Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 16, 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






On the Run


Truthdig Bazaar
1876

1876

By Gore Vidal
$16.00

more items

 
Report

No One Should Be Above the Law

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

Posted on Apr 25, 2007

Editor’s note: Veteran journalist and Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., gave the following speech calling for impeachment.

George Bush has shredded, violated or absented America from its obligations under international law.  He has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons and defied the Geneva Convention and human rights law in the treatment of detainees.  Most egregiously, he launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public.

This president is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the “crime of aggression.”  And if we as citizens do not hold him accountable for these crimes, if we do not begin the process of impeachment, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that will have terrifying consequences.  For a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others.  This new order will undo five decades of international cooperation—largely put in place by the United States—and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. 

We must not allow international laws and treaties—ones that set minimum standards of behavior and provide a framework for competing social, political, economic and religious groups and interests to resolve differences—to be discarded. The exercise of power without law is tyranny.  And the consequences of George Bush’s violation of the law, his creation of legal black holes that can swallow us along with those outside our gates, run in a direct line from the White House to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

George Bush—we now know from the leaked Downing Street memo—fabricated a legal pretext for war.  He decided to charge Saddam Hussein with the material breach of the resolution passed in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War.  He had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was in breach of this resolution.  And so he and his advisers manufactured reports of weapons of mass destruction and disseminated them to a frightened and manipulated press and public.  In short, he lied to us and to the rest of the world.  There are tens of thousands, perhaps a few hundred thousand people, who have been killed and maimed in Iraq because of a war that has no legal justification, a war waged in violation of international law.  The grief visited on American and Iraqi families demands that we as citizens begin the process to restore the rule of law.  The murderous rampages in Iraq demand this.  The torture done in our name demands this.  The empowerment of states that will act on our lawless example if we do not impeach George Bush and return to a world of standards demands this.  Simple human decency demands this. 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
A rule-based world matters.  The creation of these international bodies and rules, as well as the use of our influence over the last half-century to see they were followed, have allowed us to stand pre-eminent as a nation—one that respects and defends the rule of law.  If we demolish the fragile and delicate international order, if we permit George Bush to create a world where diplomacy, broad cooperation and the law are worthless, if we allow these international legal systems to unravel, we will see our moral and political authority plummet.  We will erode the possibility of cooperation between nation-states, including our closest allies, and see visited upon us the evils we visit on others.


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 Roger, January 28, 2009 at 10:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have said this for 30 years. The largest criminal organization in the United States is LAW ENFORCEMENT. I have hundreds of cases as PROOF that cops, judges, DA’s, Politicians, the rich etc DO NOT go to prison for the same crimes that the poor & middle class commit and are sent to prison for. Those are the FACTS.

Report this

By national-security-4-us, May 24, 2007 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

I’VE TRIED-I’VE TOLD MEMBERS FROM THE HOUSE/SENATE INTEL/JUD.COMM. THAT SOME TERRORISTS WERE CAUGHT W/IN
72 HRS OF 5/26/04 PRESS CONF. BY ASHCROFT/MUELLER IN FLA.-THE MATTER WAS COVERED-UP/EVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT R
SILENT-JEALOUSY/ENVY CREPT IN OVER REWARDS-1 WAS FLOWN OVERSEAS 2 DENY PAYING UP.A ATTACK WAS IMMINENT
MY VIGILANCE STOPPED IT FROM HAPPENING-I HEARD A RAID
SECURED WEAPONS.
CELL WAS READY 2 ATTACK AT WILL-HAD I NOT FOUND THEM
IN TIME.SINCE NOTHING’S BEING DONE I’M LED 2 BELIEVE THIS ATTACK WAS KNOWN BY SOME 2 BE COMING-IT’S JUST THAT A REAL JACK BAUER FUCKED UP THEIR GAME PLAN-BY DELAYING IT FROM HAPPENING 4 YET ANOTHER DAY/PLACE/
TIME.
MY LIFE WAS DESTROYED WORSE THEN VALERIE PLAME-CAUSE SHE GOT PRESS COVERAGE-I CAN’T GET A CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY 2 TAKE MY CASE..I GOT THIS ADMIN. + MEMBERS OF CABINET THAT R COMPLICIT IN THE CONSPIRACY 2 COVER
IT UP..2 ME THEY’RE ALL GUILTY OF “TREASON”/SHOULD FACE EXECUTION BY FIRING SQUAD 4 THEIR CRIMES.

I DID WHAT ASHCROFT/MUELLER ASKED ALL AMERICANS 2 DO
-HELP THE AUTHORITIES FIND/CAPTURE THESE PEOPLE B-4 THEY DID THEIR DIRTY DEED..2 OF THE 7 HAD REWARDS OF $25 MIL. EACH 4 INFO. LEADING 2 THEIR CAPTURE-THEY WERE ON FBI MOST WANTED TERRORISTS’LIST.
A HUGE INCENTIVE-4 ME SELF-PRESERVATION TOOK CHARGE IN MY LIFE + THE # OF LIVES WHO COULD’VE BEEN KILLED HAD THE ATTACK HAPPENED-A # OF SCENARIOS PLAYED OUT IN MY MIND.
AHMED KHALFAN GHAILANI WAS SPOTTED IN FLA. BY ME/I
CALL MIAMI-FBI W/THE INTEL ON 6/8/04 & ABOUT 7 WEEKS
LATER IT’S REPORTED HE’S FOUND IN PAKISTAN 2 AVOID PAYING REWARD..HOW DOES A(MWT)WHOSE FACE HAS BEEN PLASTERED ALL-TRAVEL THAT FAR W/OUT DETECTION + ONCE A TERRORIST GETS HERE 4 HIS MISSION THEY’RE NOT GOING
2 RISK GETTING CAUGHT BY TRAVELING ONCE IN AMERICA. KEY IS 2 LAY LOW/HIDEOUT IN THE MASSES-AS STATED BY GOVT..THAT’S COMPLETE B.S. 4 HIM 2 TRAVEL WHEN EVERY-1 IS LOOKING 4 U.

5/29/04-5:42PM-MY 911 CALL-P.S.L.,FLA. TELL OPERATOR
I’M LOOKING AT 2 OF THE 7 PEOPLE WHO WERE SHOWN THE OTHER NIGHT ON TV = SHE HAD “NO FUCKING CLUE” WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT-I TELL HER-SHE GOES BALLISTIC-AS I FOLLOW THEM/RELAY INFO. 2 HER 4 HER 2 TELL IT 2 THOSE
RESPONDING.FAZUL ABDULLAH MOHAMMED + AAFIA SIDDIQUI R
CAPTURED AT 6PM AS A RESULT OF MY CALL..
THE CRIMINAL COVER-UP CAME/EVERY-1 BUT ME HAS SWORN
2 REMAIN SILENT FROM A EDICT FROM bush-SO AS U CAN IMAGINE SERIOUS LAWS WERE BROKEN/NOTHING IS HAPPENING
AT ALL..THE WORST PART IS IN 1/07 IT’S REPORTED THAT F.A.M. HAS SURFACED IN SOMALIA/IS TARGETED 4 DEATH -YET HE GETS AWAY-HE WAS DUMPED THERE THAT’S HOW THEY KNEW WHERE HE WAS/WAS TARGETED 2 BE KILLED 2 COVER UP CRIMES THEY INITIALLY COVERED-UP..A(MWT)UNDER U.S.
FED.INDICTMENT IS RELEASED FROM U.S.CUSTODY AFTER BEING HELD LIKE 30 MONTHS 2 THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
-4 PURPOSES OF ELIMINATING THE EVIDENCE HE KNOWS/
POSSESSES.
THAT MY FRIENDS IS “TREASON” AT ITS’FINEST/MANY OF THOSE EMPLOYED BY US R GUILTY/YET STILL HOLD THEIR
JOBS OF RELEASING “SERIAL KILLERS” BACK INTO SOCIETY.
LIKE I SAID EARLIER ALL I DID WAS FULFILL WHAT WAS
ASKED OF ALL AMERICANS/LEARNED I WAS GOING 2 GET BEAT
4 MY ACTIONS-TOLD CONGRESS/MY LIFE WAS DESTROYED 4 SAVING THE NATION IN TIMES OF NEED-PERIL/DISTRESS.

TRY THESE #203-354-5130/203-354-0673 THEY R THE R4J PROGRAMS’#/THEY DON’T EXIST + HAS NO OVERSIGHT AT ALL

14TH AMEND.SEC.4-2 THE CONST.+ A 1984 LAW CONGRESS
PASSED 2 COMBAT INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM “PUBLIC-LAW-98-533”-AKA THE R4J PROGRAM WERE VIOLATED-MONEY CONGRESS APPROPRIATES SHOULD B ACCOUNTABLE 2 CONGRESS
4 ANSWERS 1 WOULD THINK.
+ CONST/CIVIL RIGHTS-THE OATH TAKEN 2 UPHOLD THE LAWS
OF THE LAND/UNETHICAL CONDUCT BY MANY/VIOLATING THE PUBLICS’TRUST.
NO NEED 4 JEALOUSY/ENVY 2 EMERGE ON YOUR PART-I GOT
ENOUGH FROM ALL THESE TREASONIST PRICKS WHO NEED 2 BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY.
THE TRUTH’S BEING TOLD—SPEAKING TRUTH 2 POWER.

Report this

By manonfyre, May 6, 2007 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment

Can’t help myself . . .  dragged down by the conversation.

Some of you characters (you know who you are) need to get your own frickin’ blogs!  Or maybe you can dig down a bit and find the respect, for yourselves and for others, to cool it with these pissing contests and all this prissy cat-fighting.

Please!

I subscribed to “follow-up comments” on this thread, purportedly on a Chris Hedges article regarding the rule of law.  Now my inbox is filling with “Butthead and Beavis.”

Get a grip!

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, May 6, 2007 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

Excuse me, but I am in no way “an apologist” for this inept, illegal administration.  I’m simply trying to get the point out that impeachment, though possibly justifiable, depending on how one defines “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is not practical.  Subpoena-enforced oversight by Congress is.  That constant drum beat from now until November 4, 2008, will help ensure that a Republican administration will not follow this one.  Any impeachment proceeding, however viscerally satisfying, including committee hearings, will do just the opposite.

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, May 6, 2007 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#68414 by JNagarya - part 2

“You introduced the word “lambast/ed” in accusing me of “lambasting” this, and then that.  And those are the words you quoted.”

I’ll do my best to be cordial in this (it’s difficult to not be insulting when the accusations are so bizarre and outrageous).

Please, reread everywhere that the word lambast is used under this topic. If you do this, you will see you are wrong. If you don’t, then your accusations/delusions will continue.

I’m completely capable of admitting to error if I’ve made one, or if my memory has failed me, but in this, I have not erred, nor has my memory failed me. Actually, if I’m wrong, I think it’s essential to own up to it and correct my mistakes. And clearly, there’s nothing in your accusations so damaging or embarrassing to justify not admitting it, which is to say, why wouldn’t I? I’d be more than happy to tip my hat your way if you were correct in this. You are not.

You simply are wrong. I never accused you of lambasting anyone or anything. In all of my posts under this topic, in this regard, I’ve attempted only to defend myself from your initial accusation that I lambasted We The People for being ignorant, lazy etc. I’ve even taken the time to go back through the postings, giving you the benefit of the doubt, to see if maybe I wrote something that I’ve forgotten. I never wrote anything accusing you of lambasting this or that or anything else. What you are saying about me remains in total error, and I think it might have to do with the general willy-nilly method of cutting and pasting segments of posts without context herein…and yes, that’s about your method, but not exclusively because others do it as well. Meaning can be misconstrued and twisted, by being cherry-picked out of context. Even with that though, all it takes is a quick review of all usages of that word under this topic, and it becomes crystal clear that what you are saying is dead wrong.

“You don’t seem capable of holding both sides of an apparent contradiction in mind simultaneously.  That sort of either/or extremist oversimplification is your problem, not mine.”

Look in the mirror when you say that. None of your words apply to me in any way. I guess a more simplistic way to say this is…I know you are, but what am I? This has gotten so tiresome and puerile that I think kindergarten put downs are appropriate.

And I guess I just have to ask…what “apparent contradictions”? “Either/or oversimplifications”? What are you writing about, the obvious contradictions of your accusing me of writing your words? Either or being arguments in favor of my words being acknowledged as my words, instead of your words being claimed by you to be mine? That’s a fairly major either/or I guess. And you seem to be the king of contradiction here. Hell, you don’t remember the words you have written, even when they’re laid out in front of you! You sir are a walking, talking, writing either/or contradiction.

And by the way, is this Candid Camera? Pretty funny stuff if it is!

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, May 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You don’t even remember what you’ve written. That’s not just sad, it’s tragic.

Let me put a light on YOUR writing, and remember, this (your) post has the VERY FIRST use of the word lambast, since the use/misuse/non-use of that word seems to be a point of anal-retentive pride on your part. Below is your post #67087, with my words (you wished to comment on) being in quotation marks that you added…the only quotation marks (2) I’ve added, open and close the entirety of the post…and I’ve added lines of hyphens at the beginning and end of your post just to be completely clear…

———————————————————
“#67087 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 9:47 pm
(202 comments total)

#66627 by guntotin ganglion on 4/27 at 12:22 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“Speaking of the failures of government, it’s past time for a Constitutional Convention.”

On one hand you lambast We the people as being ignorant, lazy, etc.  And on the other you assert that it’s time to put the Constitution in their hands as a Constitutional Convention.

Interesting theory for which there are, by your own contradiction, no facts in evidence except those to the contrary.

“One of the first issues to be attended to is the creation of what might be the fifth branch, namely, a permanent independent council that is not answerable to Justice Dept or the Executive, only to the Constitution. This seems essential, because there will always be corruption and perversion of the law in a government as large and wealthy as ours.”

1.  Who is to appoint this “independent council” (We the people not being sufficiently trustworthy to elect it)?

2.  Who or what is to take down this unelected body (We the people not being sufficiently trustworthy to elect it) should it become dictatorial?”
————————————————————

And if this isn’t enough, read my post #66627 and see if anything you say I wrote is there. The above quoted post refers to my post #66627, just in case you missed it.

Report this

By cann4ing, May 5, 2007 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

re comment #68377 by Blueboy1938.  Congressional oversight through the subpoena power is not harassment.  It is called checks and balances.  It is called application of the rule of law, something that has been sorely missing for the past six years under the lawless “Unitary Executive.”  Watergate did not immediately lead to the impeachment of Nixon.  It was only when the relentless efforts of both Congress and a federal prosecutor uncovered the “smoking gun” evidence on the Nixon tapes that all but two members of Congress declared their support for impeachment.

One of those two Republi-crooks, Congressman Langrebe, when confronted by the press with the question as to how he could oppose impeachment in the face of such evidence, stated:  “Don’t bother me with the facts.  My mind is made up.” 

Only an apologist for the fascists who now control the executive branch of this government and who seek nothing less than to subvert the constitution they swore to uphold would regard application of the subpoena power as “harassment.”

Report this

By JNagarya, May 5, 2007 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

#68072 by guntotin ganglion on 5/04 at 5:51 am
(Unregistered commenter)

#68050 by JNagarya

“I cut and pasted your words, from your post, which were a TOTAL fabrication of something you claim I said, WHICH I NEVER DID SAY OR WRITE, and you tell me they’re my words.”

You introduced the word “lambast/ed” in accusing me of “lambasting” this, and then that.  And those are the words you quoted.

You don’t seem capable of holding both sides of an apparent contradiction in mind simultaneously.  That sort of either/or extremist oversimplification is your problem, not mine.

Report this

By JNagarya, May 5, 2007 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment

#68377 by Blueboy1938 on 5/05 at 6:04 pm
(7 comments total)

“In other words, Mr. Canning, use impeachment as harassment, when everyone involved knows perfectly well that it will go nowhere.”

You are no more able to predict the future than anyone else.

“Furthermore, no one has yet issued any subpoenas.”

Both Waxman’s House committee, and Leahey’s Senate committee, have issued subpoenas.  Among those who have recieved them: Gonzales, and Condi Rice.

“. . . but they have as yet not been issued.”

Actually they have.  See above for a few instances.

“It was the courts that actually enforced congressional subpoenas against claims of “executive privilege” in the past, but, as you quite correctly point out, the courts are now populated by another sort of judicial animal.”

But Congress needn’t rely on the courts: it has the authority not only to impeach, but also to remove.

“My point is that impeachment rouses negative reaction in people who might otherwise support taking the administration to task with the very significant oversight powers Congress has, without embroiling the nation in impeachment hearings or proceedings that will polarize it, and not to the Democratic advantage, I’m afraid.”

Those same “arguments” were asserted during Watergate.  The law matters above all political considerations.

And the country is already polarized—but nowhere near the artifical 50-50 the media asserts in order to perpetuate the breathless horse race.  The majority would have no problem with impeachment, regardless the “polarization” against the minority opposed thereto.

Report this

By JNagarya, May 5, 2007 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment

#68081 by David on 5/04 at 2:00 am
(20 comments total)

Re: #68076 by JNagarya on 5/04 at 12:11 am

“I’m contemptuous of ignorance—especilly when it refuses to confront itself, and correct itself.  I’m contemptuous of those who know-it-all, without bothering with the effort to know anything at all based upon other than hatred of that about which it actually knows nothing.”

“You are the epitome of what you describe, contributing nothing except self-righteous, narrow-minded, amateur attacks against everyone else.”

I attack bullshit.  If you are incapable of separating bullshit from person, then you will assume an attack on bullshit is attack on person.

And that’s the failure to distingush you make.

“If you were anything close to the legal expert you pretend to be, you wouldn’t be so threatened by the opinions of others.”

I have an actual education in actual law.  You, not having that, are not a judge of it.  As for being—or feeling—“threatened” by bullshit?  Don’t be so silly: falsehood is false, regardless from which point on the political spectrum a mouth utters it.  I am opposed to falsehood; I don’t “do” groupthink” by only criticizing the falsehoods of “my” “opponents”.

“Have you tried touting your legal expertise to a psychologist?”

Are you qualified to “diagnose” others, even without bothering with the ethical requirements—face-to-face interviews, administering applicable evaluative tests?  No, you are not.  Thus you falsely accuse me of personal attack, then angage in personal attack.

Do you know the meaning of the word “hypocrite”?

Here’s another elgitimate distinction: to call a person a “hypocrite” when the person is not that is to engage in personal attack.  But to call a person a “hypocrite” who is actually that is a statment of fact.

As a matter of fact, you are a hypocrite.

“Sorry to read that you have such contempt for yourself. That explains your problem, anyway.”

I have contempt for falsehood—including the embodiment thereof by hypocrites.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, May 5, 2007 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

In other words, Mr. Canning, use impeachment as harassment, when everyone involved knows perfectly well that it will go nowhere.  Isn’t that the epitome of disingenuousness?  Furthermore, no one has yet issued any subpoenas.  The Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe, has authorized that in the U. S. Attorney firing fiasco (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/senate-judiciary-committee-approves_22.html), but they have as yet not been issued.  It was the courts that actually enforced congressional subpoenas against claims of “executive privilege” in the past, but, as you quite correctly point out, the courts are now populated by another sort of judicial animal.  So, we’ll see.  My point is that impeachment rouses negative reaction in people who might otherwise support taking the administration to task with the very significant oversight powers Congress has, without embroiling the nation in impeachment hearings or proceedings that will polarize it, and not to the Democratic advantage, I’m afraid.

Report this

By cann4ing, May 4, 2007 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

re comment #68210 by Blueboy1938.  You are overlooking the significant legal issues that would arise if the Democrats simply authorized a Select Committee to investigate impeachment of the VP in the same manner a Select Committee had been appointed during Nixon’s tenure.  In U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court held that claims of executive privilege must give way to the need to investigate criminal wrongdoing in a criminal case.  The impeachment function is one that the Constitution grants solely to Congress.  While the Congress does indeed have subpoena power, much of it is running into executive stonewalling.  That is precisely what is occuring in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. If subpoenas are issued in pursuit of the impeachment question, it is difficult to come up with a legal rationale to prevent inquiry under claims of executive privilege.  Of course, we do not have the same Supreme Court as we did when it decided U.S. v. Nixon.  With four Supreme Court Justices, who are affiliated with the radically subversive, Robert Bork founded, Richard Mellon Scaife funded Federalist Society already on the bench, it doesn’t take but one vote to block the rule of law.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, May 4, 2007 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment

Well, Verne Arnold, someone is actually doing something about it:  Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced House Resolution 333 on April 24, 2007 ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110y78YOc:: ), containing a Bill of Impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney. He’s smart enough to know that, were President Bush successfully impeached first, we would have an even worse situation: a President Cheney.

Unfortunately, this has about as much chance of passage as a snowball in hell, as a practical matter.  Nancy Pelosi has already stated that she will not allow impeachment to reach the floor of the House.  She is pursuing the much more doable oversight “death by a thousand subpoenas” method of dealing with the floundering, inept, and dismally unpopular Bush administration.  She knows that there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict either the Vice President or the President in an impeachment proceeding.  She also knows that, even if the Vice President were successfully removed from office, the President would simply appoint someone who would be an attractive candidate for the Republicans in 2008 and thus cut off at the knees any hope of a Democrat taking the White House in the next presidential election.  Likewise, she knows that, in the unlikely event that Representative Kucinich’s H. Res. 333 should pass, the resulting impeachment proceeding would tie up both Houses of Congress for months, well into the presidential race, and cause blame to be leveled at the Democratic Party for dividing the country, whereas now that distinction belongs to Bush.

No, its time to put the siren song entitled “Impeachment Rag” to rest, and concentrate on helping the Democratic candidate of our choice win in 2008.  That’s because there is one thing sure:  Bush will be out of work on January 22, 2009!

Report this

By David, May 4, 2007 at 3:00 am Link to this comment

Re: #68076 by JNagarya on 5/04 at 12:11 am

“I’m contemptuous of ignorance—especilly when it refuses to confront itself, and correct itself.  I’m contemptuous of those who know-it-all, without bothering with the effort to know anything at all based upon other than hatred of that about which it actually knows nothing.”

You are the epitome of what you describe, contributing nothing except self-righteous, narrow-minded, amateur attacks against everyone else. If you were anything close to the legal expert you pretend to be, you wouldn’t be so threatened by the opinions of others. Have you tried touting your legal expertise to a psychologist?
Sorry to read that you have such contempt for yourself. That explains your problem, anyway.

Report this

By JNagarya, May 4, 2007 at 1:11 am Link to this comment

#68073 by Douglas Chalmers on 5/04 at 6:13 am
(240 comments total)

“#68063 by JNagarya on 5/03 at 9:59 pm: “...Make up your mind: you’re for the rule of law, or you’re against it….””

I am NOT in favor of “white mans’ law” in a country of ethnically different peoples nor their subjugation by it.”

Right.  We should have law-illiterates—“white man’s law”?—such as you determining the law, based uipon racist hatred of the allegedly racist.

“I am NOT in favor of a law which placed a criminal in the presidency of the USA - and helps to keep him there.”

That didn’t happen, as you’d know if you’d ever read the Constitution.  The Constitution gives exclusive authority to resolve election disputes, such as that in 2000, to CONGRESS.  The involvement by the SC was not legal; it was an unconstitutional usurpation of that exclusive authority.

Wouldn’t it be better to know the law before making statements based thereon?  I mean, just so one is certain one isn’t wrong on whatever the legal issue?

“I am NOT in favor of a law which usurps the inalienable right of the individual and reduces them to a being victim of policies designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy.”

So you’re against our “system of laws, and not of men” (John Adams); against democracy.  And profoundly ass-backwards in the notion that the individual is “above” the skein of laws that is society.

“Your “rule of law” is a piece of shit made up to dupe people into giving over their independence and freedom to the yoke of subservience and absolving the criminals who run the administrative system.”

You’re ignorant of law.  Why pretend otherwise?  The rule of law to which I refer is consistent with sanity: humans, not being perfect, cannot be relied upon to be perfect.  Not being perfect, they tend to violate others’ rights; thus the law, which cannot be expected to be perfect, as it is made by imperfect humans, is also intended to prohibit and punish such violations.

To paraphrase James Amdison: gov’t is the mechanism by means of which a community regulates itself.

Do you really kid yourself—or expect to fool us—that having no grounding in anything relevant to law, or the design and establishment of legal systems qualifies you do do exactly that?

“That includes conceited and contemptuous fools like yourself, Nagarya.”

I’m contemptuous of ignorance—especilly when it refuses to confront itself, and correct itself.  I’m contemptuous of those who know-it-all, without bothering with the effort to know anything at all based upon other than hatred of that about which it actually knows nothing.

None of which has anything whatever to do with “conceit”.  I’m for the rule of law because the alternative is unacceptable; it’s that simple.

And, my legendary humility should not go unremarked.

So make up your mind: you’re either for the rule of law, or you’re for the alternative, including that represented, and implemented, by the lawless Bushit, et al.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, May 4, 2007 at 12:43 am Link to this comment

#68063 by JNagarya on 5/03 at 9:59 pm: “...Make up your mind: you’re for the rule of law, or you’re against it….”

I am NOT in favor of “white mans’ law” in a country of ethnically different peoples nor their subjugation by it.

I am NOT in favor of a law which placed a criminal in the presidency of the USA - and helps to keep him there.

I am NOT in favor of a law which usurps the inalienable right of the individual and reduces them to a being victim of policies designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy.

Your “rule of law” is a piece of shit made up to dupe people into giving over their independence and freedom to the yoke of subservience and absolving the criminals who run the administrative system.

 

That includes conceited and contemptuous fools like yourself, Nagarya.

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, May 4, 2007 at 12:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#68050 by JNagarya

Are you a mentally deficient? I cut and pasted your words, from your post, which were a TOTAL fabrication of something you claim I said, WHICH I NEVER DID SAY OR WRITE, and you tell me they’re my words. I answered your challenge with the lies you wrote, and you claim your lies are my words. Please don’t challenge if you are incapable of following through…or god forbid, admitting error.

See if you can figure out how to search the page for words, ok? Then, if you can figure that out, put in the word lambast, ok? It first appears in YOUR post “#67087 by JNagarya”. You had some of my words there are in quotation marks, and the word lambast is there, but it is your word, without quotation marks. I never wrote that word before you did! Every time I’ve used it since, I’ve been defending myself against your first useage in spewing spurious lies.

I know you won’t get this, cause I’ve already written it, and you’ve just gone off on some demented rant, but show me what post I wrote any of those things in, show me, don’t just say they’re mine, show me where they’re written, as in the # of the post and the specific line of the post. Instead of showing me, since you can’t, you insult again and again and again.

I knew you’d never apologize or admit that you were wrong, and as far as I’ve seen, you are incapable of that, so this idiotic “discussion” is over, and you can shovel your lies elsewhere and see what kind of arguments you can foment. Your opinions/lies are self-evident to anyone who cares to follow the trail of turds you’ve left behind.

What’s curious about all this lunacy is, we’re on the same page on a lot of things, based on what I’ve read of your posts, but I think perhaps you might have a tumor in your head that spins you off on these wierd paranoid delusions. I’m truly sorry for you.

I have a feeling, if you weren’t such an asshole, we might actually have an interesting discussion. But that’s it for me, no more replies to your lies. Rant on dude, we’re done.

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, May 3, 2007 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#67982 by MyronH

Well said, and points well presented. Excuse me if I run with what you have written, but it’s right up the middle for me…

This article is about “No One Should Be Above the Law”, and this is the principle I’ve been hoping would be found ever since Richard Nixon proved that Presidents are above the law. They said his leaving the Presidency proved the system worked, when in fact, it proved the exact opposite. And his hand-picked successor, and pardoner extraordinaire, Gerald Ford, then brought forward the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney into the limelight of power, and then they helped to move HW into the office of Director of CIA…all of them destined for the rarified air of the lawless executive branch that exists beyond the Constitution.

They all set the stage for the next Republican Constitution mauler, St. Ronald The Evil Empire Slayer (although he was far better at slaying Central Americans). Taking notes from the fall of Nixon, Reagan then proceeded to play the rubes like a carnival barker, with his shills gathering together to cover his action. De-regulation gone wild! AIDS gone wild thanks to Reagan sitting on his hands while his psuedo-religious shills hatred of gay people held off research into cures and causes. The rubes were successfully programmed to think that Reagan’s peeing on their heads was trickle down gone wild, and they all came together! The real spider at the center of the web, was HW, the man behind Iran/Contra, the real brains behind Reagan and his inhuman crimes committed against so many during those sterling years of Republicans in pig heaven.

Skip forward to the years of Bush The Lesser, and to a time when America, as it might have been, teeters on the edge of the abyss of totalitarianism. A time when America carries out unprovoked attacks, and when low-potential high-achievers rule the day, and will not allow an end to war.

Unfortunately, it is clear that things are going to have to get a whole lot worse before Americans will pull their thumbs out of their asses and do something. And by the time they do, it likely will be too late. Hell, it probably already is. But, in me still exists a tiny hope that Americans will awaken to the nightmare they’re inhabiting, and figure out a way to stop it. Perhaps they’ll even achieve a level of introspection hitherto unknown in average Americans…ok, I admit that’s ridiculous!

You mention that Americans live under the delusion that we are tougher and smarter than anyone else in the world. This is a standard “super-race” motif repeated ad nauseum over history. Americans, even if they don’t think in these precise terms, still consider themselves to be the master race. All others being lesser creatures of a world not worthy of Americans. Why do you think that Iraqi deaths (be they innocent or “guilty”) are not tallied? It’s because, to many, they are not worthy, or even of the same class as Americans, they are from the unclean third world, they’re barely human…so why bother counting them when you kill them, much less identify them (as human beings) and publish their names? I know many Americans do care, but clearly, not enough, cause the killing just goes on and on and on, and Iraqi’s remain nameless faceless non-statistics. How can Americans who favor this brutality not feel the shame of a war that should never have been fought? It’s beyond me.

Report this

By JNagarya, May 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

#68055 by Douglas Chalmers on 5/03 at 9:07 pm
(239 comments total)

“#68052 by JNagarya on 5/03 at 8:49 pm: “...#67806 by PatrickHenry on 5/02 at 4:31 pm
(22 comments total) “JNagarya…....” “Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.”..........”

“This “academic” is most probably from the Republican party and is only here trying to disrupt any blog which doesn’t align with their odious views of world domination at any cost.”

My comment—which you entirely deleted—was not about myself.  It was about the use of point-by-point critique as being the norm, usual—not as you asserted “unusual”.

I’m a professional, and I conduct my work in keeping with professional standards.  Your ignornace of those standards is not a reflection on me.

Nor does your irresponsible insistence upon personalizing, your smear-by-innuendo—learn how to do that from FOX, did you?—above have any relevance to my views as expressed here, or in any other sense or place.

The Bush gang has no regard for the rule of law—that being the foremost “problem” with them.  Joining them in that rejection of the rule of law is the opposite of restoring the rule of law.

Make up your mind: you’re for the rule of law, or you’re against it.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, May 3, 2007 at 10:07 pm Link to this comment

#68052 by JNagarya on 5/03 at 8:49 pm: “...#67806 by PatrickHenry on 5/02 at 4:31 pm
(22 comments total) “JNagarya…....” “Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.”..........”

This “academic” is most probably from the Republican party and is only here trying to disrupt any blog which doesn’t align with their odious views of world domination at any cost.

Report this

By JNagarya, May 3, 2007 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

#67806 by PatrickHenry on 5/02 at 4:31 pm
(22 comments total)

“JNagarya…....”

“Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.”

The term for my point-by-point responses is _seriatim_ (it is not “cut and paste”)—and is only unusual to those who don’t know a whole lot about formal methods of critique, and rebuttal.  It is not only common and usual but also the norm in academics, and such a law.

And all it “speaks” about me is a concern with an application of usual and well-known—to some—standards of critique.

Report this

By JNagarya, May 3, 2007 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

#67852 by guntotin ganglion on 5/03 at 2:50 am
(Unregistered commenter)

#67792 by JNagarya

““Substantiate just one—just one—misquote.  And just one—just one—misrepresentation.””

“Ok…I quote you…

““On one hand you lambast We the people as being ignorant, lazy, etc.””

No, you quote yourself. 

“Tell me where I lambasted We the people as being ignorant, lazy, etc.”  Tell me! Quote me! Show me…where did I writethat? Is that a misquote or a misrepresentation, you tell me…seems to have elements of both.

See above where you quote yourself, and assert that it is a quote instead from me?

Try being honest: quote—if you know how to do that—_me_—_my_ words—not _yours_—in effort to back up your assertion against me. 

“And just as a reference…to show that your choice of words indicates something unequivocal from me…

“lam·baste /læmˈbeɪst, -ˈbæst/
–verb (used with object), -bast·ed, -bast·ing.

“1. to beat or whip severely.
“2. to reprimand or berate harshly;censure;excoriate.”

I know the meaning of the word—and it was you who introduced it.  Try again: quote _me_ asnd having done that you assert.  But be certain to quote all of what I allegedly posted, instead of only self-serving snippets which you hope supports your claim.

Report this

By MyronH, May 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is doubtful that impeachment will happen. If it does it will be so watered down that nothing will be accomplished. The damage is already done and restoration of reputation will be minimal. The shoot-em nuke-em cowboy mentality/philosophy of the Bush/Cheney group is a real turn-on to the Bush loyalists. The average US citizen lives under the delusion that we are tougher and smarter than anyone else in the world; to admit defeat is too shameful to even consider. No wonder we are hated by the rest of the world. We have wasted more than half-trillion dollars and killed and maimed thousand of our soldiers and Iraq citizens.

As a life-long (72-years) citizen of the USA, I am ashamed to admit it. I want the International Court to do what my fellow-citizens fail to do and that is to find Bush and his cohorts guilty of war-crimes, punishable by death. Only that can start the healing process that is needed with the other nations of the world. It might also start the education of our dumbed-down citizenry.

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, May 2, 2007 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#67792 by JNagarya

“Substantiate just one—just one—misquote.  And just one—just one—misrepresentation.”

Ok…I quote you…

“On one hand you lambast We the people as being ignorant, lazy, etc.”

Tell me where I lambasted We the people as being ignorant, lazy, etc. Tell me! Quote me! Show me…where did I writethat? Is that a misquote or a misrepresentation, you tell me…seems to have elements of both.

And just as a reference…to show that your choice of words indicates something unequivocal from me…

lam·baste     /læmˈbeɪst, -ˈbæst/
–verb (used with object), -bast·ed, -bast·ing.

1. to beat or whip severely.
2. to reprimand or berate harshly;censure;excoriate.

Report this

By JNagarya, May 2, 2007 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

#67716 by sje on 5/02 at 4:07 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“The endless . . . .”

An impossibilty.  You irresponsibly exaggerate and misstate.

“. . . . quarrels between JNagarya and several others are getting tiresome!”

Then don’t read them—but continue to comment on them, sight unseen.

“I find myself, while reading the comments, forgetting the original topic.”

The “original topic” is the title of the article to which these are responses, and about which commentary, and on which comment.  That title is:

“No One is Above the Love”.

That’s all I do: point out that no one is above the law.  For a theme illustrating that fact see my comments on and about the articles “It’s the Guns, Stupid,” and “Politics Aside, Guns Still Kill,” located right here on “truthdig.com”. 

In those you will find me arguing that no one is above the law—and showing that the irresponsible, regardless their justifications used to defend and maintain those justifications, are by those means avoiding reason, avoiding reality, and by those reasons avoiding responsibility.

You’re still “free” to avoid the issues I raise on precisely on that point, and in accordance with that premise and principle.  And avoid my substantiations thereof.  But would that be intellectually honest? 

Would that be responsible? 

Would that _not_ be to declare yourself above the standards that are rules of evidence, reason, fact, and law? 

Above responsibility?

Report this

By JNagarya, May 2, 2007 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment

#67716 by sje on 5/02 at 4:07 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“The endless quarrels between JNagarya and several others are getting tiresome!

“I find myself, while reading the comments, forgetting the original topic.”

Then don’t read them.

You need instruction on that point?

Report this

By JNagarya, May 2, 2007 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

#67806 by PatrickHenry on 5/02 at 4:31 pm
(22 comments total)

“JNagarya…...thanks for the Wikpedia history lesson.”

I don’t “do” Wikpedia [sic]—it is insufficent and inaccurate.  And non-law.  I focus directly, and almost exclusively, on LEGAL history (on the occasion that .  And I certainly don’t do my research by watching TeeVee.  At my elbow are, at very least, colonial laws from New-Plimoth [Plymouth), Massachusetts-Bay, and Connecticut (the several colonies it was), earlest state laws from such as, but not only, MA-Bay and Connecticut.

For ages I have had on my hard drive, directly at hand, the constitutions of all 50 states, beginning with their first where there have been more than one.  The constitutions of the Original Thirteen were variously adopted during 1776-77, and 1780 (MA-Bay).

That, again, is the least of legal authority I have immediately at hand.

Otherwise, relatedly, I have much supplemental material, such as HISTORY, all of which are secondary, non-law, materials.

In short: I don’t bullshit.

“You assume too much.”

I assume nothing.  See above.

“Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.”

Personal attack.

“200-300 years from now and even today, your writings could be construde as “unstable”.”

Personal attack.

Patrick Henry was said by those who knew him to be unstable.  I communicate that fact to you; not knowing Patrick Henry any better than you, I don’t make up anything about him—including “defenses” which rely on denial of statements made by Patrick Henry’s own colleagues and contemporaries.  They, not I, said he was unstable.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 2, 2007 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

JNagarya…...thanks for the Wikpedia history lesson.

You assume too much.  Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.

200-300 years from now and even today, your writings could be construde as “unstable”.

Report this

By JNagarya, May 2, 2007 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

#67619 by guntotin ganglion on 5/02 at 2:42 am
(Unregistered commenter)

#67546 by JNagarya

“Sorry if I took it personally, having you misquote and misrepresent me.”

Substantiate just one—just one—misquote.  And just one—just one—misrepresentation.

“Perhaps it was inappropriate to get “personal”, but there was a certain level of incoherence, and a wandering sort of motif that I saw that reminded me of certain excesses which I will no longer elaborate on.”

It’s okay to speak with an accent, but not to see with one.

““There is a sceond choice: educating We the people in civics—in how our gov’t is to function, based upon the rule of law, not instead on “freedom” diverced from responsibility and limits.””

“Where did “freedom divorced from responsibility and limits” come from?”

From those who talk only about freedom, and freedom, and more freedon, all of those being self-centered, with never a mention of the longer word “responsibility”.

“I never wrote anything remotely indicating that.”

Correct: you left that reality out of your calculations.

“That’s your personal baggage that arrived unbidden.”

I see: no one is respond to you unless they limit themselves to your limitations.  They are prohibited bringing in other relevant facts and considerations.

“If anything, my writing has been about educating, not telling people they have no responsibility and there are no limits to freedom.”

Your “eductaion” has been wholly abstract, divorced from concrete, realistic context.

“It’s these wild swings that brought on my “personal attack”, which I won’t do again. I will however, take offense at being misrepresented when there’s nothing I have written that comes close to communicating what you’re writing about.”

Substantiate with just one—just one—“wild swing”.  And just one—just one—“misrepresentation”. 

“And simply put, I’ve no idea where the comments about people who believe they have a right to be uneducated came from in this regard.”

They came from me; and from me direct experience with such persons and claims.  Know it or not, or like it or not, such people do exist—the Internet is rife with them—and that view, though not always articulated, is overtly obvious.  A representative example is the “responsible gun owner” who is incapable of basic logic, basic intellectual honesty—basic responsibility—but not incapable of erroneously believing and asserting that their particular fetish is an “inalienable” (it is not) “absolute” (it is not) “right”.  Their only mention of “responsibilit” turns out to be yet another specious cover for their irresponsibility.

“I write, with the hope of actually taking part in an intelligent discussion, but it doesn’t seem to happen much…mostly it’s personal agenda based rants.”

Sure you do.  But no one had better bring in facts and considerations which challenge, question, disprove or even shred that you write.  You simply want to express your view, and then have that “discussed” “as if true” without critical evaluation.  You don’t want to know whether the pregnancy is genuine, or mere wind egg.

“And excuse me for saying so, but that’s what you’re writings read like to me. They don’t read like they have much to do with me, even though they appear to be aimed my way.”

In other words, you don’t “comprehend” them, yet pretend to to understand them anyway, because they don’t have anything to do with you, they have to do with your “message”.  Failing to distinguish between yourself, and your “message, is the same failure exhibited by zealots who believe not merely that their “essage” is true, but beyond that that they actually truth.

Report this

By Calibpatriot, May 2, 2007 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

I’ve sent e-mail, after e-mail, after e-mail to my two Democratic senators, my congressman, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid but to no effect. When I get a response, if at all, it amounts to a form letter with very feeble excuses.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the Democrats in congress try too hard to “triangulate” between what the majority of Americans have mandated and this criminal administration. This is the reason that BushCo pays so little attention to them.

Report this

By sje, May 2, 2007 at 10:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The endless quarrels between JNagarya and several others are getting tiresome!

I find myself, while reading the comments, forgetting the original topic.

Report this

By The Old Hooligan, May 2, 2007 at 8:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What? Did some comely young intern recently give “The Decider” a BJ? I sure musta missed -that- on the evening news, ‘cause as we all well know that’s the -ONLY- offense truly worthy of impeachment on Capitol Hill.

Fuhgeddaboutit. This administration (starting with King George, oc) is chock full of “Water Walkers,” and there’s not a thing we any of us can do about it except sit around and piss and moan and make funny noises.

For every American who thinks the guy ought to go to a federal prison for what he’s done to the United States of America, there’s gotta be at least two knuckle-dragging “Bushie” nitwits in this once-great Nation who still think “The Decider” is doing a “heckuva job.”

Yeah, suuuuure he is.

I’m just sitting here patiently counting the days….

Report this

By tom camfield, May 2, 2007 at 6:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I shall visit DC May 17-21.  While there, I shall conduct my own ‘march on Washington,’ wearing a T-shirt with the slogan:  TO FAIL TO IMPEACH IS TO CONDONE THEIR CRIMES.  The Democratic Congress is wasting its time with feeble efforts to establish time lines for withdrawal from Iraq.  The biggest issue of our times is the worst-in-our-nation’s-history abuses of power and violations of the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States by the Bush/Cheney administration.  The impeachment process must be initiated now!

Report this

By Palema, May 2, 2007 at 5:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#66491 by Pete on 4/26 said, among other things:

“... Bush should be impeached for failing to defend the borders of the US, something he swore an oath to do. ...”

He did not. The oath is to execute the office and uphold the Constitution.

“... I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Nothing in there about borders to be defended.

Report this

By JNagarya, May 1, 2007 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

#67565 by PatrickHenry on 5/01 at 9:13 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#66624 by JNagarya

“Read a biography of Patrick Henry, will ya?

He was viewed by his “revolutionary” colleagues as unstable”.

“JNagarya….....I’m sure I and several of the other bloggers on this thread view your imput as unstable.”

It wasn’t I who said he was unstable: it was his colleagues who expressed that view.  But thanks for making my point: I’m the messenger; you don’t like the message; you attack the messenger.

“Your blogs are all over the place when you are not making personal attacks on others views.”

1.  I don’t “blog”.

2.  Make sense: there is personal attack—your attack on the messenger—and there is “attack” on the view—my refutations of “views,” the message.

“Although you have no actual first hand knowledge of the 17th century founding fathers viewpoints towards their partners in crime, you accept it as fact….are you a republican?”

I accept it from their own words, child.  But their views, based upon direct first-hand experience with and observation of him, aside: Patrick Henry was an anti-Federalist—opposed to ratification of the Constitution.  But later, when he wanted to be governor, he was a Federalist.

Those are objective facts, not the opinion of those who knew him, and who reduced those views to writing.

More directly _at_ your imagined up “reality” of the realities and views of the founding era and the Founders: Patrick Henry requested of the VA House of Burgesses that he be appointed head of the VA militia.  That House of Burgesses, knowing him personally, intimately, as having been a member of that House, refused that request.  Because they viewed him as unstable.

Read a biography of Patrick Henry, will ya?  And then of such “paragons of patriotism” as Sam Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere* (to only mention a few, from only MA-Bay).

*Paul Revere was not the only “The British are coming!” rider out that night.  Rather, there were some 32 carrying the same message (one of those being John Dawes).  Revere did not make it all the way to Lexington-Concord (but John Dawes did); on the way he was captured by the British.  The British released him because he spilled the beans as to what he and his cohorts were about.

But he was politically connected, especially being Sam Adams’ favorite illustrator of Sam Adams’ false propagandas, especially but not only that of the “Boston Massacre,” which was not a massacre.  See _Boston Massacre_ (NY: Norton, 1976), by Hiller Zobell.

In sum: Henry was not on any battlefield—being “landed gentry”/“aristocrat”—while he was making so many statements in support of war, and death on the battlefield by others than himself.

Read a biogrpahy of Patrick Henry, will ya?  Stop imagining you know the history in spite of having read none of the history.

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, May 1, 2007 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#67546 by JNagarya

Sorry if I took it personally, having you misquote and misrepresent me. Perhaps it was inappropriate to get “personal”, but there was a certain level of incoherence, and a wandering sort of motif that I saw that reminded me of certain excesses which I will no longer elaborate on.

“There is a sceond choice: educating We the people in civics—in how our gov’t is to function, based upon the rule of law, not instead on “freedom” diverced from responsibility and limits.”

Where did “freedom divorced from responsibility and limits” come from? I never wrote anything remotely indicating that. That’s your personal baggage that arrived unbidden. If anything, my writing has been about educating, not telling people they have no responsibility and there are no limits to freedom. It’s these wild swings that brought on my “personal attack”, which I won’t do again. I will however, take offense at being misrepresented when there’s nothing I have written that comes close to communicating what you’re writing about.

And simply put, I’ve no idea where the comments about people who believe they have a right to be uneducated came from in this regard. I write, with the hope of actually taking part in an intelligent discussion, but it doesn’t seem to happen much…mostly it’s personal agenda based rants. And excuse me for saying so, but that’s what you’re writings read like to me. They don’t read like they have much to do with me, even though they appear to be aimed my way.

Report this

By PatrickHenry, May 1, 2007 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#66624 by JNagarya

“Read a biography of Patrick Henry, will ya?

He was viewed by his “revolutionary” colleagues as unstable”.

JNagarya….....I’m sure I and several of the other bloggers on this thread view your imput as unstable.

Your blogs are all over the place when you are not making personal attacks on others views.

Although you have no actual first hand knowledge of the 17th century founding fathers viewpoints towards their partners in crime, you accept it as fact….are you a republican?

Report this

By JNagarya, May 1, 2007 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

#67395 by guntotin ganglion on 5/01 at 3:49 am
(Unregistered commenter)

#67309 by JNagarya on 4/30 at 1:15 pm

“You might want to consider drinking a little less when you write…you might actually make sense if you tried it.”

Personal attack.

“First you have me lambasting We The People for being ignorant and lazy, and then I’m an idealist who is delusional about the abilities of the people to self-govern.”

It’s actually straightforward and consistent: We the people ignorant; you’re an “idealist” and “delusional” by putting the responsibility of self-governance into the hands of those who—We the people—haven’t a clue as to the underlying rules of self-governance.

“So which is it? Or is there a third choice?”

There is a sceond choice: educating We the people in civics—in how our gov’t is to function, based upon the rule of law, not instead on “freedom” diverced from responsibility and limits.

“And then you go off on people you think believe they have the right to be uneducated, spawning more people who believe they have the right to be uneducated. Wow…quite the leap to that conclusion. Your spinnin’ a might too fast for me!”

I gave it context; and it is the fact that when I was growing up, there were those who defended the “right” to be uneducated.  And that was their paramount success in life: reproducing, and teaching the offspring that they too had the “right” to be uneducated.

“Who lit up your bong? I’m thinking you either need to lighten up on the alcohol, or stop drinking the bong water after you’ve pulled a lung full. Clearly you have a load of issues that go beyond anything I’ve written, or would consider writing.”

Personal attack.

Perhaps you should stop drinking alcohol and bong water, and smoking reefer, at the same time?

“Man, for a second there I thought it was me. What a relief! Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know I don’t have to try making sense with you. Cheers!”

Perhaps you should stop drinking alcohol and bong water, and smoking reefer, all at the same time?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, May 1, 2007 at 4:52 am Link to this comment

#67348 by R. D. Hill on 4/30 at 5:33 pm: “...But it’s what he (they) might still do which horrifies me….Russia and the US are capable of inflicting horrendous damage and loss of life…”

The “the old cold war mechanisms intended to prevent a WW III from being accidentally launched…” certainly were shaky and at all levels, R.D.Hill. It has been said that a mad sergeant could have fired off an ICBM which would have triggered a full nuclear exchange at any time during the 1950’s-80’s.

Bush’s “psychological state” as an ex-alcoholic and given his increasing age is always a concern but there must also be others who have access to the command chain for initiating a nuclear launch whether from land or from the air or sea. Its a big risk to have all that stuff on an active basis all the time.

Back in the 1950’s-60’s, especially with the Cuba missile crisis, there was a real obsession with building blast shelters in the basements of peoples’ homes and all kinds of voluntary civil defence training. With the illusory “war on terror” occupying peoples’ minds, we have forgotten how real that threat still is.

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, April 30, 2007 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#67309 by JNagarya on 4/30 at 1:15 pm

You might want to consider drinking a little less when you write…you might actually make sense if you tried it. First you have me lambasting We The People for being ignorant and lazy, and then I’m an idealist who is delusional about the abilities of the people to self-govern. So which is it? Or is there a third choice?

And then you go off on people you think believe they have the right to be uneducated, spawning more people who believe they have the right to be uneducated. Wow…quite the leap to that conclusion. Your spinnin’ a might too fast for me!

Who lit up your bong? I’m thinking you either need to lighten up on the alcohol, or stop drinking the bong water after you’ve pulled a lung full. Clearly you have a load of issues that go beyond anything I’ve written, or would consider writing.

Man, for a second there I thought it was me. What a relief! Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know I don’t have to try making sense with you. Cheers!

Report this

By R. D. Hill, April 30, 2007 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush (and Cheney) have performed terribly in their offices and the harm they have done to America already more than warrants their impeachment and prompt removal from office.

  But it’s what he (they) might still do which horrifies me.  Bush has let it be known that the option of using nuclear bombs on Iran is an option that is “on the table”.  He has access to an arsenal of nuclear bombs capable of decimating the world’s population, leading to a war far more horrible than were the first two World Wars.

  When he talks of launching a strike against Iran, he might really do it!

    Can he be counted on to act out of “rational self interest” as did both the US and the Soviet leaders of the cold war era - at least avoiding the worst?

  Unlike those others, with G. Bush there are reasons to fear that he might actually “push the button”, unleashing WW III.  Victor Gold, a Republican insider who has long known the Bush family said in an interview with Warren Olney on “To The Point” that as President, Bush has acted very differently than he did as governor of   The psychological blows he suffered could well have left him with lasting scars.

  He deserves sympathy, but there’s the question: “How much did the traumas he suffered affect his ability to function as the US President?  If they left him a smoldering resentment affects his judgment and conduct in office too severely, his continuing in office thus impaired could pose a risk to this whole country of 300 million people.

  Our relations with Russia have nose-dived.  Russia and the US are capable of inflicting horrendous damage and loss of life, one on the other.  Could something could go wrong with the old (shaky) cold war mechanisms intended to prevent a WW III from being accidentally launched?  If it were felt that Bush couldn’t be counted on to act out of enlightened self interest for the US but that he might instead do something rash and dangerous, carried along by a surge of overconfidence in himself as head of the world’s only superpower and leader in the all-encompassing war of good against evil which in his mind underlies all the wars he is engaged in, there would be rational grounds for others to see him and the nation he governs as posing a very great threat to their safety and even survival - a loose cannon unrestrained by the fear of retaliation which prevented the old Cold War from getting out of control.

  Were Bush to strike Iran now after his belligerent talk, given his enormous power, the level of alarm and stark fear - would be raised all over the world.  In those circumstances a case might be made for launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US on the grounds that whoever strikes first will likely suffer less harm than the one who “waits”, with parties trapped in a quicksand of logical war gaming.

  Our highest priority as a nation must be to make certain that neither Bush nor Cheney can ever again get in a position to - acting alone - order another military strike without being under the eye of others who could stop them if they were to be seen to be acting rashly and without sufficient reflection

  Sincerely,  Ralph David Hill   Borrego Springs, CA 92004

Report this

By manonfyre, April 30, 2007 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment

This may be the sort of thing that many of us honestly “think” about but find too impolitic to publish in a forum such as this.  Perhaps the moderators here will conclude that some of what follows is just a bit too edgy for this venue (or “ammo” for any “loyal Bushies” who might come across it), and I appreciate that.

Still, I’d like to confess that, at times, an unwashed “lusting in my heart” comes over me for some form of “street” justice to be meted out to Bush/Cheney and their entire crew:  Waterboarding Cheney before the UN Security Council, “in the round,” with Dubya, Hadley, Ledeen (and the rest) assembled around him, all in shackles, and compelled to watch?  A “road show,” maybe, hauling Dick’s archly guileful ass from one world captital to the next and repeating the demonstration? 

At such times, my lust is probably no different than the lust felt by many of the true-blue in the wake of 9/11—“Give us blood justice!”  And it was the cynical manipulation of that lust—in ways that would make Machiavelli, Trotsky, and Goerring blush—that lead to this “aggressive” war against Iraq and its entire catalog of attendant malfeasance.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

~Robert H. Jackson (chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg)

That said, this is just mind play; a flight of fancy.  Though on a different scale, it’s kind of like the dilemna faced by the recently-resigned head of the US Agency for International Development, Randall Tobias, pondering, “Should I hire a hooker to slake my sexual appetites?”  I have personally confronted this question and, to this point, have always resolved it with a resounding, “No!”  Similarly, the “Torture Cheney Carnival Tour” amounts to passing and sublimated whim. 

That being said, what I really wonder is what real justice would look like in dealing with these petty men and their monumental crimes: Trials before the World Court with, upon truly judicious convictions, terms of imprisonment to follow?  That would suit me most fine.

Yet it seems we are scarcely likely to muster the political will in this country to instigate mere impeachment proceedings.  (Just today, Murtha says, “Not at this time.”)  Again, to me, impeachment would be just a beginning.  Something more on the order of the Nuremburg Tribunal is in order.  An “example” needs to be made (absent, I would suggest, executions).  And the United States of America owes the world community a lengthy and gut-wrenching period of national mea culpa, apology, and restitution.  Ultimately, I believe these men will be pilloried (if not literally) and reviled.  But I can only hope that this comes sooner rather than later.

Domestically, we’ve got a tremendous amount of work ahead of us, both overcoming this giant leap backwards, and resuming the fitful advance of liberty, democracy, and the rule of law right here at home.


Thank you, Mr. Hedges!

Report this

By JNagarya, April 30, 2007 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

#67177 by guntotin ganglion on 4/29 at 8:11 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#67087 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 9:47 pm
(127 comments total)

“Speaking of the failures of government, it’s past time for a Constitutional Convention.”

ON ONE HAND YOU LAMBAST WE THE PEOPLE AS BEING IGNORANT, LAZY, ETC.  AND ON THE OTHER YOU ASSERT THAT IT’S TIME TO PUT THE CONSTITUTION IN THEIR HANDS AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

INTERESTING THEORY FOR WHICH THERE ARE, BY YOUR OWN CONTRADICTION, NO FACTS IN EVIDENCE EXCEPT THOSE TO THE CONTRARY.

“What are you writing about, and who are you writing it about? Where did I “lambast” We The People as “being ignorant, lazy, etc”? I think you’ve misread my posts and morphed others posts, which I perhaps referenced in one of mine, into something you now think I wrote, which I did not. All of my posts in this regard have been if anything, idealistically naïve about the ability of We The People’s to effect change. Virtually all of my criticism’s have been about government, not the people. . . .”

We have arrived at where we are, and have the gov’t we have, precisely because We the people have implemented our anti-intellectualism and laziness.  We the people has relinquished its responsibilities in exchange for the delusion that freedom is the absence of constraint; that there is a “right” to reject the rule of law in pursuit of one’s screw- everyone-else exaggeration of “individual right”—and separable from responsibility.  That there are no limits to “freedom”—which makes no sense to those who actually think.

And it began long ago: when I was growing up during the ‘50s, there was actually a belief expressed by many that there is a “right” to be uneducated.  Alas, the one that at which the ignorant are proficient is reproducing themselves, and teaching their offspring that they have a “right” to be uneducated, ignorant.

The gov’t we have represents We the people in all particulars, including that of corruption.

You are asserting an “idealism” which is as delusional as the belief that there is a “right” to be uneducated, ignorant, because it relies upon those who believe that “right”—and reject gov’t or civic responsibility—to do that which is in their best interests.  For which there are no facts in evidence.

When will you be making those connections, instead of relying upon a civic concern and responsibility which largely doesn’t exist?

Report this

By Ralph David Hill, April 30, 2007 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The things which happened to George Bush - striking out at him personally
Part Two

first the attempt to kill his father and then 9/11 have to be capable in many cases of traumatizing a victim of these things and leaving deep permanent psychological scars.  As president, he must be under a great deal of stress at times.

  One can have sympathy for him given what he’s had to go through, but there is the question of how it might have affected his ability to handle the demands and stresses of the American Presidency.  If, even though through no fault of his own, he has been deeply scarred his experiences to the point that he has become too rigid and hunkered down and defensive, his continuing as President of the United States might present a frightening risk to the whole country of 300 million people.

  Our relations with Russia have deteriorated.  The frightening possibility is that with both Russia and the US capable of inflicting scarcely imaginable damage and loss of life on one another, something could go wrong somewhere in the setup of mechanisms geared to prevent, God forbid, WW III from accidentally being launched.  If George Bush were to be perceived as unpredictable, not necessarily acting out of enlightened self interest for the United States but potentially capable of acting on unwarranted faith - irrationally to the thinking of those not totally “on the same page” with Bush.

  Were George Bush to do anything to Iran after his belligerent talk, with his frightening destructive power, and his track record in Iraq,  the level of alarm - in some cases underlain by stark fear - would be raised dramatically all over the world.  The situation would be such that there would be a case to be made for taking pre-emptive nuclear action against the United States under the consideration that whoever strikes first is likely to suffer less harm that the one who “waits for the other party to strike him”.

  It would seem to me that our highest priority as a nation would be to make absolutely certain that not even President Bush of Dick Cheney could ever on their own suddenly order another military strike - especially a nuclear one - without it being shown beyond doubt that the situation - for the first time since 1945 - was really a situation where such extreme action could be considered a rational response to a sufficiently dire situation.

  Sincerely,  Ralph David Hill   Borrego Springs, CA 92004

Report this

By Ralph David Hill, April 30, 2007 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Impeachment of George Bush (and simultaneously or in planned order that of Dick Cheney)

  As president, George Bush has shown himself to be a unilateralist feisty stubborn individual with a deep wrathful streak and a proclivity for launching poorly thought out military actions.  He launched the war in Iraq which has caused over a hundred thousand deaths in a reckless way and ignored the advice and warnings given him by sober experienced men (Gen. Shinseki - sp.).  His actions have inflamed Iraq and the surrounding region and provoked many inhabitants of the area into joining Al Qaida or some other actively fighting group.

  But it’s what he might still do which horrifies me.  He has let it be known that the option of using nuclear bombs on Iran is an option that is “on the table”.  If Hugo Chavez were to use language of the kind used by George Bush, it would be taken as bluster and allowed to pass.  George Bush has access to an arsenal of nuclear bombs capable of decimating the world’s population, leading to a war far more horrible than were the first two World Wars.

  If he talks of launching some kind of strike against Iran, there is the possibility that he might really do it!

  The question is: Could he be counted on to hew to a course of “rational self interest” as did Stalin, Truman, Eisenhower, Kruschev, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Carter, all of them - at least avoiding the abyss?

  In the case of George Bush there are reasons to fear there is at least a possibility that he might “push the button”, unleashing WW III.  Victor Gold, a Republican insider who has long known the Bush family said in an interview with Warren Olney on “To The Point” that as President, George Bush has acted very differently than he did as governor of Texas.  From being a man willing to meet with his opponents on the opposite political and negotiate with them to reach compromises he has become a stubborn pig headed confrontational individual whose motto is more like “My way or the highway”.

  Did something happen to him between his time as governor of Texas and now which impacted him so deeply that it greatly changed his personality for the worse and hardened him?

  He has had a history of alcoholism which to his credit he overcame after some time, turning his life around.  Still, that history might have left him more emotionally vulnerable to some kinds of stress than he otherwise would be.  Not long after the first Gulf War his father was the target of an assassination attempt by Saddam Hussein’s agents.  But then there was 9/11.  I believe the 9/11 hijackers had intended to fly flight 93 into the White House.  Other hijackers flew a plane into the Pentagon causing many deaths in a terrifying fiery crash.  Were it not for luck, George Bush might have been killed in that attack.  He came terrifyingly close to being killed in a frightening violent way.

  The things which happened to George Bush - striking out at him personally - first the attempt to kill his father and then 9/11 have to be capable in many cases of traumatizing a victim of these things and leaving deep permanent psychological scars.  As president, he must be under a great deal of stress at times.

  One can have sympathy for him given what he’s had to go through, but there is the question of how it might have affected his ability to handle the demands and stresses of the American Presidency.

Report this

By jason kolb, April 29, 2007 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I thought this was about the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and the ability of the American People to actually do something that shows that we have some say in what our government does in our name. That we are in fact a democracy and that when our “elected” officials do not act in our interest we can and must remove them from office.

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, April 29, 2007 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#67087 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 9:47 pm
(127 comments total)

———————————————————————————————
“Speaking of the failures of government, it’s past time for a Constitutional Convention.”

ON ONE HAND YOU LAMBAST WE THE PEOPLE AS BEING IGNORANT, LAZY, ETC.  AND ON THE OTHER YOU ASSERT THAT IT’S TIME TO PUT THE CONSTITUTION IN THEIR HANDS AS A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

INTERESTING THEORY FOR WHICH THERE ARE, BY YOUR OWN CONTRADICTION, NO FACTS IN EVIDENCE EXCEPT THOSE TO THE CONTRARY.
———————————————————————————————

What are you writing about, and who are you writing it about? Where did I “lambast” We The People as “being ignorant, lazy, etc”? I think you’ve misread my posts and morphed others posts, which I perhaps referenced in one of mine, into something you now think I wrote, which I did not. All of my posts in this regard have been if anything, idealistically naïve about the ability of We The People’s to effect change. Virtually all of my criticism’s have been about government, not the people. I’m cool with criticism, but it’s far more constructive when it relates to something I’ve actually written.

———————————————————————————————
“One of the first issues to be attended to is the creation of what might be the fifth branch, namely, a permanent independent council that is not answerable to Justice Dept or the Executive, only to the Constitution. This seems essential, because there will always be corruption and perversion of the law in a government as large and wealthy as ours.”

1.  WHO IS TO APPOINT THIS “INDEPENDENT COUNCIL” (WE THE PEOPLE NOT BEING SUFFICIENTLY TRUSTWORTHY TO ELECT IT)?
———————————————————————————————

Again, where was it that I wrote that “...the people are not sufficiently trustworthy to elect…” this proposed new branch? Where are you pulling these assertions from? That said, how to get this independent council in place is an excellent question, and one that would have to be addressed during a Constitutional Convention. This would have to be decided by consensus. Another way to put it is, I don’t know whether election or appointment would be the way. Be damned hard to keep politics out of it though, that’s for sure.

———————————————————————————————
2.  WHO OR WHAT IS TO TAKE DOWN THIS UNELECTED BODY (WE THE PEOPLE NOT BEING SUFFICIENTLY TRUSTWORTHY TO ELECT IT) SHOULD IT BECOME DICTATORIAL?
———————————————————————————————

Take it down? We haven’t even brought it up yet! Good question though.

Simply put, there is no fail-safe system in government. All human systems are corruptible. So, if this proposed branch were to become corrupt (which it inevitably would), as ironic as it sounds, the other branches, and We The People, would be tasked with correcting that corruption, as we are all tasked with oversight throughout. That’s all there is. Hopefully, if we have enough branches balancing each other, at any one time they won’t all be corrupt, and perhaps one can help to bring the others back into balance with the Constitution…or not…kind of like now.

It was only a suggestion by the way…and I would hope that within the confines of a Constitutional Convention, other ideas and concepts would be proposed, debated and either implemented or dismissed. This is a very informal forum from what I see, so I thought it fair to throw out relatively half-baked ideas, so cut me a teeny bit o’ slack, ok?

I think the format of these posts is a problem, since there’s really no word processing tools available here at all. I think misunderstandings (or is that misunderestimations?) are the result. So, in a loose attempt to make the intent clearer, I’ve put the historical posts in-between lines of hyphens, and capitalized the most recent historical (your) comments.

Report this

By Dr. Richard Blackmoor, April 29, 2007 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush has broken so many laws…The illegal spying done to American citizens is a clear violation of the FISA law.
  What would happen to most people if we broke Federal law?

Report this

By rabblerowzer, April 29, 2007 at 10:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Plutocrats nix Impeachment

As history demonstrates, republican voters have an uncanny knack for electing wannabe dictators as president.  Nixon, Reagan and Bush Jr. all fall into this category.

After six years of war profiteering and stolen elections, Democrats have another opportunity to reveal the GOP’s tyrannical nature. Instead of ignoring another wannabe dictator’s crimes, let’s hope that this time they IMPEACH to reveal and educate the people about the true nature of the Republican party.

Pelosi and Reid say impeachment is off the table because it will hinder their prospects to win the presidency in 2008. Don’t believe it, they are simply following orders. No matter which party we “elect” to govern our country, they are not in any sense our rulers. Our actual rulers are the people and corporations that own the Military Industrial Complex, and they don’t want Bush impeached. Bush is not only one of them, he has greatly increased their fortunes.

Just like Republicans, but to a lesser degree, Democrats are subservient to our plutocratic dictators, but at least they throw us a bone now and then.

.

Report this

By gladhand, April 29, 2007 at 6:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Post after post, more and more rhetoric on the subject, but that man remains in the office of President. We’ve all been beating a dead horse. Isn’t it time to put more into action then our typing skills? There’s been a million man march, over 50 million people signed up for the “Do Not Call” list and we all saw how fast that law passed. Now there should be a call for a real show of our combined displeasure with those “in charge”. How about “The Nations Walk To Washington”. Just imagine the look on Dubya’s face when he looks down Pennsylvania ave to see 50 million Americans walking towards the White House and all of them pissed at his administration.
He was able to ignore the last election results and the voice of the people but it’s damn sure he couldn’t ignore 50 million people on his doorstep. It’s the peoples White House not Dubya’s.
Any suggestions, other than telling me to take a long walk off a short pier, will be appreciated.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 29, 2007 at 12:43 am Link to this comment

#67104 by David on 4/28 at 10:56 pm
(12 comments total)

Re: #67082 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 9:17 pm

“Fundamental to drama is conflict.  The news media, as currently practicing, uses conflict to establish drama; and they make it an ongoing cliffhanger by keeping the outcome close.”

“Thanks for that profound insight. Please, keep studying Geraldo, and tell us more!”

Have you anything of substance to add? 

“Thus the assertion that the country is “equally divided”.  It is not.  Over 70 per cent are moderates.  The Democrats took Congress because more thn half of eligible voters got off their butts and out-voted the less than half who want to continue the destruction.”

“Who asserted that the country is “equally divided”?”

The “mainstream” media has been asserting that since at least the Clinton Administration.

“Are you really sure that over 70% are moderates, because if so, that explains everything.”

In what way?

“For one, the current Congress is not part of the problem; they are doing as they were voted to do; the problem is with citizens who don’t consider the existence, let alone rule, of law—not even in their own lives and actions.  And jabber about non-compliance with and violations of the “Constitution”—a documentthey themselves haven’t bothered to read for the very first time.”

“By your logic Bush and Cheney must be doing what they were “voted” to do also, and the real problem is that citizens don’t consider the existence of law.”

Congress is not the Executive.  Look around you: how many do you know who make excuses about violating the law?  They are part of the problem: they cut corners, and their excuse is usually, “Everybody does it.”  Then others imitate them.

“. . . .  So how long would the citizens have to ponder whether or not law exists in order to fix things?”

You think this is a joke, do you? 

“Right.  Those you vote for are the exceptions.  Sure.  Yep.  I’m persuaded.  Almost a True Believer.”

“You might want to re-read what you were responding to and try again, because your reply is even less intelligible than your usual.”

So far you’ve refuted nothing I’ve posted—and that is personal attack.  And you’re a judge of intelligibility?

“As said, you haven’t even read the Constitution you allege is being violated, thus don’t know the expressly stuipulated purposes of the militia (national guard) includes SUPPRESSION OF INSURRECTION.

There is no “right of revolution”.”

“Obviously you’ve never read the Declaration of Independence, upon which the Constitution stands.”

The “Declaration of Independence” has never been law, or plan of gov’t.  That’s why the same Congress which wrote and published that propaganda piece began framing the Articles of Confederation—some ten years before the Constitution was framed.  You really don’t know much about our history, do you?  And you have even less a grasp on law.

“When will you be reading the Constitution for the first time?”

“Are you trying to hook up with me? Are you queer?”

Shall we pretend you know the meaning of serious issues?  That you have something relevant to contribute beyond flippancies based upon ignorance?

“We aren’t going to restore Constitution and rule of law by preaching action against Constitution and rule of law.”

“Well, it works for George & Dick, so why not for the rest of us?”

For the reason I said.  You don’t put a whole lot of time into actually thinking, do you?

Report this

By David, April 28, 2007 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

Re: #67082 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 9:17 pm

“Fundamental to drama is conflict.  The news media, as currently practicing, uses conflict to establish drama; and they make it an ongoing cliffhanger by keeping the outcome close.”

Thanks for that profound insight. Please, keep studying Geraldo, and tell us more!

“Thus the assertion that the country is “equally divided”.  It is not.  Over 70 per cent are moderates.  The Democrats took Congress because more thn half of eligible voters got off their butts and out-voted the less than half who want to continue the destruction.”

Who asserted that the country is “equally divided”? Are you really sure that over 70% are moderates, because if so, that explains everything. And that means that less than 30% are extremists, which is comforting.

“For one, the current Congress is not part of the problem; they are doing as they were voted to do; the problem is with citizens who don’t consider the existence, let alone rule, of law—not even in their own lives and actions.  And jabber about non-compliance with and violations of the “Constitution”—a documentthey themselves haven’t bothered to read for the very first time.”

By your logic Bush and Cheney must be doing what they were “voted” to do also, and the real problem is that citizens don’t consider the existence of law. That’s deep, dude. So how long would the citizens have to ponder whether or not law exists in order to fix things?

“Right.  Those you vote for are the exceptions.  Sure.  Yep.  I’m persuaded.  Almost a True Believer.”

You might want to re-read what you were responding to and try again, because your reply is even less intelligible than your usual.

“As said, you haven’t even read the Constitution you allege is being violated, thus don’t know the expressly stuipulated purposes of the militia (national guard) includes SUPPRESSION OF INSURRECTION.
There is no “right of revolution”.”

Obviously you’ve never read the Declaration of Independence, upon which the Constitution stands.

“When will you be reading the Constitution for the first time?”

Are you trying to hook up with me? Are you queer?

“We aren’t going to restore Constitution and rule of law by preaching action against Constitution and rule of law.”

Well, it works for George & Dick, so why not for the rest of us?

Report this

By JNagarya, April 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment

#66627 by guntotin ganglion on 4/27 at 12:22 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“Speaking of the failures of government, it’s past time for a Constitutional Convention.”

On one hand you lambast We the people as being ignorant, lazy, etc.  And on the other you assert that it’s time to put the Constitution in their hands as a Constitutional Convention.

Interesting theory for which there are, by your own contradiction, no facts in evidence except those to the contrary.

“One of the first issues to be attended to is the creation of what might be the fifth branch, namely, a permanent independent council that is not answerable to Justice Dept or the Executive, only to the Constitution. This seems essential, because there will always be corruption and perversion of the law in a government as large and wealthy as ours.”

1.  Who is to appoint this “independent council” (We the people not being sufficiently trustworthy to elect it)?

2.  Who or what is to take down this unelected body (We the people not being sufficiently trustworthy to elect it) should it become dictatorial?

Report this

By JNagarya, April 28, 2007 at 10:39 pm Link to this comment

#66750 by felicity on 4/27 at 9:25 am
(11 comments total)

#66627 Ganglion

“Point taken and appreciated.  Jefferson did give the Constitution a max of 40 years longevity so your suggestion of calling another Constitutional Convention seems LONG overdue - and sorely needed.”

Jefferson was an envoy in Paris, France during the framings of Constitution and Bill of Rights.  He is among the least relevant spokespeople about the Constitution and Bill of Rights from that era.

“Unfortunately, I’ve about given up on the American voter’s ability to discern which candidate for anything would be best for our health and the health of our democracy.  (Guiliani’s poll numbers would certainly support my give-up feeling.)”

You think things are different now than they were during other times in history, the Founding era as example?  Ever hear of “propaganda”?  Though that he produced was exceedingly criude by today’s Madison Avenue standards, Sam Adams was an expert propagandist.

Oh?  You thought the Founders all stood for truth, justice, and the American way? 

“Today’s political candidates have become marketed commodities in keeping with our present culture of marketing and strobe-like celebrity where image is everything while substance never even comes up.”

Jefferson defended his image against the substance of the Sally Hemmings mud slinging by his political enemies, and those supporting John Adams’ candidacy.  The image was flase, the substance true.

“In this climate it seems unlikely that this country will become, once again, a really participatory democracy because most of us are unaware that we don’t have one let alone that we need to create one.”

It won’t become a “participatory democracy” so long as We the people don’t participate in it.  And mistake economics—greed and consumerism—for “democracy”.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 28, 2007 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

#66833 by Leefeller on 4/27 at 9:18 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“Especially the concept of four branches of government, I had never heard that before, make sense though!”

Huh?  Never heard that befere?  The power of gov’t is derived from We the people.  Ours is a representative democracy: we elect to gov’t from among ourselves representatives of our interests.

We the people are also the ultimate check on gov’t.  It didn’t take Jefferson to say that.  As James Madison said (more elegantly than I): Gov’t is a mechanism by means of which a community regulates itself.

“Any ideas on the Federalists and Jefferson?  Seems to me the Republicans are clones of Jeffersons foes, the Federalists.”

Jefferson founded the Republican Party.

The Federalists were for ratification of the Constitution.  The anti-Federalists—states’ rights—were against ratifying the Constitution.

Bush, et al., and the extremist right wing “Federalist Society” are anti-Federalists—or would be if they had principle.  In fact, they are opportunists who will be whatever gets them what they seek.  Scalia, a “Federlist Society” founder—and they and he preach “states rights”—intiated the sequence of events which resulted in _Bush v. Gore_.  He’s for “states’ rights” when it is in his interests to be so.  With that sequence of events, he violated “states rights”.

At the same time: the South was for “states rights” during the Civil War.  The Federal gov’t can enforce such as Federal civil rights laws against the racist predators and in protection of their prey.

In short: matters are much more complicated than some clear dividing line between such as Federalists and anti-Federalists.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 28, 2007 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

#66857 by David on 4/27 at 11:59 pm
(11 comments total)

“. . . .  It seems to me that half the population realizes that the corruption is destroying the US, yet we are incapable of any intelligent, courageous action to set things right.”

Fundamental to drama is conflict.  The news media, as currently practicing, uses conflict to establish drama; and they make it an ongoing cliffhanger by keeping the outcome close. 

Thus the assertion that the country is “equally divided”.  It is not.  Over 70 per cent are moderates.  The Democrats took Congress because more thn half of eligible voters got off their butts and out-voted the less than half who want to continue the destruction.

“Thus far, the effort has been to appeal to those who are part of the problem (Congress), as if they will eventually return their allegiance to the Constitution and the people because we asked nicely.”

For one, the current Congress is not part of the problem; they are doing as they were voted to do; the problem is with citizens who don’t consider the existence, let alone rule, of law—not even in their own lives and actions.  And jabber about non-compliance with and violations of the “Constitution”—a documentthey themselves haven’t bothered to read for the very first time.

“And at the same time, we continue to cheer for the most hollow of politicians while ignoring the rational & intelligent ones, allow the continuation of the corruption of the voting system (via closed-source software run on private servers), and allow the same corrupt campaign finance system that insures that candidates MUST be loyal to big corporations in order to get elected.”

Right.  Those you vote for are the exceptions.  Sure.  Yep.  I’m persuaded.  Almost a True Believer. 

“There’s no doubt that the people of the US could make profound change in a relatively short period of time. It would take organization and unity, and the mass will to take whatever action is necessary, up to and including armed rebellion.”

As said, you haven’t even read the Constitution you allege is being violated, thus don’t know the expressly stuipulated purposes of the militia (national guard) includes SUPPRESSION OF INSURRECTION.

There is no “right of revolution”.

“But we’re a long way from there. And as the ruling criminal cabal is well aware, all it’ll take is another 9/11 style “terrorist” attack to bring back popular support for further erosion of the Constitution and intensified mass murder for empire.”

When will you be reading the Constitution for the first time?

“What are we going to do about it?”

We aren’t going to restore Constitution and rule of law by preaching action against Constitution and rule of law.

Report this

By jesse, April 28, 2007 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment

How much worse does it have to get in order to raise a formidable response from the American people?

This is certainly the big question. My husband walked in and found me watching C-SPAN and asked, “And this stuff REALLY interests you??”
<sigh> When I attempted to tell him that it had better start interesting EVERYONE he gave his usual reply: “Why bother. There’s nothing I can do about all of it.”
It’s this apathy that must be overcome before anything will change significantly. How we do that—well, I’d love to hear some ideas on that one.

Report this

By Jason Kolb, April 28, 2007 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why is this not front page news? Why is it when ever this topic of impeachment brought up in mainstream media does it disapear with barely a whisper? There is something seriously wrong here.
It seems to me, that if our news media had made more noise a few years ago during the second election, about the election fraud that took place, President Bush would not be President right now. How easy we forget that President Bush was not elected by the people and is in fact not the American People’s President. Think for a moment where would we be now if we had stood up then.
We often hear, “two more years and it will all be over with” and what will be over with? Two more years? Look what has happend in the last two years. We can not allow this to continue for another day, let alone two more years.
If we impeach the President now the American People might be able to save some face in the World. We can not preach democracy if we can not practice it. We need to stand up for what this country stands for now. We need to stand up for Democracy. We need to get this into the public areana until every news station and news paper is screaming out for Impeachment. There is no doubt that President Bush and Cheney have comitted impeachable offensives. The question is whether we will do anything about it.

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it”

If we do not act now, in two more years, what this country stands for will be over.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 28, 2007 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment

#66857 by David on 4/27 at 5:29 pm: “...Do we keep pushing until the rest of the world is allied against the US, Israel, and Britain, and we let the nukes fly? If you’ve read some of the recent writings by Seymour Hersh and F. William Engdahl, it seems that the long-term US strategy is to work toward nuclear primacy and then launch a first-strike against Russia, in an attempt to cement the US position as the sole nuclear superpower for the next century. Is it acceptable that our leaders are even considering such insanity? What are we going to do about it….?”

We have just passed the anniversary (26th April) of the Chernobyl nuclear disater in Ukraine -  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobylanniversarystatement260406  - didn’t we learn those lessons - or those of Three Mile Island or of Sellarfield (renamed from Windscale) in Britain???

“Special events have been held in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia to mark the twelfth anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. In an address, the Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, said the disaster had cost the nation dear, both financially and in continued suffering. He again accused the international community of failing to honour pledges of financial aid to help close down the Chernobyl reactor.

In Belarus, the government said it would allocate nine per cent of this year’s revenue to alleviate the consequences of the accident. And in Moscow, a religious service was held in memory of the firefighters who died in the line of duty at Chernobyl.

According to official figures, more than three-and-a-half-thousand people died as a result of the disaster, but independent estimates put the figure higher.” - From the newsroom of the BBC World Service

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, April 28, 2007 at 12:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#66857 by David/#66833 by Leefeller/#66750 by felicity

I believe it might be more apt to describe We The People as the trunk from which the three branches grow. We are the root system and foundation of this country and it’s government. We provide all the nutrients that the government needs for it’s existence, and are responsible for the government they nourish. Calling us a fourth branch actually diminishes the significance of We The People. We are far more important than the other three branches, and thus we are the foundation, not just another branch.

That said, it means little if people don’t realize this, recognize it, and take it as their duty every day to defend the Constitution. Duty and country are not high on most people’s agendas in this country, and people generally think these words refer only to military service. I beg to differ. We The People are meant to lead, and it is our duty to lead. When we abrogate that duty by passing it to sycophantic surrogates, we compromise the very concept of what this country was meant to be.

“We The People” are the first three words of the Constitution for a reason. Read it after me…” We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

First and foremost, those words form an implicit social compact, for all citizens to take on the mantle of defending their fellows rights to Justice, Tranquility, Defence, Welfare, Liberty and Posterity. You can argue this isn’t socialism, but socialism is many things to many people, and if this isn’t socialism, what is? This is about establishing a country which defends the rights of it’s citizens, some of which are stated in the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson’s mission statement for this country) as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life very obviously being first, with Liberty and Happiness following in descending order of priority, by design.

“We The People” says it all to me, and indicates socialism was truly at the heart of what the founding fathers were striving for. We all are our fellow citizens keepers, and we all have a responsibility to protect our fellow citizens rights under the Constitution. As citizens, we have real responsibilities, and not just to ourselves, which is the Republican anti-American mantra. They don’t believe in We The People, they believe in the nihilism of Me, Myself and I, to the exclusion of all else. This must be fought, for if it takes permanent root, our country is finished, and will be replaced by a succession of dictators who will make it up as they go along, like the current chief executive is doing. And if this happens, it’s likely that each successive dictator will be more brutal and cruel than the last.

All just words…they mean nothing without action. I’ve thought for some time that what it will take is having the sleeping giant awaken. I am beginning to wonder if the sleeping giant is in a coma. It seems there’s no law this chief executive can violate that will get people’s attention. That said, I only hope that the true intent, and the true responsibilities of this countries citizens will soon take precedence over partisan politics and spin. In the end, the defense of the Constitution must be primary, and made a self-evident responsibility to all Americans, and once that day arrives, there will be hell to pay for the criminals who have worked so tirelessly to destroy the Constitution and everything it stands for.

God bless America, and God help America out of this wilderness of self-loathing nihilists who have hijacked the idealism and purpose of the founding fathers vision of the greatest country on Earth.

I’m kind of a blowhard, aren’t I? wink

Report this

By kevin99999, April 27, 2007 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I fully agree. This administration should be held accountable not only through impeachment proceedings and but charging them with crimes against humanity. This administration operated on the basis of lies from day one.

Report this

By David, April 27, 2007 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

Re: #66627 by guntotin ganglion on 4/26 at 5:52 pm

Well said!

How much worse does it have to get in order to raise a formidable response from the American people?
It seems to me that half the population realizes that the corruption is destroying the US, yet we are incapable of any intelligent, courageous action to set things right. Thus far, the effort has been to appeal to those who are part of the problem (Congress), as if they will eventually return their allegiance to the Constitution and the people because we asked nicely.
And at the same time, we continue to cheer for the most hollow of politicians while ignoring the rational & intelligent ones, allow the continuation of the corruption of the voting system (via closed-source software run on private servers), and allow the same corrupt campaign finance system that insures that candidates MUST be loyal to big corporations in order to get elected.

There’s no doubt that the people of the US could make profound change in a relatively short period of time. It would take organization and unity, and the mass will to take whatever action is necessary, up to and including armed rebellion.

But we’re a long way from there. And as the ruling criminal cabal is well aware, all it’ll take is another 9/11 style “terrorist” attack to bring back popular support for further erosion of the Constitution and intensified mass murder for empire.

So what’s it going to take? Do we keep pushing until the rest of the world is allied against the US, Israel, and Britain, and we let the nukes fly? If you’ve read some of the recent writings by Seymour Hersh and F. William Engdahl, it seems that the long-term US strategy is to work toward nuclear primacy and then launch a first-strike against Russia, in an attempt to cement the US position as the sole nuclear superpower for the next century. Is it acceptable that our leaders are even considering such insanity?
What are we going to do about it?

Report this

By Leefeller, April 27, 2007 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Good insight and comments from fellow posts.  Especially the concept of four branches of government, I had never heard that before, make sense though!
Any ideas on the Federalists and Jefferson?  Seems to me the Republicans are clones of Jeffersons foes, the Federalists.

Report this

By felicity, April 27, 2007 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

#66627 Ganglion

Point taken and appreciated.  Jefferson did give the Constitution a max of 40 years longevity so your suggestion of calling another Constitutional Convention seems LONG overdue - and sorely needed.

Unfortunately, I’ve about given up on the American voter’s ability to discern which candidate for anything would be best for our health and the health of our democracy.  (Guiliani’s poll numbers would certainly support my give-up feeling.) 

Today’s political candidates have become marketed commodities in keeping with our present culture of marketing and strobe-like celebrity where image is everything while substance never even comes up. 

In this climate it seems unlikely that this country will become, once again, a really participatory democracy because most of us are unaware that we don’t have one let alone that we need to create one.

Report this

By Jaded Prole, April 27, 2007 at 5:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The impeachment of Bush and Cheney must alos include charges against Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and all who aided and abetted or were complicit in the conscious disseminating of lies leading to war including those in the corporate media.

Report this

By Sally A. Bridges, April 27, 2007 at 3:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The entire Bush-Cheney gang should be impeached A.S.A.P.  Why we have such a fear of legitimate impeachment is beyond me.  If under-the-desk hijinks can get a president impeached, (something that was not becoming a president when done in the oval office—stupid, but not a crime) then we surely should be justified in removing a president that (along with his cohorts) has lied, misled, abused his office by taking illegal liberties with our privacy laws and generally changed this country, and the world.  If I believed in an antichrist, it would be him.  We have wasted precious time and energy that could be used to clean up this mess and try to undo some of the damage.  At least, no further damage could be done by him and Cheney, if successfully impeached.  When a criminal commits a crime, we do everything we can to remove him or her from society so the criminal activity stops.  Instead, we continue to enable this incompetent, single-minded air-head, and those who advise him, to our detriment and to the destruction he has wrought on the world.  He will be remembered in infamy.

Report this

By M Currey, April 27, 2007 at 3:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is a lot of information about how the Bush Administration stole the election, Instead of the cry for Impeachment, there should be investigation into the Ohio win for Bush, if the president did indeed steal Ohio the easiest way to remove Bush would be to let the winner take his rightful place.

Where is it written that if an election is stolen and the proof is there why cannot the rightful winner take his place even if there is only two years left in the Bush Presidency?

M.Currey

Report this

By David, April 27, 2007 at 3:36 am Link to this comment

Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and war crimes trials for the entire Bush cabinet and upper-eschelon of the Defense Dept, Justice Dept, State Dept, and National Securty Council, and military commanders involved in Iraq & Afghanistan would be a start toward justice. (Any wonder why the US is so averse to the International Criminal Court?)
Maybe this article and the growing pressure for impeachment are positive developments, but there’s also something sinister here. I’m curious is Chris Hedges is another paid dis-information operative a-la Judith Miller, or is it simply a display of habitual ignorance bolstered by a desire to earn a good living as a “veteran journalist”?

Hedges:
“This new order will undo five decades of international cooperation—largely put in place by the United States….”
“(Bush)and his advisers manufactured reports of weapons of mass destruction and disseminated them to a frightened and manipulated press and public.”
“....creation of these international bodies and rules, as well as the use of our influence over the last half-century to see they were followed, have allowed us to stand pre-eminent as a nation—one that respects and defends the rule of law.”

These assertions would be expected on Fox News or CNN, but who are you trying to fool, Chris? Have you never deemed it worthy to learn about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Vietnam War, Pentagon Papers, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Noriega, Bin-Laden, the CIA-backed overthrow or assasination of Mossadeq, Arbenz, Velasco, Lumumba, Bosch, Goulart, Sukarno, Sahounek, Torres, Allende, and Aristide,.... or about US support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, or about the United Fruit Co, Iran-Contra, Mena Airport, the asassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, and 9/11? And the list could be much longer. I guess you’ve never read any books by F.W. Engdahl, Chalmers Johnson, Peter Dale Scott, Edward Griffin, John Perkins, Fletcher Prouty, Amy Goodman, or the many others who publish truthful US history? Are you still a member of the “freightened and manipulated press”? Do they have your family held hostage, or are you just a little bit frightened but not really?
The half-truths like this are as dangerous to liberty and democracy as what Karl Rove gets paid to do. To suggest that Bush and Cheney are the extent of the problem, and after impeachment we return to a position of moral leadership in the world is utterly laughable, as well as dishonest.
It’s difficult to imagine that the US will clean house and criminally prosecute enough of the criminal cabal to restore representative democracy, but it would be a nice start if web sites like Truthdig would spare us the “everything was nice until Bush” bullshit and stick to reality.

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, April 26, 2007 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#66583 by felicity

If for no other reason, it is vital that we return the position of president of the US to the status of only one of three branches of government with no less and no more power than the other two branches as defined in our Constitution.  We mouth with pride our system of checks and balances when in practise that system has become seriously eroded.

—————————————————-

Good post Felicity.

But I need to correct you on something that Elizabeth de la Vega made me aware of a few weeks ago in a speech she made on CSPAN. That correction would be in your reference to three branches of the government. In reality, there are four, with We The People being the first, and most important.

We are, in reality, responsible for the other three branches. It’s our solemn duty to be watchdogs for the Constitution, because God knows the other three branches are irresponsible and incompetent when it comes to oversight. They have proven themselves, time and time again, to be corrupt and untrustworthy, and unwilling to do the hard things the Constitution requires. We The People are the ones who can vote them out of office, or hold them to the rule of law.

We are the first and last defenders, and as such, we must be vigilant at all times. As Thomas Jefferson said, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. He was speaking to We The People when he wrote that. Simply put, the laws are not to be demeaned, diminished, or violated, and if they are, the perpetrators, whoever they are, regardless of high office, are to be answerable for their crimes, as are all Americans. The full weight of the Constitution should be brought down on the heads of the criminal conspiracy that’s taken over our government, but only We The People can make it happen. We must stand up to the endless politicization of crime, and send the bastards to jail where they belong!

Speaking of the failures of government, it’s past time for a Constitutional Convention. One of the first issues to be attended to is the creation of what might be the fifth branch, namely, a permanent independent council that is not answerable to Justice Dept or the Executive, only to the Constitution. This seems essential, because there will always be corruption and perversion of the law in a government as large and wealthy as ours.

The only reason this chief executive’s still in office is because there is no independent arm of the government holding him to account for his endless crimes against the Constitution and We The People. Certainly the Republicans bent over backward (or was that forward?) to give him everything he’s asked for, and now Democrats are attempting to be civil with these miscreant idealogues, and as a result continue to give this chief executive everything he wants, albeit in the guise of being the “loyal opposition”.

Many comment on how the electorate spoke loudly in the last election, but I can say with certainty that Republicans don’t care, and have moved deftly back into the minority party mode with the same verve they had before taking power in 94. Basically, they know how to use power like no one else, and it matters not that they are in the minority. They managed to save Reagan’s ass when he should have been imprisoned, and they’re now doing the same thing again with the neo-convict currently populating the oval office.

This country can only be taken back by We The People. We need to raise our voices and demand the law be carried out. Impeachment is only the first step. There are several more after that, and imprisonment should be the ultimate goal. This country’s government has been taken over by thugs, and soon they will erase the Constitution entirely. We The People must stand and fight for law, or this country will become a lawless dictatorship forever. We need to find the real power again, and use it to fix the damaged vision of our founding fathers, who created the four houses of our government.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 26, 2007 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

#66607 by PatrickHenry on 4/26 at 4:06 pm
(17 comments total)

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!

Read a biography of Patrick Henry, will ya?

He was viewed by his “revolutionary” colleagues as unstable.

Report this

By JNagarya, April 26, 2007 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment

#66473 by Douglas Chalmers on 4/26 at 3:58 am
(175 comments total)

”...George Bush—we now know from the leaked Downing Street memo—fabricated a legal pretext for war….”

No, actually he fabricated an agenda for ignoring the United Nations and constructed a “coalition of the willing” as a vigilante group of rogue states which would co-operate in perpetrating any military adventure the USA wished to initiate.

Those 30 states, but principally Britain and Australia and South Korea, are also utterly culpable because of their political support at the outset and must eventually face UN sanctions of some kind as a result.

Two additional, clarifying points:

1.  A fraud cannot be legal, therefore Bush’s fraudulent pretext was not legal.

2.  I am sick to near death with the media asserting that Bush “made his case” for the war.  No, he did not: in court, a lawyer presents his case.  If he wins, he made his case; if he loses, he didn’t make his case.

Bush presented his “case” to the world, and the world, witness to the “evidence” and its presentation, and as judge and jury, dismissed it as frivolous.  It had no more merit than the frivolous _Bush v. Gore_. 

Those who knew the recent history of Iraq knew it was a lie the moment that began.  And knew the longer history of Iraq knew the illegal war was lost before it began.

Report this

By jbart, April 26, 2007 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re:the “comment” posted by Rodreques…The dude can’t even spell the fake name correctly. FYI-Rodriguez works better,U red-neck jerk.Another FYI, for U under-educated idiot..“i’in spanish is pronounced as a long “e” and e is a long “a”. Spanish 7th grade.Did you get that a-hole? You musta majored in “shop”, huh? Yeah, try to make your slanted philosophy,minority-driven,by using a pseudo name.You try to treat us like we’re all fools, and we ALL deserve you having that ability. We’ve given in to the long hours and pressures to keep our heads above water. And, while we toiled, the Neocons have had a veritable field day. Well, I hope the beginning to returning to what/where we were returns soon. The abuse of law by Dubya,Dick&their; thugs is disgraceful&embarassing;.The time has come to make all of the wrongs that they created, right. How? IMPEACHMENT !!Get them,and their cronies, in court to face the music, per se. Investigate & prosecute the Neocon-corporate-types to the fullest extent of OUR laws. There are regulations for gov’t procurement that limit, amoung other things, profits on taxpayer$ procurements. Known as DAR’s & FAR’s, these requirements are LAW. Let’s open their books and, if found to exceed the limits, prosecute to get the excesses recovered and the violators put behind bars.I think that the best thing we can do at this point, and juncture, is to send a clear message to them. “Screw with our country and our country will screw you!” They deserve nothing better. “Writeyour congressman” is getting old as a viable course of action. Why not call for a national referendum? Why not start a nation-wide petition campaign. What about “impeachtheBastards.com?” Just an idea.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 26, 2007 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!

Report this

By JNagarya, April 26, 2007 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

#66570 by guntotin ganglion on 4/26 at 7:33 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#66531 by Rodreques

“. . . .  Instead of always being so negative- why not try supporting the president and the gigantic burden that he shoulders of leading this nation.”

Because he is wrong, fool.  One does not maintain loyalty to blatant criminality, regardless who does it.

It is criminality—and defenses of it by fools such as you that is at very least _negative_.

“Your time will come when you can choose another national leader, but until that time please show some kind of respect!”

Ours is a representative democracry—not a “leader democracy”.  Under our system of laws, all are equal before the law—and that is meant; we are not to pretend otherwise.  NO ONE is exempt from the rule of law—including the blatant, obvious criminal Bush.

Stop being a snivelling coward: stand up like a man and oppose wrong, instead of whining that we all should voluntarily make ourselves complicit in the criminality, including the worst of moral depravities: the war crime of torture.  Yes: torture is a war crime, even when the US does it. 

Wake up and speak up in defense of law and sanity.  Loyalty to a criminal is lunacy.

Report this

By Rae Saltzman, April 26, 2007 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with the bsic letter - both our president and vice president (not necessarily in that order) MUST be impreached and the sooner the better.  We the public must begin immediately, a campaign to our representatives in congress to purse the process.

Report this

By felicity, April 26, 2007 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

Chris Hedges is absolutely right in his assesment of our present situation and what needs to be done to change it.

It is naive to think that there are not other ego-maniacs, petty tyrants abroad in this American land waiting and eager to sit in the Oval Office in ‘09.  Democracy is a very fragile form of government easy to destroy while difficult to maintain.  Should Bush be allowed to destroy it - in other words get away with trying to destroy it - what would stop his successor from carrying on his legacy. 

If for no other reason, it is vital that we return the position of president of the US to the status of only one of three branches of government with no less and no more power than the other two branches as defined in our Constitution.  We mouth with pride our system of checks and balances when in practise that system has become seriously eroded.

Report this

By Leefeller, April 26, 2007 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s not waste, I say waste one more life in Iraq.  Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, I say Impeach.  You know the pathological liar thing has to do with white and gray matter in the brain.  We should test for white matter in the brain before they run for office, not after.  It could save a lot of lives.

Report this

By guntotin ganglion, April 26, 2007 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#66531 by Rodreques

The comments that all of you liberals writetruely show your lack of knowledge. Instead of always being so negative- why not try supporting the president and the gigantic burden that he shoulders of leading this nation. Your time will come when you can choose another national leader, but until that time please show some kind of respect!

————————————————————————————-

Hmmm…hypocrisy isn’t just a word, it’s a way of life for so called “conservatives”.

Show some respect? Like the kind of respect that was afforded PRESIDENT Bill Clinton during his time in office? “Support the President”? Like right wing hacks did when Clinton was President? And my, wasn’t the right wing fringe a veritable fountain of positivity during Clinton’s years? Ya, right!

I’m not a fan of Clinton, but he’s the only President I know of that never even got a honeymoon (for even a minute) after he was elected. Traditionally Presidents get a few weeks during which the other side fakes it and acts like they’ll cooperate. However, this never happened for Clinton, the right wing extremist attack dogs were on him from the moment he took office, and they haven’t removed their claws to this very day!

Negative? Gimme a break. It’s interesting to consider, if the self-described “patriots” on the right fringe had ever given Clinton a moment of peace, or a micro-second of cooperation, perhaps 9/11 might have been avoided. Instead, at the peak of Monica-Gate, there were something like 200 FBI agents involved looking into dress stains, going through trash, looking under beds, and “following up” on he said, she said allegations.

What do you think those hundreds of FBI agents might have been doing otherwise, had their jobs and purpose not been hijacked by the extremists who had it in for Clinton at all costs…which by the way exceeded 50 million dollars (ask Ken Starr…he’s got the receipts). Gee, maybe they could have been tracking terrorists, rather than frivolous (a favorite word of right wingers) blowjob allegations by the retarded and obsessive compulsive right wing fringe!

So, I think it fair to say, shut the hell up about negativity, ok? The arrogance in your attitude isn’t just stunning, it’s friggin’ stupid. Morally and ethically retarded doesn’t even begin to describe your dimwitted lecturing.

Report this

By straight_talk_11, April 26, 2007 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

So, “Rodreques”, you think we should support the president of the United States no matter what he does? We should just ignore the facts and “respect” him just because he’s president? I guess you want to be a good little Nazi!? He doesn’t respect us, you, or anyone else. He violates your rights in the name of protecting our sovereignty while he violates the sovereignty of others every day.

You apparently start off, just like all the other Bush defenders, assuming that all this “negativity” is manufactured. Have you taken a serious look at the articles and issues Kucinich outlined in his speech? It won’t take much research, if you dare bother, to find out what he’s saying really is very well-documented. His speech is at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042401542.html

Or are you happy to stay blissfully ignorant, contentedly, comfortably blind and sucking on the corner of your cherished security blanket, pretending to be respectful while the country goes to the bad place on a freight train because of these turkeys? 

The justification for the impeachment of Cheney is airtight. It’s the wimpiness of our senators and congressmen in standing up for truth and real freedom that is responsible for any lack of support for Cheney’s impeachment Kucinich may get.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, April 26, 2007 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

Kucinich has it right. Impeach cheney first, then the chimp, so dick can’t become prez.

But the pussocrats don’t have the balls to impeach either of them. It’s “off the table”, remember?

This will all be moot when they pull off their second fake terror attack, bombs Iran, declare martial law and cancel the 2008 election.

The decider will then become der fuhrer.

Google video: 9/11 Press for Truth

Report this

By Robert Hutwohl, April 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

George W. Bush is the captain of the ship. The ship is headed for deeper waters after having been directed over shoals never intended to be navigated. This captain must be held accountable his severe incompetence and irrational abuse of power and the stealing of this nation’s treasury.

Report this

By CRYSTLE, April 26, 2007 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to “Rodreques”.... Respect is EARNED, it is not an entitlement.

Report this

By vet240, April 26, 2007 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush and cheney have been running a criminal enterprise out of the White House for over 6 years now.

Where and who are the police who are constitutionally responsible? It is the members of the Congress of the United States who are defined in the constitution as the responsible parties. Why have’nt they acted? Are they complicent?

Failure to impeach these people will forever change our form of governence to the detrement of us all. We will have proven that a Democratic Republic is a failed sham.

Report this

By Theodore de Vries, April 26, 2007 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

Bush, Cheney, Rove & the rest of those scumbags couldn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut* in regards to laws, rules and especially decency. They never have have, they never will. Even Republicans think that Gonzales needs to split and we still can’t get rid of him and he’s a 2-bit player compared to those at the top. It will take a lot more than impeachment and/or hearings to rid country of these treasonous cretins.

It’s too bad that there isn’t another United States of America to come and liberate us from our fascist despots.

*thanks KV

Report this

By Patrick Story, April 26, 2007 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m very pleased to have this speech, and I’m willing to support any effective avenue toward the impeachment of Bush and Cheney before they do even greater harm. The dem leadership seems to be assuming that Bush/Cheney have already done their worst and therefore the country can just drift under them for almost two more years until Jan. 2009. Dare we risk that?

I prefer the way the case is laid out in “The Impeachment of George W. Bush” by former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and Cynthia L. Cooper(Nation Books, 2006), simply because they begin with the language in the Constitution for impeachment, including the presidential oath of office, and then lay out the particulars of the case accordingly. It makes a difference in the way the prime offenses are to be identified and prioritized. But let’s get on with it!

Report this

By Royce, April 26, 2007 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

Rule of law is the best argument for impeachment.  A quick and speedy impeachment trial would serve the country well, Republicans as well as Democrats.  (Realistically, the Senate would likely never vote Bush’s or Cheney’s removal.)

However, since this administration’s actions have concerned its own citizens as well as the international community’s—as Hedges implies, an impeachment trial would at least establish whether something like the “Bush doctrine” has any legitimacy. 

I also believe that such a trial affords Bush and Cheney a degree of post-2008 protection.  It may be that Cheney is already planning to set up residence in Dubai alongside the Halliburton move; nonetheless, once they are out of office, I understand that they could face indictment in other parts of the world and conceivably have subpoena administrators or maybe even war criminal “bounty hunters” tracking their every move.  A domestic trial, in the form of impeachment, no matter how meager, might then soften international efforts to do so.

Report this

By dale Headley, April 26, 2007 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If George Bush and Dick Cheney are not impeached, you might as well remove Article II, Section 4 or the Constitution.

Report this

By phoenician, April 26, 2007 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Impeaching Bush wouldn’t change a thing for one simple reason.  Cheney would become president and we all know Cheney is already pulling the strings in the White House.  You would have to impeach both Bush and Cheney to see any difference in the adminstartions policies.  But that would mean Pelosi would become president, which almost scares me more than the current administration.

Report this

By Rodreques, April 26, 2007 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The comments that all of you liberals writetruely show your lack of knowledge. Instead of always being so negative- why not try supporting the president and the gigantic burden that he shoulders of leading this nation. Your time will come when you can choose another national leader, but until that time please show some kind of respect!

Report this

By CRYSTLE, April 26, 2007 at 10:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“And if we as citizens do not hold him accountable for these crimes…”  Accountability has been non-existent in this administration in every facet.  Missing millions of dollars unaccounted for, lies in the military, deleted emails, passing bills at times when congress is out, hiding bills in bills that are passed… the list goes on and on.  Without accountability, there is no trust.  Dictators are unaccountable, NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WORKS FOR WE THE PEOPLE.

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, April 26, 2007 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We in the USA must say what others generally understand: There is a 9/11 coverup.  Can this be a start?

Report this

By B, April 26, 2007 at 9:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a truly sad situation. We have a president(and his ENTIRE administration) that needs to be locked up. But, we cannot even bring ourselves to file articles of impeachment. I have already been active emailing various house members about impeachment. All said approximately the same thing. No way.

It’s a great day in a Democracy when all the representatives can blatantly ignore the growing majority of the citizens. Impeachment is far too light a punishment. They need to be impeached and imprisioned. The presidential replacement should be instructed that any pardon would be viewed as complicity and he could join Mr. “W”. These crimes are of the HIGHEST order. There is NO more despicable crime. They have betrayed their nation.


B

Report this

By cann4ing, April 26, 2007 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

Impeachment!  An excellent idea, whose time has come.

Report this

By Hammo, April 26, 2007 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

For those who think impeachment efforts are useless, will not get any results or could be counterproductive, a look back to the resignation of Richard Nixon might be interesting.

When Clinton was impeached, it obviously had mixed results and he survived, though his sexual behavior probably helped George W. Bush get elected (along with probable vote fraud in Flordia, and again in Ohio).

In the Nixon case, his vice president, Spiro Agnew, was forced from office first over criminal matters, and then Nixon was forced to step down.

However, the drawbacks may be that pardons could be issued, just as the new president, Gerald Ford, appointed by Nixon, granted to Nixon.

The article below may be of interest regarding these subjects:

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

PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America
January 14, 2007

http://www.populistamerica.com/going_in_circles_vietnam_iraq_calls_for_impeachment

Report this

By mark jensen, April 26, 2007 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

impeach them.  what do we need hitler goose stepping across a stage thrusting his arm into the air?  its not the image its the deeds.  and those deeds call for an impeachment of the criminals in the white house.  all of them.

Report this

By Pete, April 26, 2007 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“No One Should Be Above The Law”. Nice sentiment. Does it include illegal aliens and mayors of “sanctuary cities” like Bloomberg,Dellums & Newsom? Bush should be impeached for failing to defend the borders of the US, something he swore an oath to do. But, I guess the Chamber of Commerce needs all that cheap labor and the democrats see a huge collection of new voters. Who cares what the people think?

Report this

By BoDo, April 26, 2007 at 7:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush, Cheney, et al. must not only be impeached, they must be charged and tried.  With the state of our legal system these days (after Bush’s stuffing of the courts with cronies) there’s not much chance of a real trial or even convictions; but the only way to start to regain some of our national respect, self-respect, is to charge them with the crimes they’ve committed and bring them to trial.  It’s the only thing that will frighten future leaders into submitting to the rule of law.

Report this

By James Yell, April 26, 2007 at 7:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am mildly comforted by the Impeachment movement, but discouraged by the timidity of that arm of the government that is empowered to hold such an investigation/prosecution. Too many Liebermans in the Congress, loving their perks, their too cozy compensation packages and the outside corporate swag.

As to Bush being a moron, certainly he is of a sort, but as he has been all his life recognized as a legally responsible human citizen, he has no argument that he is “too stupid to be prosecuted for his crimes”. Even if he is that stupid, he legally became a candidate for our Presidency and swore to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all things he has violated. He can not be considered innocent and really I think it beyond reason to believe that he was unaware of the bogus “intellegence” he used to invade Iraq. Nope he is culpabule and as President he gets the most blame for law breaking. Impeach Bush/Cheney now and then send Rumsfield to the Hague, if we haven’t the stomach to prosecute him here at home for his lies and ignorance which amounts to cold blooked murder.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 26, 2007 at 4:58 am Link to this comment

“...George Bush—we now know from the leaked Downing Street memo—fabricated a legal pretext for war….”

No, actually he fabricated an agenda for ignoring the United Nations and constructed a “coalition of the willing” as a vigilante group of rogue states which would co-operate in perpetrating any military adventure the USA wished to initiate.

Those 30 states, but principally Britain and Australia and South Korea, are also utterly culpable because of their political support at the outset and must eventually face UN sanctions of some kind as a result.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, April 26, 2007 at 3:16 am Link to this comment

What did the President know, and when did he know it?

He was picked to be installed as President because he didn’t then, and won’t ever, know anything at all.

The poor goose is a moron; he has never in his miserable life had one single cogent thought about anything beyond his bodily functions. He was allowed to escape the TANG by the US Air Force by not getting a physical which he could well have been ORDERED to get, but because he would never in his life be capable of piloting an airplane, and too because the Air Force was dumping actual pilots as well. Oh, he could FLY, which means taking off, landing, doing maneuvers, etc., but PILOTING is a different matter which requires that the individual be capable of reading maps, doing azimuths, doing fuel calculations based on air speed, wind direction, reading weather maps, and all the other things a real pilot has to do.

George never could do geometry. Never. George would have been lucky to be able to count his change.

So he was selected by the manipulators to be the titular dictator while the adults made the decisions in some back room somewhere in the oil company headquarters or perhaps earlier in Enron’s vast holdings, and he surely never could be blamed for decisions he never made, or ever would be capable of making, let alone explaining to the people of America.

To impeach someone, first you would have to find out who was the real President, and who gave the orders of the day to the vice president in his secret and undisclosed location.

The sad truth is that we don’t know whom we should blame for our pitiful condition because we don’t know who is actually in charge.

It is like my city had placed the retarded man who used to live next door to me in the mayor’s chair.

Two facts:
1. Bush is a moron
2. It is about oil; oil isn’t everything, it is the ONLY thing.

Unless you are ready for the truth, you had better reconsider the impeachment option. The Democrats and the media aren’t ready for the truth; Bill Moyers did an hour and a half show last night on pbs, and he told about all the lies; he didn’t once mention the truth, or even that it had to exist to explain why all the lies were told.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
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.

Like Truthdig on Facebook