Heads up: Jane Hamsher is on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning.
What will it take for the major US media to acknowledge that the Bush/Cheney regime's actions and views on the limits of executive power represent an unprecedented threat to America's Constitutional democracy, its national security, and its moral standing in the world?
When asked recently whether Pakistan's General Musharrif had gone too far in crushing democratic opposition, President Bush said Musharrif had not yet "crossed the line," even though the military dictator had forcibly replaced the Supreme Court; jailed lawyers, judges, and opposition leaders; banned demonstrations; and shut down any independent media. One wonders whether Mr. Bush has a line that can be crossed as long as the executive claims its actions are in furtherance of fighting "terrorism."
The Bush/Cheney regime's misguided terror war was the stated justification for invading Iraq, overthrowing its government, and establishing an indefinite occupation that has seen hundreds of thousands of people killed, even more wounded and millions displaced from their homes. The Administration propagated phony intelligence, relying on forged documents and confessions obtained under torture to justify an aggressive war, but none of that crossed Mr. Bush's line.
To cover up these lies, Bush and Cheney's minions recklessly exposed an American covert agent, then lied about it and sent the President's Press Secretary to lie to continue the coverup. When Libby was convicted of lying about these events, the President made sure Libby would never talk by commuting his sentence. But none of that crossed the President's line.
By leaving a large occupying army in Iraq to prop up a divisive Shia regime, the Administration created a magnet for hundreds of foreign fighters from North Africa to the Arabian peninsula. These Sunni fighters apparently comprised the core of suicide bombers that accounted for a large majority of bombing attacks on American soldiers. Over 3860 Americans have been killed; over 28,000 30,000 seriously wounded [plus 20,000 with previously unrecognized brain injuries]; but none of this crosses the President's line.
The regime has systematically violated the Constitution by illegally spying on Americans and gutting the Fourth Amendment. It has revoked habeas corpus, violated criminal felony statutes, sanctioned war crimes, made a mockery of detainee criminal trials, and politicized the justice system so badly that no one can trust the integrity of its prosecutions -- but none of that crossed the line.
The Administration has so corrupted the Justice Department that it now functions as a violator of civil liberties and voting rights, rather than the defender it is supposed to be, but that hasn't crossed the line.
This Administration sanctions kidnapping, rendition, torture, secret prisons, indefinite detention without trials, and kangaroo courts. It has ordered indiscriminate bombing in civilian areas, deliberately killing innocent civilians. If there is any remaining moral distinction between these US actions, sanctioned by this Administration, and those of regimes the US Government designates as state sponsors of terrorism, it is hard to make it out -- and yet that has not crossed the line.
So what does this President count as crossing the line? Here's a small fraction of things Mr. Bush has stopped:
-- Providing health care for uninsured children through a successful federal-state insurance program
-- Providing adequate funding for rebuilding public infrastructure in New Orleans -- or anywhere else
-- Requiring safer products and adequate inspections, improving auto gas mileage, taking meaningful steps to reverse potentially catastrophic global climate change
-- Requiring that US troops receive adequate rest and retraining between multiple combat deployments
-- Requiring that US troops phase out unnecessary combat actions in Iraq's civil wars
-- Disclosing Justice Department opinions that sanction torture
-- Giving Congress access to executive branch records needed for Congressional oversight
-- Allowing senior White House officials to testify before Congress, even when subpoened.
America's Constitutional system, its laws and democratic institutions are under siege by a lawless, radical regime that ignores all constitutional limits on its actions and treats the rule of law with contempt. If this were happening in Pakistan, everyone involved in the legal/justice system would be protesting in the streets, if not already in jail, and the entire mainstream media except for the equivalent of Fox News would be shut down. Genuinely democratic nations would withdraw support.
But this is not Pakistan; it's happening here, in America. Isn't it time the media stopped covering stories about this President pardoning a turkey and started demanding an end to this lawless regime?
Photo: Damien Donck, in Newsweek, via Renegade 98 "The Constitution in Peril,"
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Two?
Ha. Zed!
‘Morning Scarecrow. This administration hasn’t just crossed the line. They’ve broken through like the New Orleans levees.
Good morning!
Jane is on C-span…
Just like Musharrif, there is no “line” that can be crossed. For important “serious” men like this there can be no limits - ever.
If Bush can’t find this mythical “line”, the congress needs to show it to him. They can start by banning ANY AND ALL military aid to Pakistan until a new government is chosen through free and fair elections. Then the US can negotiate with Pakistans new government on terms for aid.
Morning Scarecrow, et al.
Got this in an e-mail back from my Rep. Sestak re impeachment:
So I sent him another e-mail. If he thought that Watergate was so bad it warranted impeachment, what would it take for him to support impeaching Chimpy? What line is it that 43 would have to cross? Is there a line?
I can’t imagine anyone saying or writing with any rational sincerity that Nixon deserved impeachment over a petty burglary and cover-up but W. isn’t as bad as that.
What does this cretan in the WH have to do to prove he’s “as bad as Nixon?”
I am baffled.
nonplussed @ 5
Thank You!!! watching now.
What will it take for the major US media to acknowledge that the Bush/Cheney regime’s actions and views on the limits of executive power represent an unprecedented threat to America’s Constitutional democracy, its national security, and its moral standing in the world?
Na-Gah-Ha-Pen, as they are consciously complicit in these actions, from their board, to their editors/producers to their on-air personalities.
Scarecrow, you have written the best script for Dems and I wish they would concentrate on these issues instead of the personal attacks and b.b. that sensationalizes the mundane. We shouldn’t be eating our own when our country is dying.
Good morning, everyone. Hope all of you on East Coast are watching Jane. She’s doing a great job.
bush has never been forced to eat the consequences - even though he’s cooked his goose over and over.
It amazes me how the man wants to use negative consequences for anyone he deems in need of a lesson and yet he and all his criminal cronies get free passes - no lessons needed… no matter how much they screw up or screw the constitution (pardon my language).
Either people are simply tuning out, just as bush must, or…. they’ve gone round the bend.
Because it is simply agony to have to watch this slow-motion train wreck - as we’ve tried and tried to signal the disaster.
Heart-wrenching. Mind-bending. As the emotion meter swings between rage and numbness. The numbness, like “shell-shock.”
What I found horribly jarring yesterday was the blaring headlines “Supreme Court Affirm Musharraf.”
Like, well, that’s it, folks, the Supreme Court said he’s good so he must be. There was no immediate impact to the reader, none, that the court had just been stripped and packed two weeks ago.
The Supreme Court said so, so it must me. Made me queasy.
Good morning Scarecrow. So as not to step on your post I am liveblogging downstairs on late nite.
Scarecrow @ 11
Made my day!!!!
Why did Jane demure from telling a bit more of what Sibel Edmonds has already said?
paradox @ 13
Yes, you had to read through the story — or have seen several prior stories — to realized what that headline meant. That’s why I used the term “replaced.”
Watching now. On DU I thought they said Jane HARMON!
Great job Jane!
Doughy pantload up next on the Span. I think I’ll tune out.
paradox @ 13
What I found so bad in this whole affair was Bush saying that the Pakistan leader had NOT committed any serious act of wrong. That (like Bush) is seriously out of wack.
paradox @13
I noticed the same thing. The general population has been informed that nothing really untoward is happening in Pakistan. It is all court-approved, after all. So there is no need for condemnations from us, or witholding military aid. Everything really is OK in Pakistan…
I feel a bit ill.
RevDeb @ 19
Wow, what a follow up. Jane did a great job.
I just caught the end of Jane’s appearance on Cspan. Great answer on the WGA strike. But as an Edwards supporter I must confess I was very disappointed that when asked about the election that Jane only mentioned Hilliary and Obama just like the MSM has been doing. Say it isn’t so Jane.
Jane was wonderful on C-Span, not only with the facts but by being pleasant even with the callers from Wingnuttia. Excellent job, Jane! You represented the blogosphere with intelligence and dignity.
Thanks for the heads up scarecrow. I tuned into Jane about 7:15, but they never put the phone number up. Was that because too many people were already calling in?
Scarecrow- Powerful, powerful writing. Do you realize that you have channelled Thomas Jefferson? The presentation mirrors the Declaration of Independence laying out the charges against King George.
I had to take a second look at the document you posted to realize that it was the Constitution!
And Jane is kicking tail-feathers over on C-Span. Handling hecklers with ease and using each questioner to make perfect points!
Richmond @ 20
Bush does not know the difference between right and wrong. Never has. That’s why we are in the stew we are in. Mommy never taught him because she doesn’t know either.
People don’t want to understand we are engaged in class warfare. For two hundred years the wealthy respected limits. They don’t anymore. As for the media, as they concentrate and accumulate radio and television stations as well as newspapers, they become dependent on the government for licenses. They won’t risk losing a great deal of money merely to do what is right. Besides the media bosses agree that anything that keeps them in their drivers’ seats can’t be all bad. As for solutions, it is up to us. They will not do it for us.
Jane did a brilliant job on Washington Journal this morning. Her warmth and compassion shone through even when she was faced with the most antagonistic questioners. I truly felt filled with pride to be associated, even in a small way, with this blog. Thank you Jane!
Jane has finished hour long interview on C-Span Washington Journal. Great job Jane!!!!
Liveblog available on previous thread see comments beginning at # 202 and continuing thru # 232.
Smgumby @ 21
W’s appointment to the presidency was court approved in 2000 also. And how did our populace react?
Bilbo @ 29
I didn’t know Jane was one early enough to catch most of the show. What were they heckling her about?
I’ve been mostly lurking on The Lake for about 11 months, since retiring and Jane was a little bit of a Sphinx to me. I just wanted to say what a wonderful job she did this morning on Washington Journal. I was particularly pleased with the way she raised the nasty neanderthal from Canyon Lake, Tx on a pedestal as the exemplar of of the Republican base.
Put on c-span and caught the tail end of Jane. First caller I saw called her a hypocrite and un-American. Funny. She pounded the guy. Later somebody called with some long-winded lecture/question on the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Jane creamed that caller, too. She was great. Until the very end. When it’s over and she’s leaving she pockets the coffee mug from the table!!! AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHH. I was mortified. Mortified, I say.
RevDeb
The populace for the most part reacted just the way they are (supposed to be) reacting to Pakistan. Apathy.
From Bush and Musharrif’s point of view this is… ….perfect.
Patty@23
It isn’t so. Jane was asked about, and when through all the candidates. Watch the replay later and avoid jumping to conclusions if you can before you have all the info.
Patty Morlan @ 23
Me too! ‘TF, Jane?
Patty Morlan @ 23
She had already said complimentary things about Obama and his ability to excite young people and broaden the debate on foreign policy; she also said sometimes he repeats Republican talking points.
Wow, I thought I was the only one who was seeing this. The whole core of the problem is the Terrorism — it was preplanned to use it to coincide with our shadow govt’s planned attack against its own citizens to begin this descent into a Police State…Investigate 911
Smgumby @ 35
yep. rhetorical question.
paradox @ 13
Yes, you had to read through the story — or have seen several prior stories — to realized what that headline meant. That’s why I used the term “replaced.”
Bush’s dry run in Pakistan to maintain power in America?
Skyrocketing gas prices and the rest is history. They control the gas, limit it create disorder and declare emegency law. He does not have to replace the SJC. They are already sympathtic to corporate America. They said it would never happen in Pakistan, it did. with more than tacit approval from Bush. Many germans said it could not happen in in Germany, it did. Be on your guard. The energy purveyors will do anything to manitain the status quo!!!! False gods and “cash cows” compromise life and liberty!!!
As I said to Naomi Wolf a couple of weeks ago. It is past time for the other civilized nations of the world to do to this country what was done to South Africa under Apart-hate.
Unless and until this country ceases its clear violations of international law, and disregard for its own Constitution, there should be a growing worldwide boycott of the United States.
The whole world is going to be paying oil prices that are more than a third higher than the actual realities of the market would bear, due to the speculation upon troubles in the Middle East that WE caused.
The world needs to send the message that the next election in this country, if there is one, must be a clear repudiation of the neocon wet dream.
Just say No to US.
There will be a replay of Jane on Cspan, there usually is. It’s worth a look, so stay tuned to cspan and find out when the replay is scheduled.
Watch the whole thing, folks, before jumping off a cliff here…
Impressive! Jane did a great job speaking to progressive ideas! Really refreshing.
Now back to read the post.
itwasntme @ 36
Ouch. I wasn’t jumping to conclusions I was referring to the question at the end that I saw.
itwasntme @ 36
What Patty M said is an accurate representation of how Jane answered the question. I don’t wanna make a big deal of it because Jane was great in the short time I saw her and I’m sure the rest of the hour as well. And I don’t like getting into pissing contests with people here. But Patty was right.
Only got to see the last 10 minutes of Jane. Can’t wait for the replay.
Patty Morlan @ 23
I’d ask you to consider the CSPAN audience. A lot of the people watching think Hillary and Obama are tree-hugging pacifists who hate Xmas and want to abolish private property. I thought Jane did a great job of tailoring the message to the audience without diluting it.
Beerfart Liberal @ 46
Thanks for the backup. I love Jane and didn’t think I was being unfair in what I said. I guess a lot of us just aren’t morning people. LOL By the way where can we watch the replay? Will it be posted here?
And once I see it I can say if patty or itwasnt are correct. I just love pissing matches in the morning!
Boo Radley @ 48
Great answer to the asshole who challenged her to explain why the Democrats hate free enterprise or some such thing. Kind of a rambling question and I think the caller thought it was pretty damn great and made a point but it just set up Jane for an in yo’ face slam dunk
Smgumby @ 50
LOL
IMVHO, Snottie McLellan has reopened the question of the “CIA Leak Investigation” in the minds of a lot of Americans who still think Joe Lieberman is a liberal Democrat.
Jane showed up and didn’t look like or talk like a
dirty f*ckinghippie. That’s very, very positive for progressives in this country.Closer to the original topic, has anyone seen the HuffingtonPosts poster project?
This one is my favorite, and I am gonna make copies to plaster around town. If I had the time/skill I would do a poster ala freeblogger using this as a template!
This from a caller to Jane on C-Span this morning “Q On Fox John Gibson, said that there was a plot in CIA to undermine the Bush presidency and it was good Plame was outed by Rove.”
Now does this even make ANY SENSE?
Why would Plame send her husband over to write a report to the CIA saying that there was NO EVIDENCE of yellowcake being sold to Iraq…if they were trying to get Bush to make false statements about WMD’s?
Why would he submit a report that he believed was to be directed to the Vice President warning him off?
Would this mean the same conspiracy also involved the US Ambassador to Niger and the highest ranking US General in NATO? Both also wrote reports, to the State Department and the Pentagon, respectively ALSO saying that there was no evidence of such a contract or that such a deal was feasible.
So lemme see…the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department (and perhaps Cheney) were all colluding in keeping the President from having this information???
And then the British Government gave Bush bogus information just for the purpose that he would fall into this nefarious trap! So he would make unsubstantiated claims about African nations providing Uranium to Iraq. So the Brits were also involved in this widening conspiracy!
Ergo Bush is the target of the greatest deception in the history of the world incorporating deceptions in almost every Department of the US Government and the British (as well as the Italians and French as well).
They FORCED Bush into making that statement in the SOU about Weapons of MassDestruction? Yeah, that’s the ticket!He was tricked!
Either that or John Gibson is certifiably a paranoid - besides being arrogant, obnoxious, and lacking the capability of being the pencil sharpener for a real journalist.
Patty Morlan @ 50
I was able to see pretty much the whole thing. Jane spoke well of all of the candidates but also noted what some will think are issues with their candidacies. I don’t actually think she slighted anyone, unless it was Joe Biden. I rather like Biden, but am not at all offended by her treatment of the candidates.
Patty Morlan @ 49
Anytime. I felt the same way. And I donm’t think it’s a case of sitting here and dissecting answers (which isn’t really fair). I just think it’s wrong to leave out Edwards and not just ’cause I support him. By the way, she had a geat opportunity to slam the Republican field but demurred. Very classy, no.
And yeah, I wanna see the replay, too. They usually show them late at night, right?
cinnamonape @ 27
What a morning!
I’m going to reread this and I hope to be back in time.
PS Jane’s thoughtful wideranging intelligence and grasp of the issues was stellar.
wrt Edwards, Jane mentioned how progressives liked his commitment to poverty issues and universal health care.
She said FDL won’t endorse a candidate at the primary level, but would support the Dem nominee in the general.
She said she expected the rightwing attack machine to go after whoever the Dem candidate was — if Obama, we’d see the Southern strategy (race); if Edwards, we’d hear about haircuts; if Clinton, we’d see a repeat of the 1990s, etc.
Yes, I agree completely.
He wasn’t as bad as the guy who came up next, however from iirc, Abilene TX, about “Fire crotch Lake.”
I was flipping channels and landed on Washington Journal. Imagine my surprise when I learned that Jane was one.
She is a gracious, lovely lady.
She handled the idiots well, I thought.
Scarecrow @ 39
Jane said that Edwards was great in terms of Social Security, Unions, and healthcare. She didn’t ignore him. And she didn’t even bring up some of the things he has waffled on or has made problematical or ambivalent statements upon.
Beerfart Liberal @ 35
It’s a gift for people who come on C-Span. She was supposed to take it.
What a lucky lurker I be. Nervous, not enough coffee and a case of the flu, but got thru to Jane on WJ and got so flustered I figured I’d just do a PSA for the lake. Pups must have been trying hard to get thru but I fought the busy signals and there was Jane, smiling at me on my muted teevee. The lady has a mind like a steel trap I tell you. Thanks for remembering me Jane and the check is really in the mail today. Oh and thanks egregious for another great liveblog. Out of here POOOOF.
They smell like…urine.
Boo Radley @ 60
Yeah, that guy I heard. Jane just laughed at him for the fool that he was.
In my # 57, shoulda said: “Very classy, no ? “
I thought it was classy of Jane not to trash everybody on the other side when given the wide open opportunity to do so. Aside from just making me happy that she handled herself so well (not surprising) appearances like Jane’s could result in more and more appearances from bloggers. I know they have them sometimes but I mean more.
bluejeansntshirt @ 65
Good job calling in, funny about the check in the mail, lol!
egregious @ 63
Kidding. Jane was great.
Jane was eloquent and, in contrast, now listening to Goldberg slide around on the Repug candidates. He managed to slip in a comment about how the blogs are “walking backwards” in regard to how newspapers provided information (or somesuch nonsense)…guessing he’s not a HUGE fan of anything that would actually provide information over “talking points”.
Pedro seemed somewhat beguiled to me. Usually, he’s reading, trying to figure out his next question, and not really paying attention. He seemed seemed attentive and carried a sort of goofy smile through the whole interview.
cinnamonape @ 62
My post concerned the final question that was asked where Jane only talked about Hilliary & Obama (true). I said that I was disappointed and I was. I didn’t rag on Jane or the other two candidates. So I’m really surprised that I seem to be taking incoming fire on this.
Good post to Scarecrow. I was trying to find that WGA youTube on media consolidation.With a half dozen media players in the game it goes along way to explaining why the corporate media isn’t paying attention to the constitutional crisis.
What Jane said about Edwards:
The comment at the end where she does not mention Edwards, last question on the show:
Truth in advertising: I’m an Edwards supporter, wish he had been included in the last answer but feel that overall the candidates were covered fairly. And there were many good points made about Edwards earlier.
pma @ 72
lol, yeah, I think it was first I’ve seen him smile.
Political propaganda in Bee Movie? (not so OT). Yesterday we went to see Bee Movie as a family. The theatrewas filled with other families with young kids. What struck me about this popular Dream Works movie is its subversive political message which to me was particularly shocking considering it is family fare. Among other things it presents a view of lawyers as evil -at one point labeling a lawyer character as a “blood sucking parasite.” And, not only was the lead lawyer character against “the Bees” in the court case beyond obese, but the the plaintifs won not because their case was tight, or because they had a good lawyer (indeed she had no training but was a florist), but because they put on the equivalent a circus for the jury (bringing in a live bear into the court room). The point being made was to denigrate class action cases of this sort. It also made it clear that this particular class action victory (by the bees) would brought human kind to the brink of extinction, because its result was that workers simply now had no need to do the jobs that needed to be done. In short the case (and movie) suggested subliminally that all such class action cases brought by workers go against the best interests of society more generally.
And it doesn’t stop there. There is a gratuitous anti-Semitic comment (a reference to someone as a “typical Jew - note this is a cartoon about bees!). And, the whole premise is that that workers (in the hive) are most happy working the same menial job all their lives for 365 days a year - getting all the satisfaction they need just in seeing their own good work. Moreover after the class action suit victory, the worker bees all decide to stop working all together. Instead they lie around in the sun working on their tans, as the environment crumbles around them because no flowers are getting pollinated. The point here seems to be that it is right to continue with the status quo of workers working in menial jobs with no recompense for their labor.
And, who are the bee heros in this film? Thug looking toughies in flight jackets flying in V formation like military bombers - the only ones who are actually supposed to leave the ordered control of the hive to venture into the dangerous world beyond.
Because cartoons which mask as children’s fare imprint the mind so deeply, I found this whole VERY deeply disturbing. There is no way that this was intended to be seen as simply parody (unlike, say, Enchanted, which is clever and quite entertaining). Note too there is no real political power evoked here visibly, but like a facist it is there implicitly in the pressure brought on by the citizenry to conform to this scheme for the better good.
Scarecrow,
The media has had more than enough time to come to grips with the attack on its independence promulgated by Republicans.
The Press has had time to scrutinize its behavior in the run up to the war. It has had time to feel guilty for forsaking journalistic principles.
There are two stories which, in my humble opinion NEED to be told.
1. Each newsroom must tell the story of its shutdown by the corporations which now run the editors and to some extent the reporters and on-air news readers.
2. Each newsroom must risk their jobs to restore independence for the Press so that it can honestly document the destruction to our country by this administration.
Journalists MUST BE PATRIOTS.
egregious @ 74
Thanks Egregious.
Thank-you FDL!!!! Jane Hamsher did a great job ..on C SPAN
My only wish is that FDL”S would write down c_
span callin #”s keep them close, for they do not change and call in every thirty days .. And help inform the american people .
Its is another way of haveing YOUR voice heard!
Patty Morlan @ 50
C-Span’s “recent programs” should list this mornings W/J’s progam once it is over, on the c-span web site. You can watch the show at your convienence a little later…..
Thanks Egregious!
James Joyce @ 80
Thanks for the info. I appreciate it. As soon as I read that Jane was going to be on cspan I switched over to watch her but the show was almost over. I wish we could get Jane on MSNBC. I’d love to see her on Hardball showing Chris Matthews how much he doesn’t know. LOL
bluejeansntshirt @ 65
Great post, thanks.
Patty Morlan @ 73
Relax — we’re just trying to fill in some of the missing pieces. One of the problems we all have is that there’s so much to say about every question, that we feel badly when we can’t give an exhaustive answer — but that’s not possible. Your observation was right, but there was more in the interview to put it in context.
The Press is still so defensive.
Afraid to justify its past behavior because it knows that it was overpowered by this moneyed power-obsessed cabal that has NO LINE which it will not cross but one: Loyalty to the clan that installed the Bush regime.
The Press was overpowered, outplayed and outspun.
It is important that WE understand that the Press was attacked every bit as much as the DOJ, the Armed Forces, etc.
Everybody, I misunderstood the comments about Jane. I apologise, and use as my excuse that I’m on the west coast, and up at this time in the AM with indigestion!
Moving away from Jane’s splendid performance back to the story at hand . . .
So the question I want answered is this:
What would W. have to do in order to make Nancy wake up and allow impeachment?
Maybe we should have a contest to make up the conditions by which the dems would finally HAVE to do something about this runaway train wreck of a government.
Well done. Excellent post.
Woke up at 0400 local time - couldn’t sleep. Wondered why. I guess it was ’cause I was missing Jane at C-SPAN. They play it later here, plus they put it up on the web within hours. Interesting how she apparently ended pointing out the upsurge of support in Huckabee, along with the continuing support for nutcase Ron Paul. I’ve been predicting they might be the final GOP ticket for about four weeks now. Who woulda thunk, eh?
RevDeb @ 32
Boston1775 @ 86
And remember, TV, Radio and Newsprint now (unlike say in 1890 or 1960) is all owned/controlled by a select few -GE and Murdoch included. That makes a big difference on what people can write. In a related thing there is another rather scary article in the NYT about mega churches control in key communities. One mega church in Alaska is now mounting the city’s only July 4 celebration for example. You can just imagine the message, to say nothing, as the NYT report notes of the issue of the division of church and state.
Tell it like it is, Scarecrow!
RevDeb @ 88
Jane made me feel kinda bad for being in attack mode toward Pelosi and the dem leadership. I feel that Pelosi needs to make herself clear and call out those that are obstructing the duty of the congress to bring impeachment forward. Avoiding the issue isn’t working. BushCo has long ago crossed line.
RevDeb @ 88
Well, Biden said in the last debate that if Bush initiated war against Iran without express Congressional authorization, he should be impeached. The counter argument is that when a President gets us into war, historically everyone rallies around the CinC and the troops, and that would be particularly likely as soon as Iran responded by, e.g., attacking US troops in Iraq. I don’t think there is a line — or rather, I think every line has already been crossed.
TrueBlueMajority @ 25
It’s actually fun watching Goldberg come on after Jane. The contrast is absolutely striking. From reasoned discourse and respect for callers to a lot of empty nasty rhetoric, and actually telling a caller that she was out of line (the passionate Ron Paul supporter). Funny, isn’t it, that for the Bush supporters, a caller who expresses an opinion that Goldberg disagrees with is over the line, but Musharrif’s actions are not.
I am not excusing their actions.
I simply want the Press to get a grip, examine their failures and do their jobs NOW.
As Scarecrow writes at the top:
What will it take for the major US media to acknowledge that the Bush/Cheney regime’s actions and views on the limits of executive power represent an unprecedented threat to America’s Constitutional democracy, its national security, and its moral standing in the world?
To the Editors who scan here: Stand up to the corporations “advising” you. If you begin to write about this there are many of us who are waiting to stand behind you.
ROFLMFAO! a true milk through the nose moment if ever there was one. Thank you sooooo much!
Yeah, we got da fire in da pants!
W00T!
RevDeb @ 88
Deb this is an easy one.
Once George extends his term to indefinite, “disappears” any opposing views on the Supreme Court, and locks up half the Democratic congress, Ms. Pelosi will realize he must be impeached.
The problem is, who will be left to impeach him at that point?
RevDeb @ 88
I think Pelosi has set the bar really high. I think Bush would have to do something really egregious. Like being complicit in the dissemination of classified information and public betrayal of a covert CIA operative resulting in damage to national security and specifically damage to our ability to monitor WMD’s. I can’t imagine any president doing such a thing. So I guess impeachment is permamnently, “off the tableau.”
tw3k @ 93
i am very curious to ask jane why she thinks speaker pelosi is a progressive. that has not been my impression at all.
hazmat @ 90
and all those Jewish retirees in FL intentionally voted for Pat Buchanan. Nothing to see here. Move on.
Firecrotchlake…
*snort*
Richmond @ 92
I tried to research whether those megachurches had received any faith based initiative funds. There is an enormous story there.
The faith based funds are extraordinarily difficult to follow.
Scarecrow @ 95
Scarecrow @ 85
Thanks Scarecrow.
I’m really not upset but I thought others might be so that’s why I repeated what I said to try to prevent others from possibly jumping in to knock Edwards because of what I said. I didn’t want him to pay the price for what I said. LOL
Heck, today has been a great day for me. I’ve received more comments directed to me today than I’ve ever received here at FDL. LOL Usually I’m ignored. LOL So I’m doing fine but thanks for being concerned enough to worry. By the way you did a great job on your blog entry. Top notch as always.
tw3k @ 94
I think the elephant in the room here is that Bush is seen (by some for better, for many others for much worse) as THE great supporter of Is**** - hence in part is push to topple Iraq, Iran etc. This is also where Rahm, Hoyer, Schumer, the DCC and Hillary come in. To impeach Bush is to impeach these initiatives as well.
hazmat @ 91
You’re right about Gore winning Tenn woulda made the whole FL thing irrelevant. But just how did Gore’s lawyers fuck up? As for the FL Supreme Court re-writing FL election law, that’s bullshit, in my view. How’d they do that? There was no way Gore was gonna win in the SCOTUS. Even if Ted Olsen represented him. Just no way.
tw3k — thanks. Iran, Iraq, what’s the difference?
Jane obviously is head over heels in love with the duplicitous Edwards, who sometimes talks a good game, but in terms of qualifications to be president he lags far behiind Hillary - and her “experience” is deeply in question.
Edwards is living in the “other America” while he preaches about there being two Americas and the poor geting poorer, yet his personal homestead gets bigger and bigger.
He is the only person in America to invest millions of is personal dollars in a “hedge fund” company in order to learn about poverty It seems that he has adopted Al Gore’s “there is no controlling legal authority” philosophy; which is basically that “i’ll say and do anything to get what i want”.
here’s the link for this morning’s washington journal with jane (it won’t be posted to the archive until later today).
It’s hard for me to think through the impeachment issue and compare to Watergate or the Lewinsky matter. In those cases, there were long special prosecutor investigations prior to the House voting charges. In the case of Watergate, court cases had been conducted over Presidential records.
In the present case, some reservations may have to do with laying background by hearings and subpoena of raecors. I would be very edgy about cases regarding Presidential Article II authority going to the current Supreme Court. I would sure hate to get rulings endorsing a unitary executive.
By the way, has anyone else here seen Bee Movie yet (as in my earlier OT/NotOT)?
selise @ 101
Same here and the reason for that perception, IMHO, is that she is always on “message control” holding up bright shinny objects. Sticking to the same old line of not having enough votes. Fine, call out dem caucus that is holding things up. The message control is not working.
hazmat @ 110
So for Edwards having money is a disqualifier? Any other candidates disqualified for this sin? How about this. Of the wealthy candidates, how many earned their wealth (like Edwards) vs how many inherited their wealth?
Richmond @ 106
i also worry about that as bad as bush is, there are many people on our side of the aisle that do not want to repudiate his policies (perhaps because it will offend supporters, as you suggest, or perhaps because there are many of his policies that they actually support - although they may tell us otherwise).
Patty Morlan @ 106
I was upset. But for me, it’s time to let this drop. Gotta just hope Edwrads keeps bustin’ his ass in Iowa and comes up with a showing that the Mainstraem Media pronounce “impressive” or “surprising” or even better “the big surprise”. Then we can say “Told ya sooooooo”, Patty. And if you direct that at Jane, the coffee mug thief, personally, I guarantee you’ll get lotsa attention from people here.
Richmond @ 107
Fine, can those initiatives. It is not in our national interest.Pelosi should make it clear that it is indeed Rahm, Hoyer, Schumer and Hillary.
hazmat @ 110
Hey, you’re not that cspan caller from Texas are you? LOL
RevDeb @ 7
It certainly appears you have a cretan for congress as well. Once upon a time, during another revolution, the cry would have been “off with their head”, a sure cure for political cretans - (stated in a kindly, considerate, and non-harmful to any sentient organism kinda way)
Ed*ard Teller @ 90
This is from today’s Union-Leader an editorial from the Doughy Wide Pantload. He thinks Ron Paul is a “scary leftie” but thinks Huckabee is even scarier…
Smgumby @ 115
Some of our greatest assholes were born in cabins. On the other hand, FDR and JFK were both born into wealth.
Scarecrow @ 109
np!
tw3k @ 113
yes.
and, for example, how does not having enough votes mean that she must negotiate fisa in secret with the Rs while hiding what’s going on from the aclu (this summer)? too many things like that are, imo, inconsistent with progressive values or even open government.
I got to meet Jonah and they validated my parking. And they did give me a mug, but they gave me a clean one.
It’s butt cold here in DC today.
I attended the the event at Boston College last week end entitled: No News is Bad News.
My impression is that newspapers are in so much financial trouble that they are taken up with survival.
How are they going to make it?
Here’s a model.
There’s a model.
The NYT has a gorgeous front page on-line.
The Florida paper went non-profit.
Meanwhile, discussion of the actual news was in shorter supply than I ever anticipated it would be.
Scarecrow is highlighting this issue with this post.
I am understanding why it is not doing its job. The problem is, there has never been a greater need for a healthy Press.
Jane Hamsher @ 125
So you got 2. The clean one they gave you and the one you lifted, right? Sell one on e-bay.
tw3k @ 118
Groan- Alas, as you know that won’t happen either! (n.b. this ialso seems to be a factor for Lieberman, Feinstein, Spector, and others too)
Beerfart Liberal @ 127
Busted.
pma @ 122
A valid point. And while I would not consider myself an Edwards supporter per se, it bothers me to have him dismissed based soley on wealth. I never hear Mitt Romney held to that standard, or GWB for that matter. But Edwards simply can’t understand poverty, ’cause he is rich rich rich. And his hair is too purdy to be preznit.
Beerfart Liberal @ 127
Oh yeah. From the small bit I saw of the end you did a great job in every way and certainly deserve 2 mugs for the effort.
selise @ 124
Absolutely. Secrecy and obfuscation just leads to distrust and insecurity.
Jane Hamsher @ 129
LOL
Boston1775 @ 126
ctually, I think it was Krugman who wrote, that the newspapers are NOT in financial straits. There profits are UP vis-a-vis several decades ago. It is just that their shareholders want MORE profits. It is, in short, about GREED.
Jane Hamsher @ 125
GO JANE!
Jane Hamsher @ 125
Great job! I actually watched teevee for a whole hour, lol.
Richmond @ 128
yeah :/
Patty Morlan @ 133
That’s how I’m going to rate people who go on talk shows now. Not thumbs-up or thumbs down. It’s 2 mugs or 1 mug or 0 mugs or buy-the-host-a-cuppa. Jane’s was a definite 2 mugger.
jane - you were fabulous. i’d be scared shitless to do something like that for a whole hour… it takes me at least a day to figure out what i wished i’d said!
Richmond @ 134
Self clean up on aisle 134: Here is what I meant to say below the comment (not in the middle of it!:
Actually, I think it was Krugman who wrote, that the newspapers are NOT in financial straits. There profits are UP vis-a-vis several decades ago. It is just that their shareholders want MORE profits. It is, in short, about GREED.
selise @ 139
It’s taken me a year and a half of being on TV to get to the point where I’m comfortable going in front of a camera and don’t seize up. It’s hard, you know? (For everyone but Christy, she’s an amazing natural.)
Smgumby @ 130
According to the current meme, Dems aren’t allowed to have money and still care for those less fortunate. It’s supposedly a sign of hypocrisy. Since Repubs are supposed to have money and not care for anyone else anyway, it’s alright.
selise @ 139
Ok, Jane has done cspan and come out a winner. Now she takes on Hardball. LOL
I wish, I wish, I wish. I’d love to see her take on Matthews.
Natural Selection, Corporate T(r)eason and “Executive Oil”
America’s long-term goal, the survival of our democracy, its economic prosperity and solvency are threatened by elements in our own culture whose “self-interest,” is protected and flourishes at the expense of the governed, and for some arguably, the world. This identified dysfunction, where essential energy needs are based on short-term ill logic, combined with a lack of political will and an outright failure to plan long term is no mistake. It has been orchestrated and guaranteed by proactive measures utilized by petroleum interests and its bedfellows at all levels of government and the market protecting entrenched political / financial interests.
Under the pretense of liberation, for the Iraqi people and a paternalistic “War on Terror,” against Osama and his network, the Bush administration and congress are intentionally deceiving America.
The administration aided by congress is leveraging the events of 9/11/2001, and subsequent National Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to its political advantage by embarking on a dangerous course within America and in an area of the world, where unintended consequences are the norm. The lack of fact and historical context to the War in Iraq, a gigantic void in our past and current decision making process, is evidenced, if by nothing else, the decades long, senseless loss of life in Iraq, which continues to date, unabated, under American and British occupation.
One fact is undeniable. An organism’s inability to adapt to a changing environment is extinction. America’s failure to aggressively develop clean and efficient alternative energy sources in a growing world energy market over a thirty year period is displaying such inability to adapt. The demonstrably ill effects of two prior oil embargoes, recent history, on America’s economy has been eviscerated from our collective memory and the “logic of reason,” replaced by instilments, so pleasurable and numerous given our finite affluence, that we are incapable of grasping the inevitable consequences of our actions. However, in spite of conscience attempts by our political leaders to digress and manipulate issues, for their political livelihood, reality provides simple truths. The people’s recent message to our government shows Americans are yearning for responsible local, state and national leadership addressing real issues and taking reasoned measures to address those issues.
The “Iraq War” is symptomatic of America’s addiction to oil. Seldom is the relationship between oil and terror discussed, nor are the histories of oil rich countries and American and British involvement really brought to light in the mainstream media. Also ignored are the suppressed national movements of oil rich countries attempting to exercise self-determination and control of their natural resources. Movements, not unlike ours here in America, squashed and crushed by corporate oil’s considerable clout via US and British military operations and covert actions.
Today the petroleum industry prospers, by shifting the cost of the “Iraq War,” what is essentially a start up cost, to the American taxpayer on money borrowed from foreign interests. This reality, when viewed against a backdrop of forever increasing energy costs in addition to the loss of fathers, mothers, sons, daughters and non-combatants in an undermanned, untenable “Iraqi War,” while the perpetrators of 911 have not been eradicated is absurd.
Energy is the most important issue facing our democracy. However, instead of fostering corporate oil off its “cash cow” to “begrudgingly” assist in vital and necessary “energy adaptations,” consistent with natural selection, the administration overstated the threat to America’s national security. And under the paternalistic tone of a “War on Terror,” started the “Iraq War,” on intentionally, misleading, cherry-picked intelligence thereby “protecting” the interests of the petroleum industry.
Herein lies the t(r)eason when in the interest of political expediency “Reason,” is replaced by the servile prejudices of policy makers, using the “executive powers” of the presidency of the United States and our military, not for the benefit of society and the general welfare of the governed, but rather to guarantee corporate oil’s profit while enabling America’s oil addiction.”
Self-sacrifice for family and friend in a legitimate “War on Terror” is honorable and a necessary cost in protecting god given “reason” and freedoms, secured by the rule of law, from the ravages of misguided religious and secular intolerances, absolutisms and greed, both foreign and domestic. However, for this American, it is impossible to justify and equate that same cost, to secure a foreign barrel of Iraqi, Al-Anbar Province extracted, “Executive Oil.”
Does anybody get it????
We have a new thread - and a new poster — ready. Go welcome Blue Texan, from Instaputz.
another great post by scarecrow
I’d like to add my own adendum;
by ignoring long standing treaties haveing been sighned into law with the full faith and gaurantees of our government, by unilaterally a”reinterperating” those long standing treaties,the administration has made it impossible to broker new treaties with any expectation they will be honored”
perris @ 146
Yeah, there’s a slight credibility problem, isn’t there?
Rev deb
F/Y/I the Palm Beach County ballot was created by the Democrat Election officials and APPROVED by the County Democrat and Republican parties before the election, so it was qute obvious that no one thought that there was a problem with the butterfly ballot.
If elderly people couldn’t follow the very simple instructions that was an unintended consequence and not an intentional act that would have been cause to invalidate the election results.
Al gore’s crack legal team should have called for a recount in all Florida counties instead of cherry picking 4 counties. That was the blunder that cost Gore the election.
Frankly, upon reflection Al must be ecstatic that he didn’t assume the presidency, for the following reasons:
1. By not being an elected official, he was able to get a chunk of stock in Google and some other tech deals, and has made tens of millions of dollars since 2000. Nothing to sneeze at.
2. He has been free to say anything for the past 7 years without being constrained by the facts.
3. He was free to become a suit wearing Michael Moore clone by producing a documentary(?) on the global warming climate changing devil, garnering award after award from every left leaning organization under the sun (ironic since of course in reality it is the sun that is most likely the real cause of any global warming).
Jane Hamsher @ 125
Isn’t it repetitive to use Jonah and butt in the same paragraph?
bush is fundamentally a pampered spoiled brat that knows no limitations in getting what he wants, who always got what he wanted. It should surprise no one that he does not view that there are any limits whatsoever on how he chooses to view things. This includes his claiming democracy exists in Pakistan when all recognizable features of democracy have been eliminated just because he feels like claiming democracy exists. It would take nothing for him to do the same in the US if cheney directed him so. The only question is what elements of the military and the government would respond to his coup.
.
I’ve always suspected the sun might have something to do with global warming. We should probably do something about that before it fries our brains.
James Joyce @ 144
Thank you! That is what I meant uptread by “Fine, can those initiatives. It is not in our national interest.”
Scarecrow @ 151
lol, nuke it!
Scarecrow
Treaties are akin to statutes and as with all laws, rules, regulations, they are subject to reinterpretation as conditions change.
Surely you believe that the Constitution is a “living document” and needs to be reinterpreted from time to time to reflect societal changes. After all that is the basis of SCOTUS’s finding of a penumbra of rights. Remember?
Separate but equal. And a whole host of other redefined provisions.
So if the basic law of the land, i.e., the Constitution - is subject to reinterpretation, why then wouldn’t treaties also be thus?
Point of information.
In 1995 Bill Clinton signed off on legislation that contained many similar provisions in what is now referred to as the Patriot Act. Yet there was no outcry that our civil rights were being lost! Do you wonder why such absurd claims only arise when the Republicans are in charge of the White House?
hazmat @ 154
You could read all the web pages about any particular topic, mostly topical to internet technology, in 1995 too. I think a lot people are not that happy with precedents that Clinton left and if he had driven them to extreme that Bush has I believe there would have been an outcry.
Your point of interpretation is interesting and worth examining. Tho, I do take issue with the interpretation of an all powerful executive no matter which party is in power.
I found this blog was about FDL’s Jane on C-span.
Yeh, she is good and as pretty as any anchorwoman (Or man). I thought she gave Edwards and Dodd pretty good reviews along with Hilary and Obama.
I didn’t see her conclusion, so I have no conclusion to jump to.
Except, what keeps the nets from putting folks like her into their MSM? Rhetorical question.
I thought Jane was elegant and made a very nice impression on C-SPAN. Her frendly demeanor gives her credibility. However I don’t agree with her philosophy that Democrats should take it easy on fellow Democratic candidates. This is survival of the fitness where the primary is only a preliminary match. The candidates must prove themselves and their defensive abilities before they can ever hope to win a general election.
It’s a given that Hillary and Giuliani have already been chosen by the mega rich NYC elite. That includes the financial sector power brokers who have come to control the country and the media. Neither Hillary nor Rudy would have been elected to dogcatcher in NYC had they not been in their bag.
This is the proverbial tails they win, heads we (the unwashed masses) lose situation. It will assure 8 more years of donating many more billions in dollars and arms to Israel while we US citizens go with less. It will also assure that US Middle East foreign policy continues to be one sided instead of being the neutral broker that would give us world credibility and would fairly consider the interests of all involved.
Richmond @ 140 says:
Actually, I think it was Krugman who wrote, that the newspapers are NOT in financial straits. There profits are UP vis-a-vis several decades ago. It is just that their shareholders want MORE profits. It is, in short, about GREED.
——————-
Actually, those at the conference said that with lack of classified ads and a downturn in advertising newspapers are in serious trouble. This was born out by John Carroll, former editor of the LA Times, who quit rather than cut his staff further.
There are fewer and fewer reporters doing actual original reporting these days and this one fact was cited as the greatest threat to journalism.
hazmat @ 154
treaties CAN be reinterperated
by the parties that are signators, NOT unilaterally for the sake of convenience of ONE of the signators
and sighting “some provisions” of a clinton bill that “seem to you similar” to “the patriot act” is a stretcg at best…always blame clinton why not
“the patriot act” is plaguerized directly from hitler’s “enabling act” and that is clear as day
hazmat @ 154
Your last point may or may not be a valid one, but not until you come back with some examples. I expect you’re thinking of certain surveillance methods. Meanwhile, did Clinton engage in illegal surveillance to the point of having to demand immunity from lawsuits to cover up what he had done?
The rest of your comment is predictable right-wing legal illiteracy, particularly the inability to distinguish between things like statutes and treaties and “the law of the land”. This clumsy attempt at a syllogism is embarrassing: since the Constitution is subject to interpretation, treaties can be abrogated.
“SCOTUS’s finding of a penumbra of rights” was based on a series of court precdents, Griswold v. Connecticut and Loving v. Virginia being the most well known. Read Roe v. Wade before you sarcastically, baselessly assert the justicies talked about the Consitution being a “living document” that “needed to be changed.” And just out of curiosity let me know — “yes” or “no” will be fine — if you think state governments should be able to ban interracial marriage and/or the purchase of contraception by married couples. Or your wanking.
And what does this mean? — “Separate but equal. And a whole host of other redefined provisions.” In the right wing world these kinds of disconnected phrases are doubtless fraught with meaning, but for dummies like me you have to spell it out with grammatical, complete sentences.
hazmat @ 148
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but Gore actually asked for a statewide recount initially before being hooted down, then asked for four counties.
The real point I want to address in this this little screed is just how hermetic right wing thinking is. Maybe “parochial” would be a better word for hazmat’s point number 3, this idea that the Nobel committee is a “left-leaning organization” and that the rest of the developed world’s consensus on human responsibility for global warming is a manifestation of some kind of spite towards the U.S., or George Bush or something. The self-absorption of this perspective almost begs a Freudian interpretation [edited by moderator]. Does he realize that the press and tv in European countries don’t waste a moment of time indulging global warming denialists? Ah, but in his mind I suppose that’s just further evidence of the world wide conspiracy — no doubt emanating from that prodigiously powerful entity, the U.N. and carried out by “academics”.
[edited to remove personal attack]
It must be nice to be sequestered in a fantasyland of singular beliefs deviod of facts, logic, and objectivity:
“Providing health care for uninsured children through a successful federal-state insurance program”
I challenge the extremists on this blog to cite a SINGLE child that has been denied essential health care during the Bush admin
– Providing adequate funding for rebuilding public infrastructure in New Orleans — or anywhere else
Appropriations for Katrina exceed that of the LA Earthquake, all of the hurricanes in 2004, Hurricane Andrew, and 9/11 COMBINED
– Requiring safer products and adequate inspections, improving auto gas mileage, taking meaningful steps to reverse potentially catastrophic global climate change
While there is no consensus for the mechanism for global climate change, the extreme Left response to gutting global industry and commerce would put billions of humans at risk due to reduce health care infrastructure from catastrophic economic collapse
– Requiring that US troops receive adequate rest and retraining between multiple combat deployments
It is reprehensible that the extreme Left has used these personal tragedies for ideological gain while at the same time denigrating and undermining the efforts that our troops voluntarily risk their lives. IN addition, the only path our enemies have to victory is by our capitulation from lack of will — conveniently the extreme Left gives Islamist extremist their daily dose of “will” with anti-American rhetoric
– Requiring that US troops phase out unnecessary combat actions in Iraq’s civil wars
Violence has dropped precipitously in Iraq for three reasons: (1) Iraq has stopped funding, training, and supplying munitions to shia insurgents, (2) al qaida has been severely reduced by US and sunni alliance, (3) the “Surge” has been successful
This proves the insurgency in Iraq is not a “Civil War” rather outside groups fomenting violence to promote religious extremist goals
– Disclosing Justice Department opinions that sanction torture
Hypocrisy and barbarism that the extreme Left would defend suspect terrorists from “torture” motivated to save tens of thousands of US citizens from a potential terror attack, while allowing the routine execution of babies in the third trimester who feel pain, have self-awareness, and understand the ramifications of their murder when the doctor punctures their skulls without anesthesia
– Giving Congress access to executive branch records needed for Congressional oversight
Note the hypocrisy and dangerous advocacy of these fringe Leftists to disrupting the Constitutional balance of power for ideological gain
– Allowing senior White House officials to testify before Congress, even when subpoened.
This is a matter for an impartial judiciary to decide — not a group of extremists
In summary, even the Democratic Party front runner rejects the absurd notions prescribed by the extreme Left.
If elected, Clinton would never remove US troops from Iraq until the region is stabilized because even she understands that the effort is vital to US national security interests.
In addition, the Democrat controlled Congress has recently renewed the tenets of the Patriot Act because its execution has been just and measured — for example, I challenge any extremist on this blog to name a SINGLE American who is in prison, killed, or denied legal oversight for any isolated transgression from the Patriot Act
“Censorship has always been and always be the last resort of the boob and the bigot.”
– Eugene Gladstone O’Neill, American playwright
You’re all forgetting the golden rule. It’s ok if a Republican does it.
Jane you were great on Washington Journal! I think it is very effective for the world to see what a progressive blogger really looks like! You were articulate, calm, and logical. Good job!
EagleX @162:
“…understands that the effort (occupying Iraq) is vital to US national security interests.”
What’s “vital to U.S. national security interests” mean? Does it mean the same thing as “vital to U.S. national security”?
Forgive the psychological analysis, but I consider your wording revealing. You don’t know what you’re talking about, so you throw in an extra word or two to make it sound vaguely expert or academic.
Those “interests” aren’t mine, and our armed forces aren’t doing me any favors by fighting for them.
By the way, you mixed up your italics and regular font. It comes across as neurotic when your comments are italicized and the ones you’re responding to aren’t, instead of vice-versa. Maybe you should just capitalize everything.
EagleX @162:
“Violence has dropped precipitously in Iraq for three reasons: (1) Iraq has stopped funding, training, and supplying munitions to shia insurgents, (2) al qaida has been severely reduced by US and sunni alliance, (3) the “Surge” has been successful”
I think you meant “Iran” here in point 1. If it’s really the case, are you consequently less interested in attacking Iranian targets? Clarify that point. I suspect you’re with the program and want to bomb Iran regardless, so here’s a recent Washington Post article (”Shiites in S. Iraq Rebuke Teheran”) you might have missed designed to fortify your bellicosity: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02190.html
A question: You refer to “the U.S. Sunni alliance” as one of the factors violence is down (you neglect to mention other factors, such as the success of ethnic cleaning in Baghdad or the reduction of Iraq’s population by 2 million). Do you consider such an “alliance” short-sighted? Do you consider that it might be short-lived? The reason I ask is because citing this as a wonderful positive development strikes me either as very cynical (the impromptu playing off factions in a civil war in order to continue occupying the country) or a case of Orwellian credulity, in light of how the Shiite majority were previously our fond hope and the Sunnis were fighting us.
brendan @ 165
brendan @ 166
1) You are correct — Iran.
2) The interest with Iran is centered on the desire of this religious dictatorship to proliferate nuclear weaponry. It is lunacy for the extreme Left to advocate removal of the real threat of nuclear weaponry worldwide while at the same time acting as an apologist for Iranian nuclear ambitions. More importantly, while Iran is not likely to use nuclear weaponry, they would be at risk to transfer an actual bomb to non-state religious extremists who would not hesitate to use them against Western targets — resulting in the death of tens of thousands of innocents.
3) As reported by the Washington Post today, 1000 Iraqis are returning to Baghdad daily. Your statement is discredit.
Hello EagleX.
EagleX @ 162
This is, of course, our entry point.
I am a moderate and SCHIP isn’t a topic I follow closely. At least we both can agree that the health of the nations children is important.
While I don’t doubt there has been at least a single child out of the 73.7 million children in the last seven years denied proper health care the point is to continue health care for our essential national resource.
There is consensus for global climate change in the IPCC Reports complete with a handy flow chat of their consensus process.
I would like see a multination regulatory body setup to uniformly monitor all divisions of each multinational corporation to enforce environmental protections. In addition I would also like see the formation of multination unions for the protection of workers and human rights.
This is laughable. Wanting the US troops to receive adequate rest, retraining and reduced tours is an ideological position?
Step back and reread you first line.
Violence has dropped precipitously in Iraq for three reasons: (1) The US has stopped funding, training, and supplying munitions to shia insurgents, (2) al qaida has been severely reduced by US withdrawal from regions, (3) the “Surge” has not been successful
This proves the insurgency in Iraq is not a “Civil War” rather The US fomenting violence to promote religious extremist goals
Then, you and I, agree that human rights are important to our nation.
Lets go back to the your first line again. When has torture saved thousands of US citizens? What danger does torture put US citizens who are combating terrorists abroad?
I do support the right of woman to choose what is healthy for her but nor do I follow the abortion debate but from what I understand a third trimester abortion is a contentious issue.
Asking the executive branch for records to see how policies are carried out is a disruption to the Constitutional balance of power?
This is a matter for an impartial judiciary to decide — not a group of extremists.
lol, I hit submit instead of preview.
Don’t you get the feeling Bush was watching the reaction to what’s going on in Pakistan, only to gauge what the reaction would be if he did something similar here? Before you say to yourself “this guy’s just nuts, and that it could never happen here,” ask yourself this. Would you REALLY put it past Bush, and or Cheney to try, and pull something like this, or anything else for that matter? Also, check your history, and look at Germany right before Hitler took control, and compare it to America now. The similarities are scary.
tw3k @ 168
The Left believes that the best way to universal health care is government run health care.
Government intervention in the health care business will accomplish the following:
(1) chase health care providers out of the profession by restricting a fair return for services provided.
(2) reduce significantly the development of life saving technologies, drugs, and procedures developed by free market initiatives motivated by those in the industry seeking profit.
(3) reduce or eliminate costs to the consumer thereby dramatically increase the use of health care services for trivial problems while at the same time health care providers are living the industry because of forced reduction in wages (note that if the government raises health care costs to retain health care providers, the system will bankrupt the nation.)
Most Americans know that anything run by the government is doomed to fail.
This post is in response to just one part of tw3k’s post — more will be forthcoming after I do my part to boost the US economy this Black Friday.
It is great to live in a nation that thrives on constructive debate. I stated in an earlier post that I thought liberal Americans were emboldening religious extremists abroad by criticizing US actions in Iraq — I believe that to be true. Note how significant a story it would be if al Zawahiri stated that the war in Iraq was lost! However, It is not un-patriotic to voice disapproval of the President’s policies, on the contrary it is patriotic and the duty of the opposition party, especially those in Congress. Nonetheless, sadly it is misguided and beneficial to the enemy.
I hope you all have a safe and prosperous Thanksgiving holiday.
tw3k @ 169
No problem, I have done it often.
I just responded to a portion of your post, I will reserve comment to your amended post.
Jo-Ann @ 10
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments!
Scarecrow, you’ve written a concise state of the union based on Bu$h and his buddies’ despicable crimes against the American people.
TrueBlueMajority @ 25
Too bad about the last call she got…
Apparently FDL won’t endorse a primary candidate. A couple of questions (1) Who or what is FDL? I know Jane started it and it is her blog and she has every right to do what she wants with it or is it a community of more or less equals? (2) why not endorse a primary candidate? If we are a community we need a means for the community to vote. The endorsement would be so many for this one so many for that or the majority could rule. That’s another question.
Getting the mechanism in order might be helpful for what’s ahead.
EagleX @ 172
I’m using x windows and it doesn’t have the spell check and dictionary I’m used to. Continue the conversation later, I was up all night, when I wake up.
Sure it is time, except that the media is part of the lawless regime, so that would mean it was asking for an end to itself.
EagleX:
1. Iran.
The IAIA has said Iran is, in layman’s terms, nothing to worry about. They were correct in appraising the threat from Iraq (nonexistent), so do they have any credibility with you on that basis? The question is rhetorical; I assume they have none and that you consider El Baradei, along with Blix, as part of some Arabo-Scandinavian “far Left” conspiracy. So forget them: You’re disregarding our own national intelligence estimate which, as of either two or three years ago estimated they wouldn’t have a weapon for ten years, if ever. What’s the rush here? To me the rush betrays bad faith on the part of this administration, which has amply demonstrated it before in lying about WMD to invade Iraq. As an American I have a problem with taking Israeli “intelligence” at face value while disregarding our own intelligence agencies, or outright retaliating against them for their honest estimates. You don’t have that problem; you’ll swing at Curveball every time (if you’re even sincere in this appalling credulity — I can’t figure yet if you’re a dupe or a shill).
2. Iraq.
Now that we’ve won, can we bring our army back? Or are we merely “winning”? And what is the definition of victory? Other than that your analysis of what has been going on in Iraq is either harebrained lack of skepticism or artless lying: “This proves the insurgency in Iraq is not a “Civil War” rather outside groups fomenting violence to promote religious extremist goals.” What are you suggesting here: forget “Al Quaeda in Iraq” and the Sunni resistance — are you saying that it was Iranian funded and backed Shiites who have been doing all this ethnic cleansing?
That’s “IAEA”.
brendan @ 178
It is absurd to protect US national security via the framework of either the UN or the IAEA whether they are objective or not. Both organizations are not accountable to the American people, as a result I place my faith in America and the US Constitution. As for your assertion that Iran is 10 years from completing the bomb, the US INtel community has been notoriously wrong when predicting WMD development abroad (India, NOrth Korea, and Pakistan as examples)
Nonetheless, I think all rational humans can agree that we don’t want the religious extremist dictatorship in Iran to have the Bomb. In addition, we all agree that diplomacy is the preferable path to disarmament and non-proliferation.
However….
With respect to Iraq — we have not won. To paraphrase Churchill “this is not the beginning of the end, it is the end of the beginning”
We have a long road toward a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Iraq. It takes years for a formerly despotic nations to develop the democratic institutions needed for real lasting reform. In the meantime, it is essential that the US maintain a military presence to balance opposing factions in the region. Even the Democratic front runner Clinton believes this! That places the angry, unyielding, and vocal Leftists who disagree with this assessment on the extremist fringe of American thought.
Note that for the first time in its bloody history Europe is peaceful thanks to forward deployment of US forces.
Note also that wherever the US holds sway (Western Hemisphere, Asian Pacific Rim, and Europe) peace, freedom, prosperity, and stability prevail — where our enemies hold sway or where America has failed to establish hegemony despotism, poverty, violence, and instability are the norm.
Boston1775 @ 86
The DoJ and Armed Forces take orders. What excuse is there for the press kowtowing to Bushies?
Jane Hamsher @ 129
For some people it’s a sickness.
For some people it might be frugality.
For Winona Ryder it was ‘training’.
What, pray tell, was the motivation for our Lady of the Lake to swipe an extra mug?
hazmat @ 148
The so-called Democrat in charge of designing the ballot, Madame Butterfly, was in reality a Republican who only changed parties to get on the board and muck things up. About a year or so later she switched back to being Republican.
Not everybody knows ALL the details of every scandal and this one has not gotten a lot of publicity.
Similarly, in Ohio there were several so-called Democratic BOE members who were simply bought and paid for by the SoS. When asked about their duties, they just said, ‘We do what they tell us.’ (referring to their Repub overlords.
This is one place our Democratic Party leadership and state officials really let us down. Maybe the state officials were all bought off or just asleep.
EagleX @ 171
These are ideological arguments reduced down to, in reference to your opening and closing sentence, a consumer society versus a society of citizens. Are these facts or a view of the world from a particular perspective.
I am amused that my views are so contrary to yours that I can’t even enter into your line of reasoning. We use the same words but speak a different language.
At least we share the view that constructive debate is good for the nation and that that is the life blood of a healthy democracy. For that I am thankful.