The next time someone tries to sell you some snake oil about moving forward in a spirit of bipartisanship and forgetting about the problems of the past, refer them to Digby:
The founders understood how power can corrupt, which is why they designed a clunky system of government that would impede its application. But nothing can stop it when so many people are working in tandem to do so. The answer then, is not to depend upon personal integrity but to insure that our systems are working properly and that those who corrupt it are held accountable for what they have done when they lose institutional power at the hands of the people. If there is one consistent mistake that Democrats have made over the past 40 years, it’s the impulse to forgive and forget which has created a radical Republican party that believes it can get away with anything. (“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter … this is our due…”) Our system has been so thoroughly corrupted by this lack of accountability that partisan impeachments, stolen elections and illegal wars are taken for granted as perfectly normal (if “dark”) political arts.
So, as much as I value it as a personal virtue, personal integrity is beside the point. There have always been crooks and liars in politics. It’s the failure of our institutions to properly guard their prerogatives and police the political system that is the true failure. And that is something that we can fix. The Republicans must be held to account for their reckless rule, and that means following these investigations all the way to 2020 if that’s what it takes. We may not have time to impeach Bush or Cheney, but if we hold both houses of congress we have years to ensure that these crimes are not covered up and that the people of this country are reminded that corruption and cheating have negative consequences.
One of the things the blogosphere does well is serve as institutional memory. It’s going to be a lot harder for the crooks and knaves to bury their crimes in time and apathy. If it takes until 2020 then that’s what it takes.
Hugh’s list of Bush Scandals grows longer every day, and it ain’t going anywhere.
Related posts:
- Holder Overturns Justice Jackson and Nuremberg
- Chief Justice Roberts on Michael Jackson: Let Him Carry His Own Lantern
- RNC Leader Steele Confuses Dick’s Pre-Crime with Justice
- Does Obama Policy Allow Politicized Contact Between White House and Justice?
- New White House Counsel Bob Bauer and Scooter Libby Justice
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
zed!
Good Afternoon, Jane!
Great post Jane.
America will need lotsa *healing* from the damage done by BushCheneyCo. We need to ensure that *healing* comes in the form of investigations, indictments, convictions, and imprisonment — not pardons.
No Pardons for War Crimes. It’s really that simple.
“The Republicans must be held to account for their reckless rule, and that means following these investigations all the way to 2020 if that’s what it takes.”
No compromise.
TeddySanFran @ 4
Teddy!
Well I guess the up side to committing so very many crimes is that they can’t pardon everyone for everything.
TeddySanFran @ 4
Maybe this question should be asked of all the candidate running for office, democratic and repub alike
TeddySanFran @ 4
No Pardons for War Crimes. I vow to say that out loud to someone every day.
Good afternoon Jane, all.
AMEN!
Justice schmustice. You just have to trust the president.
-Brittany Voight
There are major problems happening within the Iraq cabinet. A sunni cabinet member has taken refuge in the Green Zone! This is not a good scenario at all; especially, since the US just attacked Sadr city.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01195.html
Bipartisanship? I don’t think so. And I want memebers of my party who have practiced this obscene and cowardly behavior over the last seven or so years held to account. There is no wiggle-room on this. “Bipartisan Democrats”; you know who you are. And so do I.
TexB @ 9
Double AMEN!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 12
For the dems, bipartisan means rolling over and playing dead. For the repubs, bipartisan means work only for the repubs and fuck the rest of ‘em.
mega amens on no pardons!! repugs must be held responsible for criminal acts against the country – in my mind treason is just one of their crimes…..
And where did bipartisanship begin for some Democrats? Voting for the Bush invasion of Iraq. There needs to be a list compiled giving the names of Democrats that engaged in so called bipartisanship, detailing their cooperation with Republicans on things like Roberts and Alito etc. since 2000.
Jane,
You’re so right!
With trust and responsibility follow consequences, good or bad.
TexB @ 14
That’s right. ;0)
Aloha, Ya’ll! Speaking of Justice, here’s a nifty little guide to Scotus, this term, and synopses of key rulings!!! Enjoy!
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/…..index.html
All this Scotland stuff…and this from BBC news, very strange…probably not related, but who knows:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6248290.stm
Who would be the top five roll-over Democrats?
Hello, Jane! Thanks for this excellent post.
We must ask each 08PrezCandi this question: will you pardon Bush or any of his minions for crimes that may come to light? Do you agree we can set America on the right course only by exposing the wrongdoing of the past eight years — and prosecuting it?
Oh! I almost forgot!
JANE YOU ROCK!!!!
TeddySanFran @ 22
Yes!!
Jane Hamsher @ 6
Be careful with that Jane. They may well try to pull an “Ernie Fletcher” on things.
When the Dem AG of Kentucky started investigating and indicting members of Fletcher’s staff for abuses of the state “merit System” (Kentucky version of civil service), Fletcher issued a blanket pardon for everyone in his government and admin, except for himself, for any and all crimes committed related to the investigation.
That Dem AG, Greg Stumbo, ran for Lt Gov on the Bruce Lunsford ticket (DINO who had supported Fletcher against Ben Chandler in ‘03) and got his hat handed back to him. He had negotiated a plea bargain with Fletcher that pretty much let Fletcher off the hook after all the storm and fury over the investigation and pardosn in the first place.
I want Democrats with guts.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 26
Honest guts!!!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 26
And at least 3 vertebrae. Maybe even 5 or 6.
Ford’s pardon of Nixon was “full and unconditional for any crimes committed while President.”
Despite the recent Ford funeral hagiography about the Nixon pardon, it was decried at the time:
BushCheneyCo’s actions are simply unpardonable — and Democrats must say so.
If my party loses in ‘08, they will become irrelevant. Dems, Nov. 2008 is our last chance.
Pardon? Never!
Love the list of scandals! Trusting the Republicans is like sending your daughter on a date with the likes of a Ted Bundy. You trust him because he says, “Trust me, this time.” NO THANKS! Old adage: The first time you do me wrong shame on you. The next time you do me wrong shame on me for ever trusting you again. (Gee, remember the garbled mess Bush made of that? He just didn’t understand it. You just keep trusting over and over no matter how many times bodies are found.)
Speaking of institutuions, more specifically, prison…how do you like this new photo of Scooter Libby’s prison tats?
Slightly OT from Reuters via C&L Small business owners called-up are left with businesses in tatters upon return from Iraq.
Just another unintended side consequence of this mis-begotten invasion and occupation.
OffT, a Howell-free weekend looms:
dakine01 @ 34
That is such a tragedy.
Support the troops. Right.
TeddySanFran @ 35
It pretty much makes no difference if she’s there or not given the gibberish she writes about and her perspective on her job. A waste of ink, paper, and toobz space most of the time.
Sen. Leahy is on Meet the Press. Maybe he’ll give us some clues on what’s next. Also Jane’s favorite senator and specter are on
This Week in order to stroke each other’s egos, I presume.
With Deb away, I may have to vacuum. Trade one suck for another.
For those who have to be confirmed in their positions, no pardons, ever, and no return to government, everbecause they’ve violated the people’s trust and their oaths of office.
For those who are elected, no pardons for corrupt activities and perjury, because they’ve violated the people’s trust and their oaths of office.
Never forget.
I want Roberts and Alito to testify in Congress, under oath, with subpoenas if necessary, and I want them asked this question: ‘Did you know you were lying when you told the Senate Judiciary Committee you would respect stare decisis?’
Then impeach them, because they were lying either when they said they’d respect it or when they said they didn’t know they were lying. (If they aren’t respecting it now, that’s de facto proof they were lying then. But IANAL.)
TeddySanFran @ 39
To bad Clenis didn’t vacuum.
TSanFran @ 22. Not only should the dem candidates be asked the question, grass roots funding should be withheld until a clear answer is given publicly. Not a dime will I send until that occurs.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 21
Does Lieberliar (I-Conned the voters) count?
I hope Pat Leahy’s questions about Brett Kavanaugh’s untruths, as revealed in the WaPo Cheney series, are the start of a long parade of mistakenly confirmed judges brought in front of the SJC for lying during confirmation, culminating in CJ Roberts and AJ Sam Alito.
I hate using this analogy,but it does fit.
I was a victim of domestic abuse. My abuser didn’t stop when I played by all the rules. I was “nice” to him,didn’t work. Left him and hid out for awhile,didn’t work. Got a restraining order and the cops involved,didn’t work.
Know what worked? I hit him and hurt him. Amazing how fast he retreated when I stopped letting him scare me and I got mad.(and yes,I know,he could have killed me,easily,but that situation had an opening and I took it,he would have killed me had I NOT fought back)
You cannot expect people who have no respect for others or for the rules to play by them. My rule of thumb has been to apply the force they are willing to use on me plus just enough more to make them stop. Yes,you use the rules,but there are times where taking the high road and being the nice guy gets you nowhere.
P J Evans @ 40
Unfortuantely, (and IANAL either) but they have left themselves a small out that allows them to make the claim they weren’t lying. By leaving the shell of the original decision intact while eviscerating it in reality, they can claim they did have respect for the original precedent. Which is why Scalia has written scathing comments in his decisions decrying the unwillingness of Roberts and Alito to join he and Thomas in totally overturning the precedents.
WE pretty much can believe they were lying their a**es off but they left themselves a small fig leaf of cover.
One of the things the blogosphere does poorly is inform anyone other than the base that they play to. We have our lists of crimes and they have theirs. We beat a partisan drum and so do they.
Nothing changes. The bad democrats and republicans never get called out, never get questioned by their own. Third parties are ridiculed. The people who can make a difference with their votes are turned off by the never ending partisan noise and the spiral continues.
TeddySanFran @ 44
Don’t forget who will be asking the questions.. Timmy
mybad @ 47
They don’t pay attention, and when they do, they are fed talking points, and they eat them up.
JPL @ 41
How can you vacuum if you don’t inhale?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 26
And a nice Chianti?
mybad @ 47
I disagree. It was people like Jane and Marcy and Josh Marshall who kept the Libby case and the USA firings alive and did enough in depth investigative reporting that the corporate owned media had no CHOICE but to cover things. The media may be dragged kicking and screaming to cover things but eventually they are forced to do so. It takes incredible amounts of work and perseverance and the lack of action for extended periods is frustrating but actions do have consequences.
Balrog @ 51
how bout cajones?
Dakine, Wasn’t it you who talked about the courts pretzel logic. Although, Kennedy’s opinions have been as twisted as licorice, pretzel logic is a great explanation. If only a candidate could pick up that line.
dakine01 @ 52
I whole-heartedly concur with ya, Bra!!! ;-)
JPL @ 54
Although I could use the cash, anything I comment on here or anywhere else in blogland is public domain.
Although to be honest, it was just an excuse to post a link to the song. Like I really need an excuse for some songs…
JPL @ 54
Instead of pretzel logic how about string theory? It is certainly convoluted enough to fill the bill! Yet, it does prove certain theorums!!!
How does Digby not have a column in a major newspaper? Her writing kicks the crap out of every columnist who does. (Krugman rocks, but even he does not write as well as she does- sorry Paul)
205 active scandals. Wow.
That’s prolly enough to indict the entire Republican party.
Subway Serenade @ 59
It’s almost one for every GOP Congresscritter.
Honest to gosh, if any one of these criminals is held to account, I’ll give you all a donut. And if they do hard time, I’ll give you each a dollar. [underlings not included…I’m talking Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc.).
How can I make such a bold offer? Because history has shown us what always happens.
Whether it’s the pardon of Nixon, or the bi-partisan criminal cover-up of the Savings & Loan debacle, the pageant must go on.
And that’s just what it is…a pageant, where the trombone player tries NOT to trip the baton twirler.
Paida @ 58
What Editorial staff would want to hire her? I mean she would show their columnists what hacks they truly are, i.e. Job Security!!! ;-)
Subway Serenade @ 59
Sorry, in the fight of Good -vs- Evil there are no indictable actions.
Yes, I’m reading Glenn’s book. Scary.
CTuttle @ 62
Agreed. The maintenance of fiction is paramount. Digby doesn’t play.
john in sacramento @ 43
I would say no. ;0)
I am really liking the term, “obstructionist”. I think that it makes a good pin the tail on the elephant, and that Lieberman can also be pinned with it. Maybe the one word to use isn’t progressive, or liberal, but instead, attack with obstructionist. I can’t think of a way that it sounds flattering of positive. It conveys holding up the troops from a realistic mission (and I would use realistic mission instead of redeployment or withdrawal, as well). People are fed up with Congress, only they don’t realize who is causing the “do-nothing” part.
Ask yourself. How is it we come to find ourselves in all these messes?
I’m guessing that when the Dems (Progressive) take control of everything in 2008 there will be plenty of jobs for Digby and her ilk.
Not to mention our brilliant staff here at FDL. I’m loathe to consider losing them.
Paida @ 58
Maybe her aspirations lie elsewhere.
I, for one, lend less credence to the Conventional Media than others.
john in sacramento @ 43
How about Dick Durbin and the rest of the Senate Intelligence committee who knew damn well that the war was a put-up job?
newtonusr @ 64
Could you imagine the sheer fireworks that would erupt within WaPoo’s Boardroom, everytime Digby would sit next to Hiatt, or the Dean!!! It wouldn’t be pretty!!! 8-)
Oklahoma kiddo @ 67
Asleep at the wheel, OK. Never again though.
Obstructing:
living wage
healthcare
jobs in the US
justice
food safety
drug safety
prescription affordability
decent education
clean air
clean water
energy independence
Don’t forget to break out the old Reagan chestnut: Gridlock.
Yep, the Repuds are causing governmental gridlock because they are sore losers.
-GSD
Oklahoma kiddo @ 67
Could it be in part because people have had it too soft? What I mean is things have rolled along without people being active participants in their democracy for so long they have forgot that’s how it works. In fact,many people think we aren’t supposed to get involved,that it’s somehow wrong.
Or,and I think this is a big thing,”the system”is so complicated,on purpose,that you have to make it a full time job to understand wtf is going on.
GSD @ 74
That word will always belong to Admiral Stockdale in my world.
Balrog @ 72
“Don’t Roll Those Bloodshot Eyes at Me”!
If not now then when, for how ever long it takes, if not us than who, we the people must be give voice to injustice. It seems our duty to press the issue forward however long it takes to prevent this from ever happening again.
GSD @ 74
That’s their only option, particularly since the ‘Nuclear Option’ is off the table!!! However, Shrub still has his Veto Pen!!! :-(
Balrog @ 68
I think we need ‘em to stay on the outside and keep EVERYBODY honest and calling bullsh*t when the Dems try to blow the same ol’ smoke up our a**es.
Subway Serenade @ 59
And yet it’s only the surface. The rot goes down many layers. Who knows how many departments had their Monica Goodlings and Brad Schlozmans? People like them are sprinkled throughout government and have been making bad decisions on a daily basis for years, most of which we will never hear of.
Jane, that is very well stated. It is also why we should proceed with impeachment of Gonzales immediately in order to have the most unobstructed investigatory tools available now, before material evidence is further destroyed and/or concealed. Yes we must follow through for as long as it takes, but we must also start now and there already exists incontrovertible grounds against Gonzales.
anangryoldbroad @ 75
Begin here.
Continued here.
dakine01 @ 80
I agree. The reason they invite people like Digby, Jane and Christy “inside’ is to shut them up.
This is not encouraging as far as impeachment of any kind goes:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..153519/196
Putie and Chimpy are gonna share some lobster together……..
How sweet, two authoritarians enjoying seafood by the sea.
-GSD
Did someone mention “asleep at the wheel”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B58X7iCd-9Q
SeamusD @ 84
There have to be some patrons -in the classical sense – to support progressive discourse. Surely some ethical and socially responsible corporations exist. Why don’t these companies compete to purchase media venues that feature progressives? It’s hard for me to fathom that there wouldn’t be viable markets. Am I way off base?
While I disagree with Digby that Congress has years to wait before delivering true accountability, she has absolutely put her finger on the underlying truism of our system, and thus the imperative logic behind asserting the vitally important inherent Legislative Branch powers, of impeachment and of deciding matters of war and peace, against the leadership of this Executive Branch (even if she herself still thinks Congressional committee oversight alone will somehow be sufficient).
I realized a few things, after reading Mike Stark’s partial transcript of the blogger conference call with Nancy Pelosi on Thursday (including Mike’s outstanding, spur of the moment comeback(s) to Pelosi’s frantic, scatter-shot attempts at preemptive misdirection). One is that our “representatives” in Congress need to be defined by how they are in fact behaving: not as “Members of Congress” but simply and ignobly as “Members of A Party.”
Nancy Pelosi is so steeped in PARTY politics, that she cannot see the forest of the NATION’S Constitution for the political party trees. And neither can most of her colleagues, apparently. It probably partly explains why and how her fellow federal Members of A Party can rationalize their ownership by organized, well-funded lobbies; the vital necessity for THE NATION’S PEOPLE to be in charge of her branch and thus of our federal government, as designed and intended by our Constitution, has simply sunk beneath the radar of these people, for one reason or another.
Thus, Pelosi’s whole (and admitted) agenda is to pass bills (regardless of whether they ever actually become law), in order to justify further donations from her PARTY’S owner/operators: the deep pockets of corporations and foreign lobbies that fund the PARTY’S campaign operations. That seems to be all they know how to do anymore, after decades of bad habit: use taxpayer debt to pay off campaign promises to those private groups who enabled their election to public office in the first place. Pandering, at its worst.
As Mike indicated in his DailyKos diary about the conference call, deep down somewhere Pelosi still seems to have a conscience, and thus an uncomfortable feeling about the obvious conflict and clash of agendas between the oath of office she took to uphold and defend our Constitution, and the private political PARTY agenda she is already blindly pursuing on behalf of “2008.” That now quite-drastic conflict has become increasingly obvious and egregious, and Pelosi knows it. It was actually obvious before last November’s election when the minority in the Senate was failing to obstruct as it could have, but the “most important election of our lifetimes” (Take Two) was allowed to push it aside by most informed observers. And now Pelosi and Reid want (and unbelievably think they can get) a Take Three on that inexcusable excuse to ignore their duties and responsibilities as Members of OUR CONGRESS due to “2008,” but they simply aren’t going to get one this time. Because if they are allowed a third pass, not only will the absolute, unConstitutional, de facto preeminence of the Executive Branch in our government be allowed to be solidified against the wishes of the people, but those holding public office in our federal legislature will have simply been allowed by us to run for office for the sole purpose of running for office again. I trust the American people to prevent that from happening, no matter how much Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their caucuses try to stand in our way.
What Pelosi is missing is how much she as Speaker and the Congress as a whole could and would in fact “matter” IF she were to assert the inherent powers of her branch of government. The problem seems to be that Pelosi, Reid, and most of the rest of them don’t want the responsibility that comes with that inherent power. Unlike Bush (with his inherent Commander in Chief over the Armed Forces powers) and Cheney and most Republicans, the Democrats at least seem to understand and accept that they can’t assume and assert power without the immense responsibility such power brings with it. But what most of the Democrats in Congress simply haven’t accepted or acknowledged is that solely by virtue of holding the public offices in our legislature that they do, on behalf of the governed, and by swearing their oaths, they already have assumed that responsibility despite their refusal so far to exercise their inherent powers; inherent Congressional powers that they absolutely must responsibly assert, and soon, in order to honor their oaths of office, fulfill the duties of their offices as the majority in, and members of, Congress, and to keep faith with the intent of our Founders and with we, the people in whose name they serve.
I think there should be a scaling back of rights when the president calls for tax relief for corporate executives.
GSD @ 86
Interrupted by calls from Russia to Putie about what’s going on in Britain (monitored by the NSA of course without a warrant) and calls to Chimpy telling him what’s going on in Britain and reporting to him what NSA picked up from Putie’s calls…
Lobster anyone?
ESSN #90,
No thanks. I would prefer a scaling back of corporate executives to a scaling back in rights.
What’s really swell is not only do I get to fight the GOP, I get to bounce with the DINOS too. Ain’t life grand?
pow wow @ 89
words that should be echoed far and wide.
TeddySanFran @ 29
The end-game will be most interesting. I’m sure that THEY have studied the matter most carefully and have plans for all contingencies.
The main plan would be that on 1/19/09, Bush gives Cheney a Nixon-style pardon and then resigns. Whereupon, Roberts swears in Cheney, who immediately pardons Bush. The only thing that might prevent that would be a double impeachment: Per Article II Section 2, the president “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
There is a lot of controversy about exactly what that exception means.
CTuttle @ 62
Certain papers ran Molly.
Putin and Bush. Together they could rule the world. Hey, wait a minute, they do rule the world. Divvy it up boys.
pow wow @ 89 –
right on . brilliantly stated.
i think it’s even clearer (at least it was for me) to listen to mike’s audio clip of the conference call.
Well blow me down. MSNBC went directly from car bomb stories to crime stories without any other news.
john in sacramento @ 43
Lieberliar has to count, because he caucuses with the Democrats. According to Progressive Punch, here are the bottom-feeders of the Democratic Party. The first number is their rank (Most progressive = 1), the second number is their “score”; then comes the Senator’s name, party affiliation, and state.
Sen. Ben Nelson is a Republican in everything but name, it seems. Scores lower than 49.14 all belong to Republicans. But we can also look at it this way: Ben Nelson is the one who prevents Republican control of the Senate.
We love to beat up on Lieberman for his follies, which are legion. But we need to remember that there are 6 more Democrats who are even more Republican than he is!
Bob in HI
Lieberman counts because Harry Reid lets him count.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 93
It’s pretty damn good, when you consider the alternative.
Bob Schacht @ 100
Haven’t heard recently from Sen. Ben Nelson’s constituents, but RGJoe is a lying sack of shit who calls himself “an independent voice in Washington, a man of the people…”. Nebraskans weren’t and aren’t deceived about their guy. They know exactly who he is and he needn’t hide it from them.
TeddySanFran @ 4
Are you proposing a constitutional amendment?
pow wow @ 89
thanks everyone, i was hoping some one had a updated list! although it will need updating weekly if not hourly due to our corrupt White House. i need the list to combat the GOP’s assault on reason. the right wing talking points are total bullshit and the best way to fight BS is with Truth and Facts which need repeating over and over and over again (along with a good smack in the back in the head, like criminal indictments).
I also think that most if not all members of the House and Senate are wealthy,that insulates them from experiences the rest of us have to deal with regularly. Financial issues,illnesses that can destroy a family’s economic future,job outsourcing,etc,etc.
Politics has to become a not for profit venture or nothing will change beyond surface things.
wigwam @ 102
I’m confused. Are you saying dinos are better than Republicans?
Rocket Scientist @ 105
IANAL. So far as I know, International Law has no bearing in federal courts. Also, Bush cancelled our participation in the ICC. Indictments may be filed in the German courts, but I think that there are federal laws barring extradition in such cases. Does anyone know where to find such things?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 108
No, I’m saying that “life” is grand compared to its alternative. ;-)
TSF #104,
You may be on to something.
It may indeed be time for a Constitutional amendment. Something like all pardons must be approved, or pardons can be overturned if…Haven’t thought it out yet.
Those who hope that war criminals in the Bush administration might be brought to justice under international law should carefully read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…..inal_Court
Ian has a new, Independence Day Wish post up that continues this theme:
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..r-america/
wigwam @ 104
Exactly. We can chant the slogan as much as we like — and BTW I’m in complete agreement with it — but none of us is going to wielding the pen on 1/19/09 as the clock ticks down to midnight. The Constitution gives the president unrestricted pardon powers, and when an outgoing president has lost his last election, he can do as he pleases without fearing another “accountability moment,” in Bush’s deathless phrase.
What we need to think about is how to persuade or pressure him to hold off. Here’s a question for the constitutional lawyers in residence: can an outgoing president pardon himself? If yes, we’re fucked. If no, how about sending this message: Go ahead, do as you like, pardon Cheney and Gonzalez and Condi and Rummy and all the rest, but if you do, YOU’RE going to personally take the fall for all of them. We’re talking prison time, Dubya baby.
Think that would get his attention?
You suppose Putin is making clear to Bush that if the U.S. strikes Iran, especially with tactical nukes, that he, Putin, personally will see that a h*ll-rain of unstoppable MIRVs comes down all over the continental U.S.A, plus carrier groups?
Here is one strong woman dealing a little justice, http://www.filecabi.net/video/arab-truth.html
She is Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan on Al Jazeerz TV. I urge everyone to watch this brief, but powerful, video.
Rocket Scientist, re your questions at 105:
If it comes down, or will come down, to a choice between obtaining convictions of clearly-complicit actors in the Executive Branch now or after they leave office and re-establishing the balance of powers between our Legislative and Executive Branches of government by moving very soon to impeach those who have earned it regardless of future pardons, my choice is absolutely the latter. Because the balance of powers between the branches affects our liberty as citizens and as a nation, whereas the former – without the latter – simply affects the liberty of a handful of individuals.
I hope we can do both. We ought to be able to do both, if we plan carefully and execute competently. But first Congress has to overcome its reluctance to fight off the inertia of the status quo and the apparently overwhelming desire by its Members to continue taking the path of least resistance to the bullies in the Executive Branch. So I see the effort to convince Congress to act as battle one – if they agree to act, then other options open to us and to them.
Without that Congressional willingness to act beyond their committee oversight function (which is supposed to be connected with a legislative purpose, by and large), we are left to the discretion of Executive Branch prosecutors who may pick up on compelling discoveries unearthed by Congressional oversight hearings and related investigations at some point, or to the willingness of other countries to try to hold us to account, as regards punishment for the complicit individuals involved. But neither of those options can directly rebalance our federal government for us, as is desperately needed. Congress alone (with an occasional assist from the Judicial Branch) has the ability to effect that vital rebalancing, and committee oversight activity is very unlikely to accomplish that objective on its own. [Nevermind that we should not let a precedent be established that such committee activity is the only “power” Congress now wields against the Executive Branch in any meaningful way - which Pelosi’s “off the table” dictate along with her refusal to acknowledge the power of the House not to fund (beyond a date certain or otherwise) and refusal to speak of or use the war powers of Congress to end the Iraq conflict, have all now effectively managed to tell the nation and the world is the case.]
In short, there are profound positives for our nation, its Constitution, and its future that would directly result from the assertion of inherent Congressional powers to impeach, and to unilaterally vote to end the occupation of Iraq, that go beyond whether or not Bush, Cheney, Gonzales or anybody else also ends up in prison as a result of that assertion of power. If the complicit actors do escape jail time, it will in no small part be a result of the Legislative Branch’s failure to effectively act during the Iran-Contra era and before and since. So although we obviously cannot now prevent the Bush/Cheney regime or maybe even ever effectively punish it (though we must try), we can learn from our mistakes and rebalance the Constitutional powers so as to prevent a future repeat of the grave damage done to our nation and its Constitution by other bad actors trying to assert Cheney’s doctrine of unlimited Executive Branch power without challenge from the Legislative Branch. Those lessons must be learned, and acted upon, by Congress on our behalf.
well said.
on the money.
thanks for the new cite.
pow wow at 117: If I read you right you’re saying that making some moves, even any moves, towards impeachment right now is important even if there’s no chance to work through the whole process by 1/20/09. That it’s vital to reassert Congress’s prerogatives, power, and authority so that at least the next guy will be more a bit more careful.
You may have a point.
I naively think that if enough heat is applied, maybe Bush/Cheney will just fold under the pressure. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from beginning impeachment proceedings. Let it become the record that impeachment hearings had begun!