#72393 by Marshall
“Gosh Louise - your post is so objective!”

It is? I must be slipping!
Didn’t I even strike a nerve?

(Or point out something nobody has mentioned before?)

“How about lying under Oath?
George W Bush took an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
When he took the second oath of office, he knew he had already violated that oath!”

If you’re OK with that that’s your problem.

Lying under oath.
Isn’t that what Libby was found guilty of? OK, maybe it’s not an Impeachable crime, but apparently it is a crime.

Hold on! Wait a minute!
Lying under oath. Isn’t that what they went after Nixon for? Oh gosh, I almost forgot. That’s what you folks went after Clinton for!

What’s a misdemeanor? 
An offense less serious than a felony, but still punishable by at least one year in jail. If I have a president that commits a crime punishable by jail time, even just one year, I’d like him to be gone!

And, what is a high crime? A crime of infamous nature contrary to public morality but not technically constituting a felony ...

Guess that pretty well leaves it up to Congress to decide what IS contrary to our public morality? Guess we know now why this Congress will probably never IMPEACH anybody.

Guess we know now why for some strange reason a few folks still think Bush is A-OK.
And he does have good hair.

Gosh Louise - your post is so objective!  I’m so glad that you aren’t engaging in the typical hate-mongering practices of presuming guilt when no guilt has been proven, or substituting your personal opinion in place of fact.  If you’d done that, I’d probably not waste time with a reasoned reply to your post or I might choose a sarcasting, mocking tone instead to make clear that you’re not a critical thinker who holds serious and informed opinions.  Take care.

RE: #71770 by Marshall

“So Louise - what exactly would Bush be impeached for?”

How about lying under Oath?

George W Bush took an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

When he took the second oath of office, he knew he had already violated that oath!

He had already approved and accepted staff and administration officials implementing illegal wiretapping, illegal search and seizure, illegal detention, illegal torture, violation of Habeas Corpus and false intelligence to justify starting a war. Which makes the war illegal.

He had already approved and accepted the deliberate destruction of a secret CIA operation designed to track down those lose nukes he’s always trying to scare us with.

He had already approved and accepted the deliberate outing of a CIA operative, placing her contacts lives and safety in jeopardy.

He requested, approved and accepted legislation that is clearly unconstitutional, such as the Military Commission Act of 2006.

He apparently approved and accepted a plan in the Justice Department to remove Federal Prosecutors who would be unfavorable to fixing votes, or looking the other way while votes were fixed.

He apparently approved and accepted requests from private individuals, corporations and possibly other country’s to grab not only our resources, but the resources of another country for private financial gain.

That’s the short list. And yes, I think there might be a few high crimes and misdemeanors in there. Not to mention possibly treason. But I’m no attorney or congress person. However, as a citizen I have a right, no a duty to request these things be investigated.

OK, I know ... that bad legislation never would have happened if Congress hadn’t made it so. That war never would have happened if Congress had not approved it. That torture and illegal detention never would have happened if Congress had not authorized the Global War On Terror (GWOT) and passed the Patriot Act(s).

Proving all this was done at the behest and with the knowledge of the president is going to be tough. Particularly when so much of this happened with a compliant (and equally guilty) Congress looking on, which is just one more good reason to go after Cheney instead. His direct involvement should be much easier to prove.

As far as I’m concerned, the lying under oath is enough. And as always, these are my views, but you are welcome to hunt all this stuff down for yourself.

Start Google-ing!

By the way there are quite a few Conservative, and Libertarian groups out there calling for impeachment. Although sometimes for completely different reasons. Point being there’s a lot of really angry folks out there!

Dear Kellina (#71644)

Actually, it’s never occurred to me to request bills that are under consideration. However, I have had my Senators and Rep respond to enquiries with a pretty thorough explanation of their position on a given bill. The trick is to ask the right question. A little common sense will guide you there.

I have requested by phone, that a Senator or reps office send me a copy of a speech made on the Floor, and have received them in the mail. These have been times when I have been impressed enough by something said that I wanted to be able to pass it on and wanted to make sure I didn’t misquote. Also these have never been my reps or senators. Not that they haven’t impressed me, but every now and again you hear something someone says that just needs repeating! Reaction to these requests from me have always been positive, but I know a lot of offices wouldn’t bother. Guess it just depends on the individual. Some of them are really terrific.

It’s not easy to second guess proposed legislation, because like you say it often changes, frequently makes little sense and there are always the earmarks. So I don’t try. I rely on various political action sites to keep me informed and the responses I get from my rep and senators. Then get ready to be disappointed or surprised. Conyers wasn’t kidding when he told Michael Moore, “Sit down my son ... we never read a bill.”

But, you can go to and read the various bits and pieces as they progress through the halls of Congress.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/dailydigest
http://thomas.loc.gov/
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html

A little hunting, or perhaps you have a better source, let me know.

I’m one of the 92% who don’t understand the Stock Market, and don’t pretend to. I just have the knowledge of experience. Up, down and friends who got laid off because the Mortgage Holding Bank they worked for couldn’t meet payroll. That was back during the first Bush and the Bank was in Manhattan (huge). It does happen, did happen, is happening and will happen again.

Sooner or later, Congress will have to do something besides not do anything, because the people are getting angry. They may decide Cheney is as good a scapegoat as any. Or, they may decide they all have to much to lose if certain things we don’t know were made known. We never know.

I remember Nixon. I remember the pressure and determination. I remember, once the ball started rolling, it rolled very quickly. It can happen! Please pass Kucinich’s HR 333 http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm around as much as you can. It is truly amazing how little so many still know!

So Louise - what exactly would Bush be impeached for?

Ngaryra:
You still don’t know how the Federal Reserve system works. I’ll take it slowly.

Here are the options:

option A: The Federal Reserve system (our current system)

The “Fed” prints one million and loans it to the US, who has to pay back the million plus interest. (The fed’s cost is $240.)

option B: The gov’t prints its own money

The gov’t prints one million and puts it into circulation. The gov’t has no debt payments or interest because it didn’t “borrow” anything.

In both cases, if too much money is printed, we have inflation; if the money supply is contracted, we have deflation. Shouldn’t our gov’t be in charge of our “business cycle”? Why put that in the hands of a private firm whose loyalty is not necessarily to the US but to making profit? Whose incentive is to get the US to borrow unneeded funds?

This country did fine when it printed its own money. The Fed is a private company, chartered in secret, and is not auditable in real time, nor is it accountable to the American people.

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Fed. Paul is a brave, brave man. The last pres who tried to get rid of the Fed was JFK. (He also had a few other enemies!)

Thanks so much, Louise, I do appreciate you! Your whole analysis of why to impeach Cheney first makes a great deal of sense. Unfortunately, I don’t believe we have much chance, given all that has to happen. I think that congress is stonewalling because most of them have stuff to hide that a real investigation might reveal.

Thanks for all the info about how best to make my feelings known to my reps. I’m saving all that you said into a documentand filing it.

You sound really well versed on all this - let me ask you something else. Do you ever contact your reps to get copies of bills under consideration? Do you read them? I tried to read the Military Commissions Act - got the senate version at least. What a joke. The bills are so confusing AND what eventually becomes law is oftentimes unrelated to the earlier bills because the Sen and House versions have to be reconciled in committee. I wish, too, that all bills were about one topic and weren’t allowed to have all these extra things tacked on.

By the way, some say the stock market is gaining because the dollar is falling. Lots of folks going to “global accounts” to diversify into other currencies.

Kellina

Thanks so much, Louise, I do appreciate you! Your whole analysis of why to impeach Cheney first makes a great deal of sense. Unfortunately, I don’t believe we have much chance, given all that has to happen. I think that congress is stonewalling because most of them have stuff to hide that a real investigation might reveal.

By the way, some say the stock market is gaining because the dollar is falling world-wide. Lots of folks going to “global accounts” to diversify into other currencies.

Kellina

Dear Kellina, (#71375) I cant speak for Kucinich, visit his site.

But for me, I feel if Bush were successfully impeached, or forced into quitting, Cheney would become president. Not just the one in the background calling the shots, but the ACTUAL president. I for one do not want to nail the lid shut on the coffin!

Many are calling for impeaching both. But were that to happen and they were both found guilty, The Speaker of the House would become president until an election could be held. Even those repubs who might be persuaded to go along with impeaching one or the other would never let that happen. If the Congress could agree to bring charges of impeachment against Cheney, the President could name his replacement, but the selection would have to be approved by a majority of both Houses. That could get ugly, given Bush’s history of selections for high posts in the past. If Bush wanted a VP, he would have to select someone everybody trusted. Off hand I cant think who that would be.

Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act
Amendment XXV [Presidential Succession (1967)] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.a mendmentxxv.html

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20 May 2007
General Provisions
(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers,
[The 25th Amendment to the Constitution]
The entire directive can be read here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/200705 09-12.html

I personally believe there is ample evidence to impeach both, but see the wisdom of focusing on Cheney. The trick is to get it to happen! And yes, you are correct. The House of Representatives is empowered to bring Impeachment charges. The Senate becomes the “jury” that finds for guilt or innocence. The stinky part is the Chief Justice presides over the trial.

When I look back over the length of the Bush administration, it becomes clear from the very beginning the plan was to use and abuse the office for personal gain. Because look at the players in place. But all the same, as the death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to spiral up at an alarming rate. And the people continue to fall off the Health Care rolls and the price of oil continues to climb, pricing a lot of people out of their own cars. And the Housing Market craters making a lot of people homeless, and closing more and more Mortgage banks who hold more paper than currency ... Pressure on the congress to do something will increase.

This is now a gapping wound pumping our life blood into the street. At some point in time ... soon I hope ... Congress will be forced to recognize Band-Aids and diversions [like the “illegal problem"] will not stop the flow! They may actually begin to see the wisdom of Impeaching Cheney. Right now they’re all walking around on the euphoria of a climbing Stock Market. but you know what they say ... what goes up must come down. We just need to keep the pressure on to move them in the right direction.

(#71376) “Which is more effective—calling the rep’s local office or their DC office?”

If both Houses are in session ... both.
If both Houses are not in session ... local. E-mail and FAX followup is a good idea too. You will find what works best for you. They are all different and rarely respond the way you expect. The important thing is the numbers. They have to pay attention to the numbers. Particularly those who will be running for re-election, or president.

Thanks for your kind words. If I had the energy I wish I had, I wouldn’t have time to get on line. But thank goodness I can. A lot of old folks like me are finding, thanks to the Internet, we can still get things done, even if we cant get around like we use to.

#71416 by JNagarya on 5/21 at 7:09 am

Wow, your arguments keep getting better and better!

Are you saying that conspiracies never happen? LOL. You’re really funny. You should consider stand up comedy.

The first Republican candidate who says he believes in science will get a bump in the polls.

#71416 by JNagarya on 5/21 at 7:09 am

It’s not an argument to just dismiss my points by saying that they are nonsense. You failed, thank you for trying, you therefore concede all my points are correct.

Dear Louise,

Which is more effective—calling the rep’s local office or their DC office?

-K

Dear Louise,
Great post, thank you for your hard work. I will try my rep again. I didn’t try either senator because I figure that impachment must go through the House first.

Why doesn’t DK want to impeach Bush while he’s at it? There is plenty of evidence of Bush’s culpability as well. Just curious.

K

Dear Kellina (#71297)

Sorry you got a rude aide on the phone. A letter to the editor might bring that fact to your reps attention. They love to see their names in print, except when it makes them look bad. But call again first, if for no other reason than to give that aide an opportunity to explain your reps position and why. (Need to ask)

But ...
Focus on your Senators.
(Call/email everyone you know who thinks things aren’t so great and ask them to do the same.)

Remember, the person on the other end of the phone is probably an employee. They may be well informed, or not informed at all. Some may not know Kucinich is running for president. Some may not even know who he is.

So be patient with them. Don’t let them intimidate you, that Senator works for YOU.

Begin your call by identifying yourself and giving your address and phone number. They wont expect that without asking, so it will get their attention. They’ll probably ask again - but then you’ll know their taking notes.

When you call, be prepared to state your case with facts. Be polite and informed. Prepare notes beforehand so you have a ready reference. If your Senator has done anything you agree with be sure and mention that with a thank you. If you cant think of anything he/she’s done you agree with, go to their web site and find something worthy of note. (Cute kids maybe?) You want your call to be remembered, because you were informed and thoughtful and polite. That way, by the third or fourth call you should be greeted like an old friend. Provided you put a little space between your calls - but not too much. Don’t let them forget you, because then they’ll forget why you’re calling.

When you call, if the person answering doesn’t identify themselves, ask them who you are speaking too and note their name. While you’re talking ask questions and take notes. That will come in handy later. Don’t be put off if you’re not greeted with enthusiasm. You let the enthusiasm come through you. And see if you can get your friends and relatives to do the same thing.

We all need to realize we are a LOBBY. The biggest and most powerful LOBBY in the country! And unfortunately the most quiet. We need to change that. There’s a reason why Senators and Reps have offices, and it’s not just to book tours.

Supporting the Kucinich Resolution for Impeachment doesn’t require you support Kucinich for president. Although that would be nice, it’s not necessary.

I suspect a lot of folks don’t make that call because they want to support another candidate. That’s OK, but the facts behind the behaviors of Cheney need to be exposed! And believe it or not, a lot of the candidates are not as informed as the posters on this site! You need to let the candidate you want to support know, that this needs to happen AND WHY. In fact you need to let all the candidates know!

Everyone of those candidates wants YOUR vote!
Phone calls to those candidates campaign headquarters need to be made, a lot of them!
You do not need to be a constituent to call a candidates headquarters, just a voter.

Senators running:
Joseph Biden (D), Hillary Clinton (D), John McCain (R), Barack Obama (D), Dennis Kucinich (D), Sam Brownbeck (R), John McCain (R), and maybe Chuck Hagel (R) - and there may be more coming.

Whoever answers the phone may try to dismiss your support of impeachment. Don’t let them detract your opinion by giving you a campaign speech. Get their name and let the candidate know they need people who can listen to the voters. Amazing how much leverage the voters have when they come together.

Kucinich is prepared to bring impeachment charges against Cheney. But he needs support in the Senate. We the people are the only ones who can make that happen! Sometimes those Senators need to be gently reminded they are there because we put them there.

No name calling - polite and informed - again and again.

The recent GOP “debate” in S. Carolina was the most pathetic piece of anachronistic pandering crap I have seen in my 50 years on this planet.  It could have been taped in 1907, not 2007.  Denying evolution - gainsaying global warming - arging for more tax cuts when the country is bankrupt.  These people are pathetic and living in the past, as they all almost whipped it out and started masturbating to Ronald Reagan’s name.  Sick.

Anyone who would vote for any of these out-of-date turds who have absolutely no vision, needs to have their friggin’ head examined!

Hi Louise,
I admire your energy. I did call my representative. I told his aide that my next vote would depend entirely on whether or not my rep supported DK’s 333. The person said, “yeah, okay, right.” That’s that.

What the hell can we do?

K

Having just plowed through all the posts to The GOP Identity Crisis, I have come to the conclusion the repub presidential wannabee’s aren’t the only ones with an identity crisis!

Folks ... I think we all agree things in DC are not as we all think they should be!

How about we quit attacking each other and focus on working together to bring the Decision Maker up on IMPEACHMENT charges, OK?

[A full and honest and public investigation into the activities of Cheney could lead to ample evidence implicating the Decider, possibly persuading him to co-operate or leave ... it could happen ... remember Nixon?]

We’ve still got a few months left before we have to decide who to vote for in the Primaries. Which of the twits makes it on to the ticket(s) will be decided by a combination of Media influence, husband/wife/other advise, and/or the candidates own monumental susceptibility to foot in mouth disease. Can we alter that predictable course? Yeh ... if we stop fighting.

So lets get the most pressing issue on the table taken care of first. IMPEACHMENT

http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm and read Supporting Documents for H Res 333; A Resolution to bring Impeachment charges against Richard Cheney, as Introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Dennis Kucinich

Put your incredible energy, impressive knowledge and justifiable righteousness there!
Let’s make it happen!

My deepest apologies for the multiple posts.

Correction - my recollection of the Constitution was wrong. Congress has the power to coin - not print paper money. Printing money is not mentioned - which is likely why there have been central banks (3-4) in our history as well as currently.

Re: the Federalist papers. I should reread them as well - have bad memories of struggling through them in college. All I can recall is that the framers disagreed on how big a role to give a federal gov’t. I think that there should be a federal gov’t, but one with the constitutional checks and balances enforced. One with clear boundaries. I don’t think that regulatory agencies should be making laws. I don’t think that congress should be able to pass omnibus bills that make it hard to clear vote up or down.

But who really gives a shit what I think? The Constitution is in tatters anyway. I truly believe we’ll have to have another revolution. (The first revolution was really about control over the colony’s monetary supply. If the colonies had been able to continue printing and using ‘colonial scrip’ then they would not have had a revolution; but England outlawed it, made the colonies use a gold/silver standard (and there weren’t enough precious metals around in those days in the Colonies) so the money supply dried up, depression ensued, poeple weren’t able to pay the King’s taxes, and voila. Revolt.

(Hamilton wanted a central bank, fyi. Madison and Jefferson said no way!)

Hi JNagarya:

Our current federal gov’t is using my hard-earned income tax to wage pre-emptive wars of aggression on innocent people for no reason except to make money and secure oil (in Iraq) and poppies (in Afghanistan) based on a lie (the official conspiracy theory of 9/11). Wars waged not in defense are un-constitutional. I have a problem with that. If that makes me a nut, then I wear the label “nut” with pride!

I’m sure your response would be “but the morons in office are Republicans – they’re the evil ones waging wars!” Well, regardless of which party’s in office, American involvement in every war since WWI has occurred due to false pretenses – either taking advantage of a real event or orchestrated a fake one or sometimes just lying about an event that didn’t even occur. I have a problem with that! Again, nut? Whatever. (I bet you’re nutty enough to actually believe the official conspiracy theory about what happened on 9/11.)

What is sensible about getting into wars? What is nutty about endorsing a candidate, Ron Paul, who is against such behavior? George Washington himself warned against foreign entanglements.

Eliminating the Federal Reserve will help in that regard. We can still have a national currency. But the constitution gives the federal gov’t the power to print money (Article I, section 8, “powers granted to the congress” ). In fact, the constitution expressly forbids the states from having their own currency, entering into treaties with foreign powers, etc. (Article I, section 10, “powers forbidden to the states” ). (Do you have a copy of the constitution handy? Or just the Federalist Papers?)

So instead of borrowing that million for the price of one million plus interest (at the rate set by the lender, the Federal Reserve), we would have the million, but no debt payments and no interest whatsoever. And no one around with a vested interest in making sure that we borrow excessive amounts of money (as we have to pay for the ‘war on’ cancer, aids, drugs, terror, etc., etc., ad nauseum, plus all the actual wars...coming up, the ‘war on global warming’!). Excessive borrowing results in not just debt but inflation - the hidden tax on us all. And you’re calling me a nut for wanting to get rid of this Federal Reserve racket? It’s a private company not subject to audit. It’s not Federal (it’s as federal as Federal Express), there are no reserves . . . it’s a scam. People listen to Greenspan and other chairs of the Fed as if they were gods. What a laugh. And the federal income tax law passed as an “amendment” without being ratified by the states.

I find it quaint that you believe that it makes a difference if you vote for a democrat – any democrat – over a republican. I’ve been a dem all my life but I’m hanging it up. The choices are really which neo-con do you want? Which skull-and-boner do you want? Hillary is so hard right that it’s a joke to call her a democrat if you still believe in the old “dems are liberals and repubs are conservative” line. Her willingness to nuke Iran is a case in point.

There’s some truth to what you say about Ron Paul being a libertarian running in the Republican Party. He really is a libertarian, as he is in favor of freedom, certainly more than the other Republican candidates. But the fact that he doesn’t seem to belong there may also mean, as he asserts, that it is the republican party that left him, not the other way around. Aside from Paul, true conservatives have no other option within the Republican party.

Vermont is this close to breaking away - and I’m all for it. They’d make a nice little country. Of course, the Feds would immediately invade them and impound their maple syrup. But I understand the impulse. This country’s in bad shape. We’re an embarrassment to the world.

Hi JNagarya:

Our current federal gov’t is using my hard-earned income tax to wage pre-emptive wars of aggression on innocent people for no reason except to make money and secure oil (in Iraq) and poppies (in Afghanistan) based on a lie (the official conspiracy theory of 9/11). Wars waged not in defense are un-constitutional.

I’m sure your response would be “but the morons in office are Republicans – they’re the evil ones waging wars!” Well, regardless of which party’s in office, American involvement in every war since WWI has occurred due to false pretenses – either taking advantage of a real event or orchestrated a fake one or sometimes just lying about an event that didn’t even occur.

What is sensible about that? What is nutty about endorsing a candidate, Ron Paul, who is against such behavior? George Washington himself warned against foreign entanglements.

Eliminating the Federal Reserve will help in that regard. We can still have a national currency. But the constitution gives the federal gov’t the power to print money (Article I, section 8, “powers granted to the congress”). In fact, the constitution expressly forbids the states from having their own currency, entering into treaties with foreign powers, etc. (Article I, section 10, “powers forbidden to the states”). (Do you have a copy of the constitution handy? You might want to verify this information.)

So instead of borrowing that million for the price of one million plus interest (at the rate set by the lender, the Federal Reserve), we would have the million, but no debt payments, no interest whatsoever. And no one around who has a vested interest in making sure that we borrow excessive amounts of money (as we have to pay for the ‘war on’ cancer, aids, drugs, terror, etc., etc., ad nauseum), which causes not just debt but inflation. And you’re calling me a nut for wanting to get rid of this Federal Reserve racket? It’s a private company not subject to audit. It’s not Federal (it’s as federal as Federal Express), there are no reserves, and it’s a scam. People listen to Greenspan and other chairs of the Fed as if they were gods. What a laugh.

I find it quaint that you believe that it makes a difference if you vote for a democrat – any democrat – over a republican. I’ve been a dem all my life but I’m hanging it up. The choices are really which neo-con do you want? Which skull-and-boner do you want? Hillary is so hard right that it’s a joke to call her a democrat if you still believe in the old “dems are liberals and repubs are conservative” line. Her willingness to nuke Iran is a case in point.

There’s some truth to what you say about Ron Paul being a libertarian running in the Republican Party. He really is a libertarian, as he is in favor of freedom, certainly more than the other Republican candidates. But the fact that he doesn’t seem to belong there may also mean, as he asserts, that it is the republican party that left him, not the other way around. Aside from Paul, true conservatives have no other option within the Republican party.

Vermont is this close to breaking away - and I’m all for it. They’d make a nice little country. Of course, the Feds would immediately invade them and impound their maple syrup. But I understand the impulse. This country’s in bad shape. We’re an embarrassment to the world.

Hi JNagarya:
Just why is it that we need a federal gov’t when we have state gov’ts? And why are you so attached to having a central bank?

We’ll have to agree to disagree about what the framer’s intended. I happen to believe that they wanted limited gov’t, after their experiences with England.

Tell me what you think your federal (not state, not local, not property, not gas, car, sales, etc.) goes to pay for. It’s all debt payments. To a private company that charges us a million plus interest (at the rate they set) for a pile of paper that is valued at one million but costs them $240 to print.

What’s the big deal? As soon as countries adopt a central bank, in come the wars. We spend far too much of money we don’t have, which leads to inflation and a tax burdern on our citizens who haven’t even been born. We spend money on stupid stuff—war on drugs, war on X, war on Y. Even on the wars, we spend profligately (ever see ‘Iraq for sale?’).

What’s nutty about being libertarian? Why can’t you argue civilly?

Scott: You’re right. Point that spy equipment in the other direction.

The two camps - repub and dem - are the same. Only a neo-con will get elected (hillary or giuliani), if we still have elections.

This post probably won’t go through - most of mine don’t. I guess AJ Liebling was right (paraphrase) - “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

Who is the publisher of Truthdig? Is she American? Does she care about the truth at all?

Hi JNagarya,
You must understand that the mainstream media is owned by just a handful of companies that, at the very top, are profiting off war. It’s that simple. M-O-N-E-Y.

Ron Paul voted against the war and is the only GOP candidate who has a simple, effective plan for getting us out.

You misrepresented Ron Paul. He was the only true conservative on the dais. He was the only one to vote against the Iraq war. He is against torture, too.

He is in favor of abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve. That’s pretty conservative. He’s reasonable and made so much sense. His response to Giuliani is basically, blow-back caused 9/11, which Ghouliani twists into “let’s blame the victim.” Paul is smart. He knows that “blowback” is the official explanation in the 9/11 Commission Report, which apparently Ghouliani has not read. Ghouliani, whose “edge” is supposedly all about 9/11.

I agree with Ron Paul. I don’t think he goes far enough in terms of 9/11 being an inside job (see the NYTimes blog currently raging: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/rosie-odon nells-911-question/ ). I also don’t think it’s good that he’s anti-choice. But overall, he’s the best thing we’ve got going until William Rodriguez decides to run for office.

In fact, I’m going to switch to the Republican party just to vote for Paul in the primary! I hope he manages to stay in the debates - already the MI GOP party chairman tried to block him from participating in all future GOP debates, but he got flooded with complaints and backed down.

This identity crisis among the Republican candidates may signal that they finally realize that the American people care about relevant and specific issues and general competence more than how closely the candidate sticks to his party line.

Hopefully it opens the door for Republicans to address issues which they have previously avoided because they were seen as too left wing.  For example, the candidates would be well served to take up the issue of fighting global poverty.

Support for the fight against global poverty is gaining momentum in countries outside the US, and has become one of the primary issues which is gaining international attention, as demonstrated by the UN’s Millennium Development Goals.  This momentum can be translated to support within the US, and is already beginning to gain the attention of concerned citizens.

Hopefully this “identity crisis” can be turned into positive and concrete change within the Republican Party.

The conservative cycle is over and the liberal cycle will begin.If the politicians do not get the message and start doing the peoples business instead of the corporations business the cycles are going to get shorter and shorter until there is a viable third party or God forbid a demagogue.

Loved the article.
But as is often the case any article with the attachments conservative and liberal, points out how few people really understand the meaning of those two labels.

There has not been one true conservative in the White House since “Ike” left. There is only one true liberal in the Congress today.

Of course for those who rely heavily on twisting truth for self aggrandizement, facts like that don’t matter. But for those who plan to vote in the next election, they should matter very much. Most don’t have time to take a few courses in history, let alone plow through the reality of the various candidates history. So it becomes necessary to point out a few things to the candidates, not that they’ll pay any attention.

For example.
Mr. Romney, traditional Mormonism rejects Federal control of just about everything.

Utah was one of the first states to challenge No Child Left Behind!

Of course, we are not supposed to speak of religion and politics in the same breath, but since Utah is recognized as a powerful conservative State, maybe “conservative” Romney needs to get out his books and start studying.

Giuliani does indeed have first hand experience with terrorism. You can interpret that any way you like.

Do we really want to spend 2008 through 2012 being hit over the head with 9/11/terror/9/11/terror every day? Haven’t we had enough of that?

Mr. Giuliani, if there were one iota of effort going into finding out the truth about what happened on 9/11, that would be one thing. But seems your sole goal is to scare us into voting for you, and that’s just plain sickening.

Love this quote: 

“It’s come to this: The only Republican litmus test seems to be support for torture—excuse me, “enhanced interrogation techniques.” McCain was alone in standing up forcefully and unapologetically against torture by whatever name,”

But McCain openly and forcefully supports the wars that are in themselves a record of torture, not to mention terrorism.

Maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today if not for a “conservative” willingness to look the other way.

From the beginning, when “Our guys” rounded up “al Qaeda” prisoners in Afghanistan, shut them in cargo trucks and shot through the trucks until the screaming stopped, to the nightly habit of breaking down doors, trashing homes and hauling away all Iraqi males to be locked up, “enhanced interrogation techniqued” and frequently disappeared, the world has seen us as torturers, and heaven forbid ... terrorists.

Darn sometimes it’s just plain hard to define a right position out of so many wrongs. Even harder to find a grain of truth to ride on, when your “conservative” party has become synonymous with the word lie.

But the greatest hypocrisy these guys need to face up to is their desertion of a president who basically did everything they wanted!

No, not defending Bush, but neither are they. And they ... the so-called “conservative” republican party ... created him!

Guess that’s the bottom line.

Actually many so-called “liberals” are not blameless for the horrors of these wars, nor are we the people. After all this is OUR country. And, that is the bottom line.

Incredible. E J Dionne fails to even mention
Ron Pauls remarkable upset VICTORY in the
Republican debates.

PS: V Arnold: correct. The neocons are not
conservatives, they are just idiots (when they
are not criminals or insane, which is rarely).