(snip)

It is sad it had to take 4 years for the people to see the light, but without netroots, I truly feel it would have taken much longer, a Vietnam sort of scenario. (snip)

Just want to point out, once again, that 56% of the American people opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, Feb.’03, before the invasion, and before all the lies were exposed. (NYT poll. Others were a notch or two lower, 54-55%.) That has now grown to 75%. The majority of the people “saw the light” from the beginning. 56% is a lot, considering the relentless, 24/7 war mongering of all news media. It would be a landslide in a presidential election–and I strongly believe that it was (in ‘04).

Which brings me to point two: The problem–which is staring us in the face, but which few think of, because it has been “black-holed” by both the war profiteering corporate news monopolies AND our Democratic Party leadership–is the new electronic voting machines, run on ‘TRADE SECRET,’ PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations–a corporation (Diebold) whose CEO was pledged to elect Bush-Cheney, and another (ES&S) a brethren corporation initially funded by rightwing ‘christian’ nutball billionaire Howard Ahmanson.

These are the people whose machines we have to outvote in order to elect real respresenatives who will act in the public interest. The voters did so, in some cases, in ‘06, thus we have SOME Congressfolk who are on our side, yet, with 75% of the American people now opposed to the Iraq War and wanting it ended, we still could achieve only a 50/50 Congress, one that does not have the votes to override Bush & Cabal. Whose fault is that? BOTH party leaderships support “trade secret” vote counting. Granted, it’s highly dangerous to careers, and possibly to lives, to opposed Diebold/ES&S control of our election results. I do feel human compassion for the pickle a lot of Democratic office holders are in. But I think there is nothing to be done–there will be no meaningful reform, and the war will go on and on–until we, the people, demand vote counting that everyone can see and understand.

“Trade secret” vote counting by rightwing corporations is not the only thing wrong with our election system and our country, but it is the one that makes it all so hopeless. It is the logjam. It’s the democracy-breaker. It is killing every effort at real reform. It makes discussion of who WE, the people, might want as as president, and what we want in our Congress, pathetic and sad, as if what we want matters–as if who and what we want has some chance of becoming real.

And it’s a practical, no-brainer problem, when you think about it. It doesn’t involve us solving humongous Constitutional problems, and problems of war, and massive crime in high places. It’s not an EASY problem to solve–due to vast corruption of our election officials–but the solution is clear, and achieving it is doable (probably most doable at the state/local level). It should ever be on our minds, and always mentioned, when we discuss problems like Congress continuing to fund the war and permitting an escalation (!), or failing to impeach Albert Gonzales. These are the products of “trade secret” vote counting by rightwing Bushite corporations. WHAT ELSE could we expect from such a non-transparent, highly riggable vote counting system?

I would like to be there when someone asks “So, is there ANYTHING else that anyone in the Bush administration did of your knowledge that you think is against the constitution or any of our other laws????

[Mod:fixed]

“Nobody ever asked,” he said. “I’ve never been in a forum where I was obligated to answer the question.”

Yeah, that’s classic. I wonder if he’s ever tried that one with his wife. “But Honey, you never asked me if I was having sex with your best friend.”

Dude, the Administration was clearly off the deep end and you didn’t say anything about it because “nobody ever asked”? I’m glad you finally told the truth when someone happened to ask, but that doesn’t exactly make you a paragon of virtue. In comparison, maybe, but not otherwise.

This is way epu’d, but here goes. I read Comey’s quote as accomplishing two things:
-making it clear that DOJ people have real constraints on their behavior, and he respects those constraints. This sort of restraint and working within limits got Libby convicted instead of off due to graymail.
-and making it clear that forums for obligatory answers are necessary, and that the people and our representatives need to create those forums.

His respect for the process has brought MUCH more credibility to his testimony than if he’d rushed out blowing the whistle loudly. I think Comey is a hero.

I want to make a $25.00 donation to the lake fund. Anyone want to match me? Please!

Already made my donation for the month, but I’m with you cc.

I am seeing things…. again.

Are you okay, BK?

Leapfrogging over the comments for the moment, let me ask for help priming the pump on Gonzales. If anyone knows of any proposed articles of impeachment that have been formally drafted against Gonzo-boy, please drop by at the link above, click on the discussion tab, and leave us a note, please.

And then look around at what we’ve developed so far elsewhere on the site.

Bob in HI

Bob, this is some real rugby here. A Teammate taking the ball and running with it. You are doing a great job

I just flashed on this…but Abu is in a particularly dangerous position if Bush hopes to use Abu’s position to shield him from prosecution.

Recall that Abu was Bush’s White House Counsellor prior to his appointment to Attorney General. Not only did he assure the Senate that he would recuse himself from any prosecutions or investigations that involved the White House, statements that he made under oath, but any failure to cover for illegal acts that occurred WHILE he was WH Counselor could be subject to criminal prosecution for obstruction of justice. One wouldn’t even have to demonstrate that the acts were illegal, merely that he interfered with the investigation of such acts. In fact, because he swore to Congress that he would recuse himself, failing to do so could constitue contempt of Congress. a possible criminal act, and certainly an impeachable offense.

John Dean will tell ya that this is precisely what John Mitchell was convicted of! Anyone know what the procedures would be for Abu recusing himself and for the appointment of a “Fitz-like” prosecutor? It would seem odd that Abu would be able to appoint his own replacement? Does that individual have to be confirmed by the Senate if they have “the powers of the Attorney General”?