It’s also a fact that all of the liberal lies in the world can’t obscure.

2. You say that Gingrich and DeLay are power-hungry and corrupt. As I recall, both men have been exonerated on all of the “trumped-up” (to borrow your phrase) corruption charges. That makes your assertion another liberal lie. Regardless, there is nothing about “conflict of interest” in the Constitution. That’s just another goofy phrase that a liberal like yourself will pull out of their back pocket when you don’t want one of your guys held accountable for committing a crime.

3. You say that Bush ignored terrorism. I guess you’re referring to the 8 months Bush served as president before 9/11. What about the 8 years of Slick Willie, when the Clinton administration turned down opportunities to capture and/or kill Bin Laden? What about the budgetary castration of America’s intelligence and military forces during the Clinton era? What about the legal “wall of separation” that the Clinton administration created between the FBI and the CIA, for the express purpose of making communication bewteen the two organizations more difficult?

Of course, people with an axe to grind against pres. Bush ignore all of those facts. For me, the single biggest piece of proof that exists concerning the culpability of the Clintonistas for 9/11 is the fact that Sandy Berger committed a felony by stealing, and shredding, classified national security documents that would have shown to the public just how incompetent Clinton was in safeguarding national security. Berger knew what those papers would say, so he destroyed them.

By the way, you cheap liberal imitation of Clarence Darrow, you lied AGAIN when you attempted to define “perjury.” In what law book does it say that the defendant gets to pick and choose what questions he thinks are “material” to the case at hand? Good grief, liberal scarecrow, ask the wizard for a brain! You can’t lie under oath and then defend yourself by saying, “I don’t think that question was material.”

You have just given us a perfect illustration of why it is irresponsible to ever vote for a liberal for public office. Liberals don’t care about the truth!

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, July 10, 2007 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

Inherit, don’t feel bad about taking Hondo’s bait. Lots of people do. I’ve seen it happen when he pops up here every few months. It’s enraging to be confronted with such obdurate ignorance, and sensible people feel compelled to rise to counter it. But it’s like talking to a rock, or as Ardee notes, a pile of dog poo.

What interests me is that Hondo, who is a Dittohead like you surmise, is slowly converting to liberalism. Notice how he denounces the screeching high priestess of the movement, AnntiChrist Coulter. He’s not one of “those” conservatives.

Hondo is proof of how “conservative” is the new “liberal”—an ideology that dare not claim its name. Have you noticed how many formerly self-identified conservatives deny that they are? Conservatives are ashamed to admit it. They realise how badly they have screwed up EVERYTHING.

And Hondo secretly WANTS to be a liberal. He’s written that in his college years, he was one. He keeps coming to TruthDig because he’s secretly fascinated with the forbidden. It’s the same motivation that attracted pastor Ted Haggard to gay bars (subject of another TruthDig thread.) With gentle recruitment by other liberals, Hondo will be able to come out of the conservative closet and open up to his true self!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 9, 2007 at 8:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ardee on 7/09 at 4:50 am
(251 comments total)

#85213 by Hondo on 7/08 at 6:48 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

I noticed that nobody but Cyrena even attempted to debate me on the facts that I presented. I suspect that’s because you can’t. All I saw were personal attacks, schoolyard taunts and a massive changing of the subject. It’s a shame how weak minded most liberals are!

.......

Most folks step around piles of dog poop when encountered, and most dont bother to speak to absurdities either.

******************

I wish I had said that…much easier than the long post (which, at this time, is still not online here).

I guess if you argue with a fool then two fools are arguing.  And now I feel like a fool for taking the bait.

Report this

By ardee, July 9, 2007 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

#85213 by Hondo on 7/08 at 6:48 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

I noticed that nobody but Cyrena even attempted to debate me on the facts that I presented. I suspect that’s because you can’t. All I saw were personal attacks, schoolyard taunts and a massive changing of the subject. It’s a shame how weak minded most liberals are!

.......

Most folks step around piles of dog poop when encountered, and most dont bother to speak to absurdities either.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 9, 2007 at 5:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo,
Now on to your other garbage propaganda.  BTW, your assertion of facts is is nothing but the phony interpretation fed you by the nutty right wing, that you swallow without question.

You say that Clinton’s lie didn’t hurt the nation. Actually, it did. If he had been open and honest right from the start, there wouldn’t have been any impeachment trial. What a huge distraction that was as the forces of Islamofascism were mobilizing and getting stronger. Maybe if Clinton had been a liitle more interested in national security, and a little less interested in blow jobs, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

You have two amazing lies in this section. First, the impeachment trial was BULLSHIT from Day 1. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay (two extremely corrupt power-hungry politicians ) saw impeachment as a way to power, to kick out both Clinton and Gore and guess who would have been President? Why, Newt Gingrich—(conflict of interest there?)  They hoped the scandal would embarrass Clinton into resigning.  Their GOP colleagues in the Senate were HORRIFIED by the House’s bringing of articles but bound by party loyalty and spines made of pure jello, they went along with it.

The DISTRACTION to the nation was created by Republicans prosecuting a phony impeachment on trumped-up crap about a blow job.

The second lie: This one started on 9/12/2001—the day AFTER 9/11.  Clinton and his team had BEGGED the Bush administration to consider terrorism and Al Qaeda as high priority. Instead, the Bushies dropped ALL terrorism investigations.

But with 9/11 and the hard, solid proof that the Bushies were asleep at the wheel, with their pants down, they did the ONLY thing they are good at: Propaganda. Rove cranked up the propaganda machine to try to pass the buck and blame Clinton for the failure on 9/11.

But ditto heads like you, who can’t except the total incompetence of this regime, eagerly bought into the crap that Bush was on top of terrorism before 9/11 but that Clinton left too much to overcome.  THAT IS TOTALLY PROVEN A LIE BY THE FACTS!  There are NUMEROUS books from form WH insiders that PROVE the Bushies ignored terrorism until it was too late.

One final point. The Scooter case had nothing to do with pre-war intel. The case was about whether or not the laws concerning the “outing” of covert CIA agents had been violated. Prosecutor Fitzgerald knew right out of the gate that, 1.) the law had not been violated, and; 2.) Richard Armitage was the one who “outed” Valerie Plame. By all rights, the investigation should have stopped right there. It wasn’t. That doesn’t excuse Libby’s perjury. It does, though, shed some light on the barrel-full of lies that you attempted to pass off as truth in your post.

Hondo: You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Libby knew from the get-go that it was Armitage.  But he did EVERYTHING possible to prevent Fitzgerald from discovering that. What also came out is that Cheney’s office took the lead in attempting to destroy Joe Wilson and Libby was part of that. “Outing” Mrs. Wilson was done by at least 3 people, including Karl Rove.  But only Robert Novak (that right wing whore) had the indecency to print it—and his source was Armitage (or so we are told).

Lies?  Ditto-heads like you faithfully push whatever is today’s propaganda WITHOUT QUESTION!

And Hondo, your arrogance of saying things like
“I noticed that nobody but Cyrena even attempted to debate me on the facts that I presented. I suspect that’s because you can’t.” is a royal pain in the ass.

You don’t have facts, your have RNC talking points. You don’t have logical arguments, you just have regurgitated dogma.  No matter HOW many times someone proves your “facts” to be false, the next time you show up here you present the same crap again is if nobody ever questioned them or proved them wrong.

Face this fact, Hondo: Everything you know is wrong.

Have a nice day.
ITW

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 9, 2007 at 4:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo on 7/07 at 6:29 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind:

On what planet did you get your law degree? It certainly wasn’t Planet Earth! I thank you, though, for providing us with a teachable moment. Let the lesson begin.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

This link will take you to the legal definition of the word “perjury.” You will find that the real definition is quite different from your pretend definition. That’s not so surprising. One of the curses of liberalism is that it renders the victim unable to differentiate between fact and fiction.

***************************************************

No, Hondo, I am ABSOLUTELY correct. Had you done any research at all besides looking for what you wanted to find. Let me help relieve the ignorance you so vehemently persist in maintaining. You would have learned that RELEVANCY is a critical element to perjury and the prosecution of perjury.  It is more than simply what the statute says—it is how that is interpreted and enforced by the courts, state and federal.  This creates a PRECEDENT that has the force of law, in most cases.  I may not have gone to law school but I do know that PRECEDENT is as critical as the statute itself—“Stare Decisis” is the term Justices of the Supreme Court use to justify PRECEDENT!  Here is Lectlaw (your own reference library) on Stare Decisis to verify that:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s065.htm

Now HERE is what Perjury REALLY means:
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm

Perjury is the “willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding”. It is sometimes called “lying under oath”; that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.

You see, Hondo, I’m not “from another planet”. I know EXACTLY what I’m talking about and the references prove it.  Bill Clinton did NOT commit perjury because of the RELEVANCY interpretation of the Perjury Statute. 

It has NOTHING to do with “Liberalism” (God, you throw that in EVERY time as if you are some kind of superior being because you are a George Bush/Rush Limbaugh Ditto Head).  It has to do with THE LAW, which the commutation of the Libby sentence proves Republicans, especially THIS president, have NO respect for.

Republicans used to be loyal Americans with a more conservative bent than Democrats. But they have rapidly moved to becoming fascists who wish to overturn the Constitution to create a Christian Taliban dictatorship.  At least some of them are regaining their senses and FINALLY questioning and standing up to this, the worst President in the history of our nation.

Maybe “Conservative” will come to mean Conservative again, and not radical reactionary fascism.  Then I might actually respect it, even when I don’t agree with it.

So, Hondo, having solidly proven my point, I must ask YOU—Where did YOU get your law degree?  Demand a refund!

Report this

By siri, July 8, 2007 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Olbermann’s comment is, as amazingly usual, the most relevant and real comment ongoing in MSM today.  However, it predisposes an element of decency from this administration.  God and Liberty stand with Keith in his effort, but those of us who GET IT about the Bu$h administration know that “decency” is an unknown concept.  Their administration was ALWAYS about the money.  And neither Bu$h nor Rove nor Cheney nor Abu Gonzo, (and let us not forget Donald Rumsfeld), and Condi are not going to voluntarily go away.  We The People NEED to get it through to Mrs. Pelosi that IMPEACHMENT needs to happen here and now.  AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO TO IMPRESS THAT UPON HER.  I work for impeachment daily, and I am aware that my words are falling on deaf ears.  I will continue to work for impeachment, but I am TOTALLY AWARE that this is NOT MY GOVERNMENT, NOT MY COUNTRY, not my spirit being heard.  THIS country is NOT the one in which I was raised, and I am, a true American, homesick and shamed in the rightful eyes of the “rest of the world”.  This is NO LONGER a government “OF THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE”.
The Bu$h Administration is holding us hostage, and the American Congress will not act on our part.  I KNOW NOT WHAT ELSE TO DO.  I AM A HOSTAGE, my country is gone.  I pray to God that this is a temporary situation, but I think it is not.

I am and remain hopeless in Colorado.

IMPEACH
INVESTIGATE
INDICT
IMPRISON
IMPALE!

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
http://www.legitgov.org

Report this

By Hondo, July 8, 2007 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I noticed that nobody but Cyrena even attempted to debate me on the facts that I presented. I suspect that’s because you can’t. All I saw were personal attacks, schoolyard taunts and a massive changing of the subject. It’s a shame how weak minded most liberals are!

Cyrena—Although I disagree with your response, I can respect your point of view. Maybe it is a stretch to say that the constant scandals, including Jones/Lewinski, led to 9/11. I believe that because it is my opinion that if Clinton had been paying more attention to national security, he could have had Bin Laden in custody and 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. You’re right, though. We could play “what if” games all night and never be any closer to the truth.

I will say, though, that I completely disagree with your comparisons of Clinton perjury and Libby perjury. BOTH were harmful to the nation.

It doesn’t matter whether “we the people” needed to know about Clinton’s sex life. He was asked a question under oath and he lied. That’s perjury, and a violation of his oath of office. I’m not one of those wacky Ann Coulter-conservatives who think he should have been jailed, but he absolutely deserved to be kicked out of office. America’s Chief Executive cannot lie under oath! It undermines the rule of law, it’s against the law, and it is unacceptable.

The same goes for Libby. He lied under oath. The prosecutor abused the powers of his position, and there never should have been an investigation, but that doesn’t absolve Libby of the crime of perjury. He got what he deserved with the fine and loss of cushy White House job. He did not deserve prison.

Bottom line—-Libby and Clinton were both guilty of the exact same thing, and they both harmed the nation. Libby lost his job and payed a fine. Clinton was impeached and disbarred. Both got what they deserved.

Oh, and Cyrena is the only person on this thread who has demonstrated the intellectual capacity to debate this issue.

Report this

By kikz, July 8, 2007 at 8:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

why didn’t he mention all the uncounted “needless” iraqi deaths?

Report this

By ardee, July 8, 2007 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

Why on earth are we still talking about Bill Clinton? Oh so we dont talk about George Bush and numerous failed strategies and policies of course!

I wonder at a mind that can call the unsuccessful impeachment trial of Bill a travesty yet approve of the whitewashing and eventual pardoning of Lewis Libby. Clinton pardoned 140 on his way out, none of whom shielded high WH officials from investigations into what could very well be defined as a treasonous action.

Report this

By moe, July 8, 2007 at 5:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Keith
I hope this is not the end of your comments..

The pressure must be increased and sustained until the nightmare ends!!!

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, July 8, 2007 at 2:56 am Link to this comment

Mike, you should realise that Hondo LOOOOOOOVES him some Jesus! That’s why Hondo must serve the AntiChrist (otherwise known as George Satanicus Bush.)

You see, only by advancing the cause of the AntiChrist can people like Hondo bring about the Biblical Armageddon that will fetch his sweet ever-lovin’ Jayzuss back to Earth. So Hondo is doing Christ’s work by doing the AntiChrist’s work. Simple as that. To simpletons, at least.

Report this

By cyrena, July 8, 2007 at 1:32 am Link to this comment

Sorry Hondo…

You say that Clinton’s lie didn’t hurt the nation. Actually, it did. If he had been open and honest right from the start, there wouldn’t have been any impeachment trial. What a huge distraction that was as the forces of Islamofascism were mobilizing and getting stronger. Maybe if Clinton had been a liitle more interested in national security, and a little less interested in blow jobs, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.


All of this is just TOO far of a stretch into the rabbit holes of “what ifs”. Not even the most liberal of liberals come even come up with this.

The only reason that whole “clinton impeachment circus” even moved forward, was because it’s old-style traditional dirty politics that are particularly suited to the gang that is still running the show.

That’s all it was, was dirty politics, and it’s nothing new. There’s not even a reason to hold that up as an example of the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

Report this

By Hondo, July 7, 2007 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Inherit the Wind:

On what planet did you get your law degree? It certainly wasn’t Planet Earth! I thank you, though, for providing us with a teachable moment. Let the lesson begin.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

This link will take you to the legal definition of the word “perjury.” You will find that the real definition is quite different from your pretend definition. That’s not so surprising. One of the curses of liberalism is that it renders the victim unable to differentiate between fact and fiction.

You are correct when you say that Clinton was not found guilty of perjury.That doesn’t mean that he didn’t perjure himself, however. He very clearly did, which you will see if you read the definition of the word “perjury.” The judge did, in fact, find Clinton “in contempt” for lying under oath in the Paula Jones case. Lawyers/judges can parse words and split hairs all they want, but lying under oath is perjury, no matter how you slice it.

You say that Clinton’s lie didn’t hurt the nation. Actually, it did. If he had been open and honest right from the start, there wouldn’t have been any impeachment trial. What a huge distraction that was as the forces of Islamofascism were mobilizing and getting stronger. Maybe if Clinton had been a liitle more interested in national security, and a little less interested in blow jobs, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

One final point. The Scooter case had nothing to do with pre-war intel. The case was about whether or not the laws concerning the “outing” of covert CIA agents had been violated. Prosecutor Fitzgerald knew right out of the gate that, 1.) the law had not been violated, and; 2.) Richard Armitage was the one who “outed” Valerie Plame. By all rights, the investigation should have stopped right there. It wasn’t. That doesn’t excuse Libby’s perjury. It does, though, shed some light on the barrel-full of lies that you attempted to pass off as truth in your post.

Report this

By G. Anderson, July 7, 2007 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush can’t resign, because he has so much more to do in his remaining time.

But if he doesn’t resign, then who will pardon him?

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, July 6, 2007 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

Hondo is back! For all you people who waste time responding to him, be aware that “Hondo” (why styles his screen name after a Boston Celtics basketball player named John Havlicek, not the John Wayne movie character) is a sporadic pot-stirrer on TruthDig. I’ve been visiting this site for about a year, and have witnessed numerous outbreaks of Hondo-itis. He posts the same simplistic anti-liberal diatribes and gets a lot of people to reply to him. I think it gratifies his need for attention.

If you want to see what Hondo is about, visit his blog at ChristianConservatives.blogspot.com. he is the kind of “Christian” who writes abvout how much he loves his children, then posts that the U.S should drop nuclear bombs on Tehran, thereby incinerating millions of innocent children. he is a folower of the Jesus who said “Slaughter the little children who don’t come unto me.” Unfortunately, that’s the Jesus of some alternate universe…

Report this

By CactusJack41, July 6, 2007 at 10:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you Keith Olberman. Bush and Cheney should resign and spare this nation more of the same lies and outright desecration of our constitution. With the commutation of Libby, they have now flagrantly put themselves above the law of the land, and the people of this country should be made fully aware of that. It has now become painfully obvious to all that Bush and Cheney will do anything to hide the facts of how they started this war in Iraq that has killed so many, and done so much harm to this nation.

Report this

By ardee, July 6, 2007 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

#84390 by Bukko in Australia on 7/05 at 9:24 pm
(67 comments total)

Ardee, I can tell that you’ve been listening to Thom Hartmann. You heard Hartmann talk to that Democratic strategist at the liberals’ conference in D.C. who said that they were going to bash the fascists with the war, war, war in 2008—but then the strategist admitted the Dems didn’t have a Plan B if the occupation is not so much of an issue. If only America had an opposition party that knew what it was doing!


Right and right, Hartmann is, in my opinion, the best of the lot on AAR. I cannot comprehend this strategy of the Dems, one that leaves them so open to failure. In the light of the myriad of illegalities and incompetencies of this administration why focus ONLY upon one such?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 6, 2007 at 5:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo,
You are good for a laugh too.

It’s no surprise that you don’t have a clue to the difference between Clinton’s actions and Libby’s.

Here it is: Clinton did not commit a crime.  He lied under oath, but it was NOT perjury and therefore not a crime.  Perjury REQUIRES that the lie be relevant to the case. The judge ruled that Clinton’s consensual relations with Lewinsky were not relevant to a SEXUAL HARASSMENT case. Not relevant. Therefore not perjury. Therefore not a crime.

Libby, OTOH, DID lie in his testimony that WAS relevant to the case at hand.  He not only fulfilled the requirements of perjury, HE WAS CONVICTED OF IT!  Other people prosecuted by the Bush administration and convicted of EXACTLY THE SAME CRIMES are forced to serve the sentence without pardon that for a crony, somehow, was too harsh.  Typical Bush hypocrisy.  If you do it, no penalty is too harsh. If our guy does it, we let him off.

Then there is the real question: Was this commutation a ‘quid pro quo’?  That could well constitute an impeachable offense. 

Finally, the obvious: Clinton’s lie about a BJ didn’t hurt the nation.  Libby’s lie was part of a conspiracy that has gotten 3500 of our best Americans killed and as many as 650,000 Iraqis wrongfully dead.  A fine, deeply experienced CIA expert has had her career destroyed AND the CIA lost her expertise.

As a self-proclaimed religious person, Hondo, haven’t you picked up on the fact that your pal, Bush, has been LAUGHING at you evangelicals for years, seeing you as dupes to take advantage of?  Many of your colleagues have figured out that Bush IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE!  He’s not a Liberal.  He’s a radical reactionary whose first loyalty is to his fellow wealthy friends.

Report this

By cyrena, July 6, 2007 at 2:34 am Link to this comment

#84406 by Hondo on 7/05 at 10:51 pm

Hondo, I don’t know if you realized that many pundits/columnists/historians/legal scholars, etc, etc, have already acknowledged that the constitution allows for the president to “pardon” whomever he wants. It generally happens at the end of the term, and it generally happens after a legitimately tried and convicted criminal has already served some time.

So, we are in fact aware of this. But, there’s a danger in equating the perjury of Libby, (who was in fact the fall guy for Cheney) with that of Slick Willie. Clinton lied about a blow job, that in all fairness, simply did NOT effect the average American citizen. It didn’t cost us any money for Clinton to get this “service” and it didn’t cost us any lives.

In short, rational folks really shouldn’t have much CARED about what Clinton was doing, in this respect. I didn’t need to know, and I don’t know that any of the rest of us did either, unless we have a lot of perverts who get off on this kind of stuff.

Libbies’ lies simply were not to that same degree, and it was more than about lying about a blow job. It was obstruction of justice, and it was part of the lead-up to what has become a trillion plus dollar expenditure to destroy another nation for it’s natural resources. Too many people have died as a result of Libbies “obstruction of justice” as well as his perjury.

So, those are at least a few reasons why these are not the same “crimes” committed by Clinton, as opposed to Libby or any of the criminals that he protects at a higher level.

Meantime, I’m still pissed that we spent all of that money on the “impeachment” of Clinton, for lying about a private matter. Maybe he should have just taken the 5th.

Report this

By Hondo, July 5, 2007 at 11:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Olbermann is always good for a laugh! What America needs now are just a few more failed sportscasters telling the rest of us what to think about political news! Maybe the Dems can dig up Howard Cosell for Air America!

For the record, Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence is not an “abuse of power.” Article II, Sec. 2 gives the President the expressed power to grant “reprieves and pardons.” Contrary to the “informed opinions” of the liberaliar establishment, Pres. Bush acted in accordance with the Constitution.

My personal opinion? The Scooter-Meister lied through his teeth, and he did it under oath. Just like Clinton did. Scooter should be disbarred, pay a huge fine, and lose his job in the White House (already done). That’s just exactly what should have happened with Slick Willie when he committed perjury. Neither one should serve time in prison.

By the way, where was all this outrage when Clinton was doing “2-for-1 pardons” during the last moments of his garage sale….I mean his administration?

Wow! I guess that makes me a consistent conservative, and intellectually honest! What a breath of fresh air in the stale atmosphere of liberal dishonesty!

Honestly, I think some of you liberaliars are “a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock!”

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, July 5, 2007 at 10:24 pm Link to this comment

Ardee, I can tell that you’ve been listening to Thom Hartmann. You heard Hartmann talk to that Democratic strategist at the liberals’ conference in D.C. who said that they were going to bash the fascists with the war, war, war in 2008—but then the strategist admitted the Dems didn’t have a Plan B if the occupation is not so much of an issue. If only America had an opposition party that knew what it was doing!

Report this

By jamesclare, July 5, 2007 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

Part II of e-mail to Keith Olberman - 25 May 07

The march to the White House by Congressional leaders, both parties, will be a day for the history books. The weakened executive will give in to all demands and step down, because they do respect power and that power will give them no choice. Cheney must be made to step down first and a new VP selected to address the fear of a Cheney or Pelosi presidency. The new VP/President would have to be a Republican and it must be someone like Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is familiar with Iraq, diplomacy and who, ostensibly, has the experience to guide the country. It would be nice to have a promise from him or her not to run, but that is probably not enforceable. Democrats will just have to take their chances, but what is more important, constructing an effective government now or subjecting the nation to 20 more months of unraveling? So far, the answer has not been reassuring.

The new cabinet would be bi-partisan so that a unity government is assured. The possibilities for this executive branch are breathtaking. It must employ the most experienced and pragmatic negotiators, peace makers and war fighters from all parties.

Most importantly, America will renew herself before a startled, yet immensely relieved world. No longer will our allies and much of this nation withhold their valuable resources in a desire to see this strange and destructive administration fail. The delight of watching the hated American executive branch twist into oblivion will no longer affect decision-making across the globe. The only benefit to our allies and even many of our foes will be to aid rather than abet the situation in Iraq and the entire Middle East, whatever course that takes. Congress will move ahead with a level of respect and support that it will hardly know what to do with. As for as the next president; campaigning can resume after the nation’s business is taken care of. In fact, it will be much more interesting.

Or, we can continue our present course.

James Clare Woodside
Architect . Planner


Next - Part II - How the new government can change the Iraq dynamic

Report this

By jamesclare, July 5, 2007 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

My e-mail to Keith Olberman on May 25, 2007

Not the ‘I’ Word; the ‘R’ Word

Dear Mr. Olberman:

You are one of the few commentators who realize how enmeshed our government is in their cocoon and how totally dysfunctional it has become. Neither party can step outside of the standard mode of operation and conceive of a different way of doing things. In so many ways, they are afraid. They are afraid of losing an election, afraid of taking responsibility, afraid of any challenge to their power. They cannot and will not see that the problem of this war and our dysfunctional executive branch cannot be solved by tinkering around the edges with endless nattering about benchmarks, deadlines, war funding and who will be our next president. The issue is not $0, $50 or $100 billion of funding. It is the fact that we have lost our standing in the world and a great measure of our strength to deal with the issues we face because of this. There is a solution and it is the only one that will make a difference. It has surely been considered and the cast aside out of fear, not only to stand up to this oligarchy that has stolen the government but fear to assume the mantle of responsibility. This president and his minions can be brought down within a week when the Democrats make up their mind to do so and this is how.

First, to gain any kind of credibility after their weak efforts on the war to date the Democrats must create their own version of ‘shock and awe’. They must convince the Party to suspend any participation in the presidential race immediately and start focusing on what is best for this country instead of who the next president is. Impossible? No, just improbable, because this action will threaten dreams of total power, the kind that brought down the Republicans. The problem is now, not 20 months from now and patriotic congressmen must stand up. The fact that the unraveling of Iraq and the disintegration of the Bush administration is actually advantageous to Democrats makes a rational unified way forward nearly impossible. The suspension of the race will suck the wind out of the political yammering and focus the talking heads, press and hopefully the nation on the very serious moves that must take place. It will empower the Democrats as nothing else could.

As the congressional democrats refocus their energy and efforts to that of salvaging our wrecked government, they will be able to enlist more Republicans in their rescue work than any conventional wisdom would allow. It is absolutely possible to attain the resignation of the President and his enablers if it is done ruthlessly and swiftly. We don’t have time for a long drawn-out process but the absolute inevitably of impeachment, trial and conviction will be enough. The great irony in this situation is that a majority of the Republicans, after some Democrat bashing, will leap at the chance to remove this millstone from their party and will complete the super majority. They will see their redemption and rehabilitation in this action and quickly be the more eager actor. The courage, however, must come from the Democrats in the knowledge that in removing this cancer from the national body, they may actually be helping the Republicans. This will require a determination and strength that the country has not witnessed in their Congress for many years. Democratic campaigns are well served by this crippled administration, however, the nation is not.

Reining in the Democratic presidential aspirants who will surely fight this action will require more strength than probably exists. If that strength is found, they can make the earth shake underneath the White House.

Report this

By ocjim, July 5, 2007 at 11:32 am Link to this comment

It is curious that only a few reporters are saying the obvious—that Bush should resign. But we must add Cheney to that equation. No way we want the corrupt mean-spirited, shoot-them-in-the-face Cheney to succeed the corrupt Bush.

Report this

By Hammo, July 5, 2007 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

There do seem to be many similarities and connections between the Bush-Cheney administration and the Nixon administration with his first VP, Spiro Agnew and his second VP, Gerald Ford.

For those who don’t remember the details, Agnew was forced to resign after criminal charges were filed. Then, Nixon made Ford VP. Ford then pardoned Nixon as Nixon resigned.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were brought into the Ford White House in important positions.

More on the connections in the article:

“Going in circles: Vietnam, Iraq, calls for impeachment”

PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America

http://www.populistamerica.com/going_in_circles_vietnam_iraq_calls_for_impeachment

Report this

By ardee, July 5, 2007 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

#84090 by Bukko in Australia on 7/04 at 8:14 pm
(66 comments total)

I’ve been whingeing it on blogs for months now—the Rethuglican Party itself needs to force Bush and Cheney to resign. Otherwise, the Repigs will be swept into an electoral oblivion in 2008 that even KKKarl Rove’s best precinct-by-precinct cheating won’t be able to overcome. The stench of Bush and Cheney will hang around the Rapeublicons like a dead chicken that a farmer would hang on the neck of an egg-sucking dog to put him off chicken-killing forever.

I wish I could be as certain as you as to the inevitability of the outcome of the ‘08 elections. It would seem, on the surface, that your assessment is correct and the American electorate would “throw the bums out”. But who the bums are is becoming less clear almost daily.

With the Democrats putting all their eggs into the Iraqi War issue it might be easily noted that, should Bush pull our troops out shortly before the election, he could pull the rug out from under them. As the GOP seems to always win the propaganda battles, can tie up a Democratic majority in the Legislature they will certainly be able to point to a do-nothing Congress during the elections.

Report this

By Pacrat, July 5, 2007 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another Bush Failure

Has Bush ever got anything right? Commuting the sentence of his advisor and close friend before he ever served a day for his crime is itself a likely crime. Does Bush care? Of course not! Does he have the maturity to resign? Of course not - he and his cronies are above all laws, right?

Thank goodness for Obermann - the only one courageous enough to tell it like it is. The dems are too overwhelmed by the republican minority and the minority of their own party to do anything as corageous as Obermann’s calling out - shameful.

Report this

By faith, July 5, 2007 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

Mr. Olbermann’s comments were amazing !  Heroic and dangerous -  Truly a voice in the wilderness ! Excellent.

I add one comment concerning Robert Scheer.  It is true that the Los Angeles Times dismissed him.  When they did that, a large group of loyal readers and subscribers to the LAT quit our subscriptions because we so offended.  This is exactly what happens when newspapers are bought out and run by conservative magnates who want to quash the truth and anyone who cares to think and analyze issues.  Our same group that quit the LAT now faithfully reads Truthdig.  We support Mr. Scheer, and his analysis on most issues.
Note that Time magazine is slowly doing the same thing that LAT did.  They are hiring more and more conservative pundits - William Cristol for one, and now tend to skew the truth.  We are cancelling that subscription as well.  The best news now is found on line.  At least we can get both points of view that way.

Report this

By CARTER JOSEPH, July 5, 2007 at 6:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bravo, Kieth Olberman.  This was one of the most moving pieces I have ever read, and then I saw you deliver it.  This screed needs to be repeated on every news outlet, and published in as many newspapers as are in the country.  We are angry out here, and the people need to be told the truth.  Thank you for speaking up and speaking out.  You are a true patriot, a great American, and a quintessential journalist.

Report this

By cyrena, July 5, 2007 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

#84154 by SamSnedegar on 7/05 at 2:56 am

You bring up some worthy points here Sam:


And why, if Olbermann is such a “truthful” person, does he NEVER mention oil as our raison de guerre? Sure, his corporate masters would fire his sorry ass just like they did Scheer’s if he tells TOO MUCH truth, but if he’s to be a Thomas Paine, he will have to do better than just calling for a resignation which will never ever come. And for that matter, you don’t ever hear Scheer mention oil either, do you?

I’d like to respond. You’re right that I’ve never heard Olbermann bring up the biggest elephant in the room, (the OIL HEIST, that is the Iraq occupation) and I bet your reasons for that, are probably true. He’d get his ass fired. (though I don’t know that his is a “sorry” ass). And, once he’s fired, he’s SILENCED, so then he can’t really reach an audience on ANYTHING… including the oil heist.

Same thing with Mr. Scheer, though I didn’t know that he had been “fired” or where he may have been “fired” from. I’m not surprised though, because truth tellers these days are extra vulnerable to that. Mr. Olbermann has come very close himself, and that’s without even mentioning the raison de guerre.

So, as a co-producer of Truthdig, Mr. Scheer doesn’t really HAVE to address that very obvious problem, because this site allows for the rest of us to address it, in a free speech sort of way. And, we certainly DO.

So, you should feel free to discuss that issue as well, since there are still many folks out there, who still don’t know what our reasons for destroying Iraq happened to be, or why Cheney is so determined to forge ahead with the destruction of Iran.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 5, 2007 at 5:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m a big fan of KO but this time he missed the mark.

Plus he gave Nixon ethical points ole Tricky Dick doesn’t deserve.

Nixon resigned SOLELY because he could count, and could count to 67.  It’s the same reason Bill Clinton didn’t resign.

Barry Goldwater and James Buckley went to Nixon when the Articles of Impeachment came out of the House Justice Committeed and TOLD Nixon that he could not count on 34 votes in the Senate to sustain a “Not Guilty” verdict.  Clinton was assured of at least 41 NG votes.

Since it takes 67 votes to convict on impeachement, you need 34 or more to ensure a “NG” verdict.

Nixon KNEW he would be convicted.  He resigned to prevent being the first President removed from office, to protect his pension, and remove legal traps for the future.

THAT and only that is why Richard M. Nixon resigned.

And because he knew he would NOT be convicted on the absurd trumped-up charges is the reason Bill Clinton fought impeachment.

Now we see all the SAME people who wanted Clinton out for lying about a blow job under oath demanding Bush give Libby a full pardon for committing perjury under oath—about seriously compromising our CIA clandestine operations.  BJs are worse than outing our intelligence officers in the Republican fantasy universe.

(Note: Bill Clinton lied under oath, which is NOT a crime, but did NOT commit perjury, which would have been a felony—this is a Republican urban myth they keep spouting.  The legal difference between lying under oath and perjury is very clear and definite. Perjury requires relevancy to the case.  The judge ruled that WJC’s consensual relations with Monica Lewinsky were not relevant to Paula Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit.  Therefore, it could not be perjury.)

I will give Nixon one ethical plus point: He did resign rather than seize power in a coup d’etat.  I believed at the time he would declare martial law and dissolve Congress.  Happily, at least in that, RMN was a better man than I gave him credit for being.

But if Bush were to face impeachment and be convicted, I wouldn’t put it past him to stage another terrorist attack and declare martial law.  He’s already found myriad ways to undermine the Constitution that Nixon never dreamed of.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, July 5, 2007 at 3:56 am Link to this comment

Hey, they didn’t kill democracy and steal America just to resign.

And why, if Olbermann is such a “truthful” person, does he NEVER mention oil as our raison de guerre? Sure, his corporate masters would fire his sorry ass just like they did Scheer’s if he tells TOO MUCH truth, but if he’s to be a Thomas Paine, he will have to do better than just calling for a resignation which will never ever come. And for that matter, you don’t ever hear Scheer mention oil either, do you?

Report this

By pogblog, July 5, 2007 at 12:43 am Link to this comment

Keith Olbermann is becoming a treasure. I watch him & Stewart & Colbert without fail. Call the White House direct Comments Line 202.456.1111 to express your dismay. It will be busy. Just redial very fast a few times when you get a busy signal. 

Also you can email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
and .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I told Mr. Cheney that the dream of America is that it is a government of laws not of privileged people. The idea that Mr. Libby would have been commuted if he had been Joe Citizen is brazen nonsense.

It is a darker day for America. I am deeply offended.

Report this

By Chris, July 4, 2007 at 11:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It really feels like a cleansing of the soul, to hear Keith deliver one of these types of commentaries. Want to have the wind knocked out of you? Want to be made speechless? Watch a commentary such as this.

These commentaries belong on a program such as “Bill Moyers Journal”, or “Democracy Now.” In a very real sense, they are actually too good for MSNBC.

But credit is due to that female newscaster on MSNBC, who REFUSED to read another idiotic Paris Hilton story. BRAVO!

I really wish you would do these commentaries more often…

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, July 4, 2007 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment

I’ve been whingeing it on blogs for months now—the Rethuglican Party itself needs to force Bush and Cheney to resign. Otherwise, the Repigs will be swept into an electoral oblivion in 2008 that even KKKarl Rove’s best precinct-by-precinct cheating won’t be able to overcome. The stench of Bush and Cheney will hang around the Rapeublicons like a dead chicken that a farmer would hang on the neck of an egg-sucking dog to put him off chicken-killing forever.

If Bush and Cheney are in office come November 2008, even the registered Republicans won’t be able to bring themselves to the polls—they’ll be too sick of it all. The ‘Cons will be reduced to a rump party of the unreconstructed South. And as much as I’d like to see that happen, I’d rather not see a nuclear attack on Iran and declaration of martial law in the U.S. (Not that it would affect ME any more. I know what you’re saying, Headley, which is why I split.) And President Cheney will have to ratchet up the chaos with acts like that to avoid total defeat of his fascist faction.

The only chance America has is for REPUBLICANS to stage a bloodless coup against them. It’s that, or a bloody revolution after the economic collapse of the U.S.

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, July 4, 2007 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Compare Keith’s comments to what any candidate is saying or for that matter any leader of either party.Which one do you think more accurately represents the feelings of 72% of the American people.Until a candidate or a leader realizes how angry we are and that Keith speaks for a great number of people who vote there will be no enthusiasm for the current crop of crap and they are opening the way for independent candidates who more accurately reflect the people’s wishes.

Report this

By Forest Peterson, July 4, 2007 at 3:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ask Bush & Cheny to resign?

As someone wrote, Federal Prison is a much more appropriate solution!

Actually, I’ve never been for capital punishment, but perhaps the most appropriate solution for these two - something in keeping with Bush’s & Cheny’s muderous, arrogant personalitites lack of respect for the law - would be to take them out in on the White House Lawn, and in the words of Judge Roy Bean, “give em good fair trial and hang em!”

Then perhaps we could all finally say “God Bless America!”

Report this

By ardee, July 4, 2007 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

One of the very few voices on our media speaking truth, how long do you suppose he has left?

As to the sublime ignorance of TiborRM (Registered Moron?) Can you list the 200? Can you find one who was an inside White House high ranking official guilty of six counts of perjury and obstruction of justice in blocking an investigation into what may be called a treasonous act?

By the way, RM, its 2007 and Bush is pResident…get it? How was that coma, anyway?

Report this

By Dale Headley, July 4, 2007 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There are a few great American heroes: Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Keith Olbermann, to name a few.  Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by the fascists: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity, to name a very few.  But, worst of all, they are both outnumbered by the majority of ordinary Americans who remain silent as their country crumbles around them.  It is an echo of the horrifying silence that permeated Germany before World War II.

Report this

By Kwagmyre, July 4, 2007 at 10:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A fabulous presentation, perhaps one of Keith’s best to date!

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, July 4, 2007 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

TiborRM -

My God, you are a complete moron.

Keith Olbermann is the Edward R Murrow of our time.

I almost stood up to salute him!

God Bless Him for having the courage to say exactly what needs to be said about these maggots in the White House. (I don’t mean to insult maggots)

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition, America: Freedom to Fascism

Report this

By Tony Vodvarka, July 4, 2007 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

My sincerest and deepest gratitude to Kieth Olbermann once again.  His brilliant and corageous use of his public pulpit is an example to us all.  He is speaking the full truth; let us all try to do the same.  Impeach Bush!
    Tony Vodvarka, Hartly DE

Report this

By emma'man, July 4, 2007 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

We have watched six and a half years of contempt for the people of the United States and other parts of the world, a blatant disregard for Constitutional Government, an attack on the Bill Of Rights, an increase in the military police state and a murderous takeover of two countries by the Bush Republican Crime Family and Democrats who collaborate with those policies.

Tell Bush to resign? Constant lies from day one, including falsified information to invade and destroy Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

How about federal prison instead?

Report this

By TiborRM, July 4, 2007 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

Keith Olbermann is full of it. No one need to admire Bush & Co. to realize that pardoning loyal soldiers is the norm—didn’t Clinton pardon 200 people the day he left office? How come no one mentions that?

Report this

By QuyTran, July 4, 2007 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

Dear Mr. Olbermann,

Please don’t insult President Nixon by comparing him to GWB. Our king has a thick skin face and will never know how to step down.

Report this

By QuyTran, July 4, 2007 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

Don’t tell Bush to resign. Just let’s him be “big” Dick marionette for life !

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.