Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Impeachment: Continuing a Debate

Impeachment--it's not one of my favorite subjects. I've counseled progressives and Democrats to focus on other matters. But when my editors at TomPaine.com requested that I participate in a debate on impeachment, I had little choice. (You have to pay the piper.) Their idea was to twin an anti piece (mine) with a pro piece by Jennifer Van Bergen, who was subsequently identified by the site as "a journalist with a law degree."

My argument was predictable: impeachment is a political loser--especially among independent and in-the-middle voters necessary for Democratic victories down the road. Here's an excerpt:

Impeachment is a substitute--a wishful shortcut?--for the difficult legislating and organizing that the Democratic Party and progressives must do to win the country in 2008. The Dems have a window of opportunity at the moment to show the public what Democratic governance looks like. They should investigate the Bush administration on many fronts, including how Bush misrepresented the prewar intelligence and how he bungled the war, as well as Bush's expansive claims of executive power and how he has put such imperial thinking into practice (wiretaps, detentions, etc.). Perhaps such investigations will produce information or a showdown (say, the White House refusing to turn over information to Congress) that would strengthen the legal and political cases for impeachment. But in order to create a lasting and positive relationship with the electorate, Democrats must deliver legislatively and produce significant bills that connect with the concerns of Americans. That's job No. 1.

The Dems will have about 10 minutes to rebrand themselves when the new Congress convenes. Impeachment will be a serious impediment to that effort. Worse, it would become a black hole from which little, if any, political energy could escape. It would trump all else. After the recent elections, the congressional Democrats have Bush and the Republicans at a disadvantage; they have (as the cliche goes) the political capital of the moment. Spending it on impeachment would be a waste.

You can read the whole piece here.

Van Bergen took what struck me as an odd approach. She wrote

Impeachment proceedings are not the beginning but the end result of a healing process for the nation that needs to begin now.

Healing? In her short piece, she referred to impeachment as "healing" three times. Say what you want of impeachment--it's warranted, its necessary--but most people would not consider it an action of healing. It may be an act of accountability, but it also is an act of punishment or retribution. More to the point, it would likely be a divisive political battle. There's nothing wrong per se about political combat; often it's called for--but not under the banner of healing.

Bergen claims there is a "tremendous groundswell for impeachment." I question that. Dear reader, how many of your friends, relatives, and workplace colleagues have recently asked you, "When is that new Democratic Congress gonna start impeaching George Bush"? Barack Obama is a groundswell. Impeachment is not.

Van Bergen also argues:

There is a great sense of powerlessness and rage that the populace expressed strongly through the midterm elections. But more than elections are needed to address the deep concerns so many people have. A nagging malaise, a gray depression has afflicted the country, and ordinary people--those who are not politicians or journalists or activists or lawyers--have no outlet for these feelings and no sense of remedy.

"A gray depression?" I do not see that at the mall. And if the populace, as she suggests, just expressed its rage "strongly" at the ballot box in November--an overstatement in my view--then there is an outlet for this disgust and anger: voting. Van Bergen is making a case based on what she discerns The People want--or, perhaps more accurately, what she wants The People to want. Let me make a crude point: place a documentary about the possible impeachment of George W. Bush up against an episode of Dancing with the Stars, and what do you think depressed, rage-full populace will chose? (You can read her entire piece here.)

Van Bergen is arguing a desire, not a clear-eyed case. With such advocates, the impeachment movement is unlikely to win over those not already with it.

Posted by David Corn at December 12, 2006 08:49 PM


capt said...

Mr. David Corn,

You are plain wrong on this count.

Did they think Watergate would end up in articles of impeachment? No.

Nobody has the right or the power to "Take off the table" laws that include impeachment before an investigation even starts. With a new paradigm of no impeachment what if . . .? We have no idea what the future will expose in crimes previously unimaginable and more nefarious than anything we could speculate? What then?

Consider this, the Phase II investigation into the lies and manipulation that took us into Iraq has not even started with Democratic party in power.

A ridiculous thought to compare impeachment with a show on TV. How much have you discounted the laws that protect us and the constitution from petty tyrants and despot dictators who claim unitary and plenary powers unheard of in the right-wing dictatorships of the last fifty years.

Bush has violated the rule of law and continues to do so by tapping our phones, reading our emails and more.

A clear and blatant violation of the law and in clear defiance of orders and decisions by our courts.

A recent MSNBC poll had nearly 400k hits and was in favor of impeachment by over eight to one.

Should we weigh all of our legal and political responsibilities based on whether they will play better than "Deal or No Deal"?

Maybe if we just do what everybody watches on TV we will save the world from these warmongering neocon madmen that seem hell bent for leather to start another war (Maybe even a little nuclear action).

Thanks for all of your work.


Saladin said...

Capt, I hope you won't take offense at what I am going to say but Mr. Corn, you are a jerk! The country put it's faith in the democratic party to administer justice, retribution has as much to do with it as prosecuting Manson had to do with retribution against the Tate-LaBianca murders! The bush administration is guilty of high crimes, crimes against humanity, multiple war crimes, crimes against the citizens of the United States and it's Constitution, Treason, terrorism as well as aiding and abetting terrorist regimes around the globe!! What the fuck do they have to do to convince you that they belong in prison if not hanging from the gallows??? FUCK!!! Goddamnit!! What is WRONG with you?? Why do they not have to face justice like any one of us would have to if we murdered even ONE person? They have murdered hundreds of thousands and they aren't done yet! We are lost as a nation if we don't rectify this. Fuck the democrats and their stupid agenda if it doesn't include truth and justice, they can ALL rot in HELL if they don't do the right thing. I am SO done with them if they throw away this last chance.

uncledad said...

Interesting picture Capt! Nice how you include Ronald McDonald and Hitler. But even given two such strong figures of modern capitalism and trans-fat-nation, somehow my eyes are drawn to the c-student in chief. He seems so interested, in something?

capt said...

What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail?

~ Dr. Robert Schuller

capt said...

Tammany Hall boss Michael C. Murphy's High Court of Infamy--the New York legislature--

I appeal to the higher court-the court of public opinion. Let those who have failed take courage Tho' the enemy seems to have won, Tho' his ranks be strong, if he be in the wrong, The battle is not yet done For sure as the morning follows The darkest hour of night, No question is ever settled Until it is settled right. Posterity will do me justice. Time sets all things right.

capt said...

"As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are only doing their duty, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he
will never sleep any worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil: George Orwell London. UK. 1941

Mourn not the dead that in the cool earth lie, but rather mourn the apathetic, throng the coward and the meek who see the world's great anguish and its wrong, and dare not speak: Ralph Chaplin

"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable." : U.S. historian Howard Zinn, 1993


Read this newsletter online http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy

Thanks ICH Newsletter!

Mookie said...

Mr. Corn,

Impeaching this president and removing the administration from power is merely one task in a long list of tasks set before this new congress. Solving the mess in Iraq and undoing the vicious laws this incompetent crew have created to "protect" us are not separate and apart tasks from impeachment.

This administration is not above the US Constitution, it is not above the Geneva Convention and other international rights standards, it is not immune to the consequences of its actions. By not supporting the impeachment and subsequent imprisonment of these crooks, you are undermining the power of world citizens to subdue and punish human rights violators. You are enabling this behaviour by suggesting that no matter what horrible things some leaders do, they can get away with it. Were we not happy to have Milosevic behind bars? And Saddam? Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and certainly several others were directly involved in the planning and execution of this disastrous war and the embarrassing torture prisons which shocked the world and ruined the credibility of the US. They should be tried and convicted of war crimes. The world would forgive the US to an extent, and the power of democracy would be better illustrated by having the creatures who sought to stifle it removed from office.

You say that impeachment is not politically expedient. This is not about doing what makes political sense (I hold that it makes more sense to impeach this regime than to not); it is about doing what needs to be done. It is much more politically expedient to wrest back this country from the greedy paws of this criminal regime than to sit idly by and let them mismanage it any longer.

Saladin said...

If this is the voice of a progressive then I shall resign my dedication from the cause, for it is no better then the neocons and their endless justification for war and terror against a helpless people. I am sick and appalled by this excuse making from the very ones who cried foul all along. If this is foul you must agree with the reasoning, there is no other answer. And nothing more foul. The enabling of crime is worse then the crime itself, for it is the perpetuation.

O'Reilly said...


Gloria Borger writes in U.S. News about the Baker-Hamilton commission's interview with the president and his national security team.

"At one point, Vernon Jordan, a skilled Washington insider, put it pretty bluntly to the president, according to a panel member's paraphrase:

"Jordan: What do you mean by victory? When my mama told me to clean the garage, I cleaned the garage because I knew what she meant. But I don't understand what you mean.

"Bush: You have to speak to the American people with a simple message here. They understand what victory is, and if you come off of it, they'll think you're giving up.

"Some members say they were stunned by the response. And when they left, they were puzzled by one more thing: During their entire session, Vice President Dick Cheney--a key architect of the war in Iraq--never said a word. Not one."


O'Reilly said...

Corn's lack of interest in the topic of impeachment is apparent in this recent post.

Consistent with his level of interest in the assignment, the majority of his thesis exists in the form of counterpoint to Van Bergan's argument.

Corn's argument rests on short-term political calculus. He asks: What is the most self-empowering way for Democrats to use their newfound majority over the next two years to improve their chances for further gains in '08?

Corn disregards legal, moral, and ethical arguments, such as this one: Can a healthy, functioning democracy (in the long run) tolerate presidents that deceive congress and the American people to gain support for an aggressive war of choice in a foreign country?

Some of us ask the question, what does it means to a democracy to implicitly allow a President to lie to congress and the American people to get their support for an aggressive war of choice? The answer of course is that it means it will happen again unless the president is held to account.

Conyers has done much of the work already. Here's a plan. For one year, use the government affairs committee run by Henry Waxmen (which has subpoena power) to investigate the most troubling constitutional issues raised by the Bush administration policy and actions over the last six years, which have potential ramifications with regard to articles of impeachment. Spend a year doing it without talking about impeachment. Allow the President to tend to the debacle in Iraq as he should. If, after a year's worth of investigation, probable cause exists, bring it to the house floor.

Meanwhile, the dems can go to work on the people's business including the Iraq war in the house and senate.

O'Reilly said...

Here's another debate: Have at it!

Opposing view: U.S. must end occupation

Bringing troops home now would force Iraqis to forge better future.

By Jim McGovern

The war in Iraq was a mistake, and the U.S. military occupation there must end.

From the deceitful and shifting rationales for war, to Bush officials forbidding our generals from making meaningful post-invasion plans, the policies pursued in Iraq have failed and have forced our brave troops to carry out a dangerous and often untenable mission.

The war in Iraq is distinct from the global war against terrorism. Because of Iraq, U.S. standing is at its lowest point ever, making us more isolated and vulnerable in an increasingly dangerous world. (Read USA TODAY's view.)

Nearly 2,700 of our uniformed men and women have sacrificed their lives. More than 20,000 have been wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in a vicious and escalating cycle of sectarian violence. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted. Every day the civil war gets worse, not better.

So what's next?

Those who argue for more of the same, or for a military escalation requiring substantially more troops, must answer several questions: What is the definition of success? How many more troops should we send? Where do you expect them to come from? Should we withdraw more troops from the worsening situation in Afghanistan to send to Iraq? What difference do you believe they can make?

Most of our troops in Iraq have already been forced to serve three or more deployments. U.S. military readiness is at historic lows. The time when more troops might have made a difference is long past.

I believe we should take a different approach, one that could galvanize Iraq's government, people, neighbors and the international community to take a greater role to promote a stable Iraq — the safe and orderly removal of U.S. troops. Whether through an immediate withdrawal, as I favor, or phased over a specific period of time, ending the U.S. military occupation could provide Iraq and the global community a fresh opportunity to carry out new ideas in a new context.

The United States must continue funding economic, social and democracy-building programs. We must continue funding and equipping Iraqi security forces or a new multilateral force.

It might be too late to save Iraq, but removing the U.S. military from the quagmire there is the only way to force the Iraqis — and the international community — to finally begin to forge a better future for that country

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., has proposed legislation to end funding for the Iraq war.

Check out the link to read comments posted on USA today where McGovern's op-ed piece was printed.

erling krange said...

Just Call Him Tony 'I Don't Know' Snow
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post, Wednesday, December 13, 2006;

To paraphrase Howard Baker's immortal question: What didn't Tony Snow know, and when didn't he know it? The answer: A lot, and frequently. When will President Bush roll out his new Iraq policy? "We do not know," Snow said at yesterday's White House briefing. When did Bush decide to postpone the speech? "I don't know exactly when," the president's press secretary said again. Has everyone working on the policy read the Iraq Study Group report? "I don't know," came the refrain. "I'm assuming -- but I don't know." After Snow spoke multiple times of the "urgency" surrounding Iraq, CNN's Elaine Quijano asked him, innocently, "Tony, what does 'urgency' mean?" "Well, I don't know," he said. "You guys keep using the term."


Gerald said...

Nazi Israel do your own dirty work

Gerald said...

This will give the ayatollahs the ability to start producing nuclear weapons, and to spread nuclear terror far and wide, threatening the existence not only of Israel, but of Western civilization itself.

Bullshit! Do your own dirty work!!! Americans have died to protect Nazi Israel from that boogey man in Iraq.

Iran wants nuclear energy to protect her from peak oil. Nuclear energy will help Iran to go slow with peak oil.

Since Nazi Israel has Nazi America as a lapdog, Nazi America will do your dirty work. Nazi America is too stupid to do anything else.

Gerald said...

The Israel newspaper wants to fill our minds with bullshit. Nazi America has the nuclear weapons to blow up the planet 100 times. Iran is no threat to destroy Western Civilization. You want Nazi America to protect your sorry asses. Wise up and join the planet, Earth, as a fellow human nation!!! Nazi Israel stop breaking those treaties and accords that will help you. Nazi Israel get out of the holocaust business.

Gerald said...

Nazi Israel, stop the genocide of Palestinians and Lebanese people!!!

Saladin said...

Calling the war in Iraq a "mistake" is the height of brutality. Whoops, sorry, we "mistakenly" murdered, we're not exactly sure how many, hundreds of thousands of innocent people because of lies and deceit. We have also "mistakenly" poisoned the entire region with DU for the next billion generations. We have also "mistakenly" destroyed the lives of 3000 of our own troops, that we are willing to admit to, not to mention "mistakenly" maiming thousands more. We should all just move on, forgive and forget those who "mistakenly" got us into this disaster, plundered an entire nation while bringing it to ruin, and learn to work together so we can become more efficient at ruin and plunder next time. No wonder the whole damn world hates us. David Corn, you are either a fool or a schill, I'm not sure which, in any case I have lost all respect for you. I have said all along the dems were never misled, they knew what millions of us joe-blows knew, this whole fiasco just proves it. All the bluster and arm waving in the world will lead nowhere, just like all the bluster of the past has led nowhere, just grist for the idiot masses to chew on until some new and improved scandal could be cooked up.

Saladin said...

Israel, Alone
The nuclear cat is out of the bag – and Olmert issues a warning…

Justin Raimondo

...No wonder the Israelis have abandoned all pretenses of reasonableness and are now threatening to plunge the Middle East into the throes of a nuclear Armageddon. Israel is alone against the world, or so their leaders seem to believe: cornered, they are revealing their true face, snarling their resentment and defiance – their ire directed not just or even primarily at the Iranians, but at U.S. policymakers.

Olmert has found the elusive "weapons of mass destruction" said to be lurking somewhere in the Middle East, threatening the peace and shadowing the land with the darkest, most ominous war clouds. We know – now – they aren't anywhere in Iraq, and our own CIA tells us the Iranians are a good 10 years away from acquiring nukes. No, they are right where Mordechai Vanunu told us they were.

Would the Israelis ever use them? That is the question that we have to ask in light of Olmert's unprecedented admission. After all, why "come out" to the world as a nuclear power at this particular moment? Surely the threat of a nuclear first strike against Iran is implicit in Olmert's "slip of the tongue."

The Israeli conceit is that to equate a regime such as the one that rules in Tehran with Israeli "democracy" is an obscene "moral equivalence" that overlooks the obvious: after all, we can trust Tel Aviv with WMD, but not the Iranian ayatollahs. Yet the growing extremism dominating Israeli political life, as demonstrated by the rise of such a dangerous character as Avigdor Lieberman, points to a troubling trend that has culminated in Olmert's stunning announcement.
The Israeli facade of the poor, helpless, innocent victim has finally been torn away to reveal the true devil beneath. Psychos with nukes, a worldwide nightmare.

O'Reilly said...

David Corn, you are either a fool or a schill, I'm not sure which, in any case I have lost all respect for you.

Respect for differences is an essential element in a functioning democracy.

I disagree with Corn's thesis and politcal calculus and I spell it out above.

Respect for the personleaves the door open for further engagement and maybe just maybe, the opportunity to bring them around to your way of thinking. To wit, the very definition of politics.

Saladin said...

O'reilly, this is not the first time I have been in total disagreement with Corn. This IS the first time I have felt complete disgust with his opinion. I don't care if he "comes around" to the majority of the countries thinking, if he is that detached from the political reality I doubt he will anyway. If the actions of bushco so far are not worthy of impeachment proceedings to Corn, what exactly must they do? B-B-Q babies on the WH lawn? Would that be enough? How about drive-by shootings of nuns? A blow job possibly? I am so pissed I can hardly think straight. It isn't like we have all the time in the world to debate the issue, but then Corn doesn't have children in the middle east being slaughtered for lies. Maybe if he did he would be of a more agreeable mindset. Agreeable, that is, to prosecuting the war criminals that are destroying everything our country has worked for these past 200 years.

capt said...

An Important Story You Didn't See

I have no idea why this story was not on the front page of every newspaper and at the top of every newscast yesterday, but it wasn't. The story ran on only one front page, that I'm aware of. And that was on the paper that broke the story, the Wall Street Journal.

Whether you are among the growing majority of Americans that think Bush is doing an awful job, or a member of the shrinking minority of those that believe he's doing a the right thing, you have to be bowled by this story. Just when I think I can close the book on the breathtaking incompetence of this administration, hard facts like this cross my bow and I have to reconsider.

Yesterday the WSJ's defense correspondent, Gregg Jaffe, reported that US Army officials have told the White House they are broke. Worse than broke actually. The Army, despite its $168 billion budget, is out of money and being forced to cannibalize operations, here and in the war zone, just to keep the lights on.


*****end of clip*****

From a little further down the page:

"Oh my. I'm weary. It's all so tiresome. I am so, so, so, so, SO tired of being jerked around by the folks we send to Washington. I'm tired of watching the good ones go bad, tired of watching the bad ones get worse, then get reelected anyway. I'm tired of feeling insulted by the lame-ass lies -- like Hillary's "I really haven't given running for president any serious thought." I am tired of the phony patriotism, the cynical, manipulative, moralistic hypocrisy and the revolving-door-financial/political-mutual-back-scratching. And I'm tired of the kind of bullshit bookkeeping that, if you or I tried it, we'd be sharing a prison cell with Jeffery Skilling. Finally I'm tired of being told it's all going to change for the better now, and then watching it just get worse and worse."

My sentiments nearly word for word.


O'Reilly said...

I am so pissed I can hardly think straight. It isn't like we have all the time in the world to debate the issue, but then Corn doesn't have children in the middle east being slaughtered for lies

I think Corn wants to avoid impeachment in favor if focusingon bringing the troops home and advancing a winning legislative agenda. His argument is that impeachment is impractical and counter-productive. I think we merely need to set priorities. (1) New Iraq policy geared towards bringing Americans home by then end of 2008 (2) legislative agenda (3) investigate unconstitutional Bush admin policy and corruption in government affairs committee for one year (4) proceed with impeachment if probably cause exists. Disregarding the Presidents use of fear and deception to launch the war in Iraq, without the consequence of repremand in the form of censure or impeachment, leaves the door open for this type of presidential behavior to happen again and again.

O'Reilly said...

I like this part:

Disregarding the Presidents use of fear and deception to launch the war in Iraq, without the consequence of repremand in the form of censure or impeachment, leaves the door open for this type of presidential behavior to happen again and again.

capt said...

How Dangerous is the Dollar Drop?

Is an end of an era looming in the foreign exchange markets? The dollar has been depreciating against the euro for weeks. Currency experts and the German government don't yet see this as cause for alarm. The US currency's role as a lead currency isn't as important as it used to be, they say.

Experts have been predicting for some time that the dollar would eventually go into a nosedive, and now that time seems to have come. The US currency has lost five percent of its value against the euro since late October, and 13 percent since the beginning of the year. The euro is currently fluctuating around a value of $1.33, which is only 3 cents away from its all-time high in 2004. And yet Trichet's counterpart Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has done nothing but look on as the dollar plunges.

A sea change appears to be taking place on the international financial markets. For years, global capital flowed in only one direction, with $2 billion going into the United States every day. Investors viewed the world's largest economy not only as a bastion of stability, but also as a place that promised the best deals, the most lucrative returns and the highest growth rates.


*****end of clip*****

" a place that promised the best deals, the most lucrative returns and the highest growth rates"

Investment capital will always go to the place described above. The real question is are we (the USA)that place? If that place is a multinational corporation who profits?


capt said...

Forget the specifics regarding what should be written into the articles of impeachment. That is where Mr. Corn and some others gets it wrong.

Notice Corn does not address the FISA wiretapping issue nor any other of the many domestic non-military issues that must be addressed.

There must be an investigation of many things not just of the illegal and unwise invasion of Iraq. We have some sticky issues here "in house" so to speak concerning wiretapping in violation of the law and in violation of court orders including ignoring the decisions set down from SCOTUS and FISA (and other federal) courts.

The investigation(s) need to be done and the investigation must be free to take its own course. It is not sensible to give anybody a pass on anything before we even investigate. Seems like a premature plea bargain in the absurd.

That is what I meant in my post above regarding Watergate. An investigation of a botched third rate burglary led to articles of impeachment and the resignation of a criminal president. Nobody ever thought that would be the result of the investigation.

Now, imagine a world where congressional leaders PROMISED no impeachment for Nixon BEFORE the investigation? Why would he resign, more to the point why even investigate if impeachment is off the table?

To say something - anything is off the table is just nuts and serves no legal purpose (how could it) nor does it serve a political purpose except to the extent that soothsaying is accurate.

Mr. Corn writes his opinion and offers all that read what he writes respect enough to be honest with his readers.

Who agrees with everything or anybody all the time? No reason to attack his motivations or his intentions. He speaks about being concerned for the best results for everybody and our country. Seems a bit over the top to lose respect because we disagree on how or what is best.

We can all disagree without being disagreeable - especially when there is more on which we all agree than disagree.

But what do I know, eh?


capt said...

Regional Nuclear War -- No Big Whoop?

Paging Carl Sagan - Nuclear Winter is back, if a little smaller this time.

Days before presidential ink drops without much notice on the Henry J. Hyde United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006, thus laying the groundwork for a nuclear arms race in South Asia, researchers with the American Geophysical Union have released a study on the atmospheric effects of a "limited" nuclear exchange of the kind envisioned between, say, India and Pakistan. Back in the mid-80s, the original nuclear-winter theory was based on a model assuming thousands of thermonuclear detonations across the planet; the AGU scientists have updated the variables to match contemporary, smaller-scale threats.

Their findings aren't much sunnier than the original total nuclear-winter scenario (which is captured to devastating effect in Cormac McCarthy's new novel, The Road, probably the greatest piece of nuclear war art ever created.)

The study, "Environmental Consequences of Regional Nuclear Conflicts ", unveiled Monday at a meeting in San Fancisco, concludes that even a limited nuclear war would trigger enough massive fires and throw enough smoke plumes into the stratosphere to result in "long-lasting, global climate effects." This global cooling would have a profound effect on agricultural production on every continent. The authors conclude that even a "tiny" nuclear exchange would produce "climate changes unprecedented in recorded human history."

Could it be that the U.S.-India nuke deal is just the first stage of a devilishly brilliant plan by the Bush Administration to finally address global warming?


*****end of clip*****

I have a feeling that somewhere there is a cost/benefit analysis on nuclear war both regional and global. The energy oligarchs have to know where they stand, eh?


capt said...

More fun with misspelled words:

RESLUTS instead of results?

Goes with:

OILGARCHS for oligarchs
OPLITICS for politics
OLNY for only
MOENY for money
WHIT for with



capt said...

US actor Peter Boyle dies aged 71

Rest in peace.


capt said...

The Washington Post's praise for Augusto Pinochet

"Just as Kirkpatrick argued in 1979 -- and as the Post implicitly endorsed today -- we can all live with some torture and arbitrary arrests and detentions. And we must always keep in mind that things could always be worse -- at least the Bush administration (like Pinochet) is keeping taxes low and corporate profits high. So our view of its human rights abuses (like our view of Pinochet's) should be tempered by our appreciation for its rejection of socialism."

David B. Benson said...

Investigate first, impeach later. Well, I suppose it is conceivable that the investigation will find no high crimes or misdemeanors, no violation of federal law, no...

As capt says, "HA!"

capt said...

Iran/contra: 20 Years Later and What It Means


A full-scale scandal was born. Investigations were convened. The Reagan presidency was hobbled. But impeachment never became an issue--in part because Democratic congressional investigators removed it from the table at the start of their inquiries. White House partisans threw up a defense of spin and obfuscation that turned the affair into a political muddle. (That is, mission accomplished.) Oliver North became a hero to conservatives. Bush the Elder, who lied about his involvement in Iran-contra (saying he had been "out of the loop," though noting in a private diary that he had been one of the few officials in-the-know), was elected president in 1988.

The investigations continued. Abrams, McFarlane (who botched a suicide attempt), and a CIA officer named Alan Fiers pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress. Two other CIA officers--Clair George and Duane Clarridge--were indicted on perjury-related charges. Former General Richard Secord and Albert Hakim, who managed the secret contra supply operation, pleaded guilty to minor charges. North and Poindexter were convicted of various counts, but their convictions were overturned on legal technicalities. Weinberger was indicted for illegally withholding his notes from special counsel Lawrence Walsh.

The affair came to an ignominious finale on Christmas Eve, 1992. George H.W. Bush, who had been defeated by Bill Clinton seven weeks earlier, issued pardons for Weinberger, Abrams, McFarlane, Clarridge, George and Fiers. Only Thomas Cline, a former CIA officer and partner of Secord and Hakim, who was found guilty of tax charges, ended up going to jail due to the Iran/contra scandal.

But history never ends. Twenty years later, Abrams is deputy national security adviser for global democracy in the George W. Bush administration. A fellow who admitted that he had not told Congress the truth and who had abetted a secret war mounted by a rebel force with an atrocious human rights record now is supposed to promote democracy abroad. Other Iran/contra figures are leading players today. Here's a partial list from the National Security Archive:


*****end of clip*****

And twenty years from now we will be able to say the same thing about the same slugs committing the same (or worse) crimes?


capt said...

I meant to add:



capt said...

From Anthony Romero at the ACLU (Who Sounds Like He Might See the Need for Impeachment Any Year Now)

I am writing to tell you about some breaking news of grave importance to the ACLU. Because it is going to be a big battle -- with fundamental principles at stake -- I wanted you to be the first to hear about it.

This week, the ACLU asked a federal judge to quash a grand jury subpoena that demands that the ACLU turn over to the FBI "any and all copies" of a December 2005 government document in our possession.

The three-and-a-half page document, issued in December 2005, is marked "Secret" and apparently is classified. We received the document, unsolicited, on October 23, 2006.

This attempt by the Bush Administration to suppress information using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in our history as an organization. The subpoena serves no legitimate investigative purpose and tramples on fundamental First Amendment rights. We recognize this maneuver for what it is: a patent attempt to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing.

The most significant thing about this legal face-off is not the content of the document, but the government’s unprecedented effort to suppress it. No official secrets act has yet been signed into law, and the grand jury’s subpoena power cannot be used to create one.

If the government can enforce a subpoena in this way, it could just as easily have subpoenaed the Pentagon Papers from The New York Times and The Washington Post. The effect of the subpoena is no different than a prior restraint and it is equally unconstitutional.

In the landmark Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court said that the government cannot seek to bar newspapers from publishing even classified documents unless the information would cause "direct, immediate and irreparable harm to our Nation and its people."

While release of the document in this case might be mildly embarrassing to the government, our possession of it is legal and its release could in no way threaten national security. To the contrary, the designation of the document as "Secret" "appears to be a striking example of the Bush administration’s rampant use of claims of "state secrecy" and overclassification of documents and information to hide its actions.

As we note in our brief, many of the most important news articles of the past year (such as those concerning NSA eavesdropping, rendition of foreign prisoners of our nation to other nations, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s views on the deteriorating situation in Iraq, National Security Advisor Hadley’s assessment of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, and the report on the Iraq insurgency’s funding sources) have been based on classified docu­ments leaked to reporters, which could not be prepared and published as they have been were the government allowed to use subpoenas to confiscate "any and all" copies of classified documents it learns are in the hands of journalists and other public advocates and critics.

You can read more about this case and our fight against the subpoena online.

The ACLU is no stranger to the government’s use of such tactics to try to silence their critics. You can rest assured that even with the full weight of the federal government pressing down on us, we will act with courage and conviction in the days ahead.

As in other historic ACLU efforts to defend freedom, our ability to stand firm in matters such as this is strengthened by the support from you and other ACLU members and activists.

Please stay closely attuned to developments in this serious matter and all of our other vital work to defend freedom.


Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director


*****end of clip*****

Staying completely out of the questions about military action Bush and his cronies have broken the law many times and in many impeachable ways.


O'Reilly said...

Senator Obama is Senator Clinton’s worst nightmare, as comfortable in his skin as she is uncomfortable in hers.


capt said...

Why David Corn is Wrong on Impeachment

My friend David Corn has made a stunning discovery: Republicans currently control Congress, so impeaching Bush is going to be a challenge.

Who knew?

Here is the David Corn Rule of Impeachment.

Republicans don't impeach Republicans and Democrats don't impeach Democrats.
Fortunately for America, the Founding Fathers put no such language in the Constitution. They specified impeachment as the sole legal remedy for "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" - regardless of which party was in the White House and which party controlled Congress. Has Bush committed High Crimes? Everyone David Corn respects believes he has, so I assume Corn does too. So the question isn't whether Bush should be impeached, but how

So what's the impeachment game plan? Stir up public outrage to such an extent that Republicans—scared silly by a surge of people power—cannibalize Bush? That seems a quite bit tougher to achieve than the more down-to-earth goal of winning the 15 seats the Democrats require to gain control of the House. (And picking up those seats is already a tall order.)

Hey David - who said it's an either-or question? The two go hand-in-hand: stirring up (actually just tapping into) public outrage to demand impeachment, and using some of that outrage to defeat every Republican who stands in the way. (We can also use some of that outrage to replace Bushkissing Democrats who stand in the way - like Joe Lieberman - with progressive Democrats like Ned Lamont.)

The potential costs of an impeachment campaign are clear. It could cause Democrats to appear marginal or out-of-touch. (Sorry, that's how much of the world works.)
Hey David - if you want to know who's out of touch read the damn polls. A solid majority of Americans think Congress should consider impeaching Bush should for illegal wiretapping (52%-43%) and/or lying about Iraq (53%-42%). You're out of touch, not us.


*****end of clip*****

by Bob Fertik on March 15, 2006


mrsnider5 said...

I think that a large amount of the Washington press corps are going to run to Corns camp on this one. When, or I should say if, there are investagations,it will show that the press played one huge roll in letting this group of theives have their way.
Let us not foget that they (the Press) let us down we we needed the them most. You are gonna see a whole lota ass covering when it comes to this topic. And it's gonna be seen each and every time sombody brings it up. If this is investagated the way it should be things will have to change in the MSM. And they all know it.

David B. Benson said...

But somehow it doesn't quite fit for a rally yell: immm-peach! Im-peach! IMPEACH! NOW!

I tryed. Someone can probably make it come out better...

capt said...

'Impeachment is Not Optional'

After the death of her soldier son in Iraq, and after it became clear that the misguided policies that put her boy in harm's way would not be changed, a then little-known woman named Cindy Sheehan wrote a letter to the man responsible for those policies: George Bush.

In the letter, she told the president, "I will make it my life's work to see that you are impeached." And so she has, first by taking her protests against the war to the roads outside Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranchette, and then to cities across the country to declare that Congress has a fundamental responsibility to hold this president and vice president to account.

When tens of thousands of Americans participated Sunday in rallies, forums and teach-ins organized by the afterdowningstreet.org coalition and its allies to say that they want impeachment "on the table" for the new Congress, I joined Sheehan in New York at one of the largest of the gatherings.

"Impeachment is not optional. It's not something that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can say is not on the table," Sheehan said of the incoming Democratic leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, who have expressed caution about employing the tool created by the founders of the American experiment for the purpose of sanctioning errant executives. "It is their duty as officers of the Constitution, who who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, to carry out impeachment."

With the crowd that packed an auditorium at Fordham University's law school cheering her, Sheehan declared, "If George Bush isn't impeached then we should never impeach anyone else. We should just take [the sections outlining the impeachment process] out of the Constitution. It is a meaningless clause of the Constitution." Like many of the activists across the country who rallied Sunday, Sheehan made a direct connection between impeaching Bush and ending what Lynn Kates, an organizer with the Center for Constitutional Rights who joined the New York forum identified as "an illegal, immoral, unethical war."

"The war and impeachment are intertwined," said Sheehan. "George Bush has said over and over again that the troops aren't coming home while he is president. That just means we have to get a new president." Sheehan and other members of Gold Star Families for Peace will join activists with the World Can't Wait movement and other groups in Washington in the first week of January to lobby Congress to take up impeachment. It will be a frustrating process initially, as House Democratic leaders are working hard to keep a lid on pro-impeachment sentiment among members of their caucus.

So far, only one member of the House, outgoing Georgia Democrat Cynthia McKinney, has proposed actual articles of impeachment against Bush and Vice President Cheney. But more than three dozen House Democrats, as well as Independent Bernie Sanders, who in January will join the Senate, signed onto incoming House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers' resolution to establish a select committee to examine whether impeachment might be the right response to charges that the president and vice president doctored intelligence regarding reasons for going to war in Iraq and committed other acts that could reasonably be defined as high crimes and misdemeanors.

Sheehan is not letting Democrats, or Republicans, off the hook.

"Some issues transcend politics," she argued Sunday. "Our Constitution, our rule of law, our very humanity, demands that Congress begin impeachment proceedings."

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by author Gore Vidal as "essential reading for patriots." David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, says: "With The Genius of Impeachment, John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so."

The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

*****end of clip*****

I do agree that impeachment is not optional. Imagine had congress not taken impeachment off the table before Iran/contra - GHWB might have never been elected? Maybe on those sour notes GWB might not have even risen to Governor? Who knows, eh?


capt said...


A new flavor of Ben & Jerry's ice cream:

Mmmmm Peach!


David B. Benson said...

On another topic, last night the astronauts in space had to TAKE SHELTER from a solar flare. It is exactly this that makes the idea of a survivable trip to Mars so silly...

capt --- Or a new 31-flavors. Either way,


capt said...

The Case for Impeachment

Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.

A country is not only what it does—it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. —Kurt Tucholsky

On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form "a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.
"To take away the excuse," he said, "that we didn't know." So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, "Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?" when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that "somehow it escaped our notice" that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.

A reason with which it was hard to argue but one that didn't account for the congressman's impatience. Why not wait for a showing of supportive public opinion, delay the motion to impeach until after next November's elections? Assuming that further investigation of the President's addiction to the uses of domestic espionage finds him nullifying the Fourth Amendment rights of a large number of his fellow Americans, the Democrats possibly could come up with enough votes, their own and a quorum of disenchanted Republicans, to send the man home to Texas. Conyers said:

"I don't think enough people know how much damage this administration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news."

Which turned out to be the purpose of his House Resolution 635—not a high-minded tilting at windmills but the production of a report, 182 pages, 1,022 footnotes, assembled by Conyers's staff during the six months prior to its presentation to Congress, that describes the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq as the perpetration of a crime against the American people. It is a fair description. Drawing on evidence furnished over the last four years by a sizable crowd of credible witnesses—government officials both extant and former, journalists, military officers, politicians, diplomats domestic and foreign—the authors of the report find a conspiracy to commit fraud, the administration talking out of all sides of its lying mouth, secretly planning a frivolous and unnecessary war while at the same time pretending in its public statements that nothing was further from the truth.[1] The result has proved tragic, but on reading through the report's corroborating testimony I sometimes could counter its inducements to mute rage with the thought that if the would-be lords of the flies weren't in the business of killing people, they would be seen as a troupe of off-Broadway comedians in a third-rate theater of the absurd. Entitled "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War," the Conyers report examines the administration's chronic abuse of power from more angles than can be explored within the compass of a single essay. The nature of the administration's criminal DNA and modus operandi, however, shows up in a usefully robust specimen of its characteristic dishonesty.


capt said...

Sen. Tim Johnson, Democrat, has stroke: NBC

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record), Democrat of South Dakota, had an apparent stroke on Wednesday at his office in Washington and has been hospitalized, NBC News reported.

The condition of the 59-year-old Johnson was unknown, the network said.

When the 110th Congress convenes on January 4, there will be 49 Democrats in the Senate, 49 Republicans and two independents. But the two independents will align themselves with the Democrats, giving them majority control of the Senate.

South Dakota's governor, Michael Rounds, who would appoint any successor if there is a vacancy, is a Republican.


*****end of clip*****

I hope it is minor and he makes a full recovery.


capt said...

No such thing as bad press?

George W Bush became president partly because of a dirty, underhanded campaign in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries. After McCain defeated Bush in the first primary in New Hampshire and it appeared the Arizona senator had a strong chance of vanquishing the Texan, McCain became the target of a trash-attack prior to the critical South Carolina primary contest. Using faxes, leaflets, emails and phone calls, Bush-backers in that state spread an assortment of rumours: McCain had been brainwashed by the Chinese when he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam; McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh was actually a love child he had sired with a black prostitute; McCain had infected his wife with a venereal disease and driven her to become a drug addict; McCain's wife was connected to the mafia. And so on. It worked. Bush soundly beat McCain in South Carolina, and that was the decisive battle.

For the Republicans, about as much is at stake now. (Maybe more, because a Democratic victory in either house of Congress could lead to investigations that target administration officials for assorted wrongdoing.) Bush's party has only seven days to thwart the Democrats from breaking its monopoly grip on power. It's rather unlikely that this is the moment frantic Republicans are going to clean up their act.


*****end of clip*****

We should have investigations but first take impeachment off the table?


David B. Benson said...

Juan Cole's "Informed Comment" is even more depressing reading than usual today. RealPolitik in the region, civil war in Iraq, ...

Carey said...

This would make a wonderful gift to the planet, wildlife and the environment--a donation from you on behalf of someone else.

Adopt a Penguin


flan said...

With all due respect, David, you are totally wrong on this point.

If we don't impeach THIS president, who has lied his way into this country's worst catastrophy, reponsible for thousands of American's live, hundreds of thousands Iraqi's lives, the total ruination of this country's finances, the total ruination of this country's respect around the world - then who do we impeach?

Does he have to murder someone with his own bare hands in the witness of four males? I mean come on?

We need to make it clear that NO president is above the law. Both Bush and Cheney should be impeached. NOW

Saladin said...

Capt and o'reilly, I have zero room for compromise on this issue. The crimes bushco have committed in the past 6 years are completely off the chart, from 9/11 to, well, just name it. The impeachment process is a major step in repairing our reputation around the world, a reputation that has been sorely abused, and will show that the American people are NOT in agreement with the horrid conduct of those in DC. Justice and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing if they are allowed to just keep on going. How many will die by the end of 2008? How much more misery and destruction will be accomplished? Who else will they decide to "bless" with demockracy? How much more damage are they capable of in another year? That this is even being debated by the left at all is simply astounding, I can't imagine why Corn or any other progressive would even consider allowing these monsters to continue the maniacal rampage across the middle east, it is just fucking mind boggling! Maybe my anger is impairing my reasoning, but Jesus, I have had ENOUGH! What on earth could possibly be more important then stopping these crazy people before they DO create an all out Armegeddon? Is the future of the DNC more important? Our country will not have a future because we will be completely bankrupt, both economically and morally, the whole world will turn it's back on us while the powers that be argue over whether bushco should face justice or not. I wonder if Mr. Corn suffered any qualms when his beloved Lennon was murdered? Did he wonder if it would be in the countries best interest to prosecute and hold responsible the murderer? Somehow I doubt it. Lennon was one, how much more important 1 million? 1 million that we will ALL have to answer for. Am I really over the top, or is Corn way out of touch?

David B. Benson said...

Tom Englehardt today writes about how Rummy and his syncophants really pooched the screw. The last time I read about something as militarily stupid was when the Japanese Imperial Navy war games went against them, but they sailed to Midway Island anyway...

flan said...

I can't stop there.

I am SICK AND TIRED of people with David Corn's point of view - like it's some politcal move to impeach this president, of all presidents.


It is rescuing the country from a president who thinks he is above the law. That is why impeachment was written into the Consitution, to have a way to take someone like Bush, and Cheney, out of office, to protect our very democracy.

I would love to take them out myself if you know what I mean - and would even be willing to pay the price even - but I believe in the rule of law - this president does not.

Again, they need to go - NOW!

capt said...


I think Corn is wrong and I have posted at length in my words and posted some statements from his own words.

I disagree with his OPINION that is my OPINION.

Corn being a jerk, a shill or some of the other colorful labels you have chosen is just your opinion and so not wrong but still just your opinion.

You and I disagree on many things and have some juxtaposed opinions, I hope that does not make me a jerk a shill or any of the other colorful adjectives you want to defend.

The drift into name calling is not political discourse it is just insulting. Not to David as he has written on the subject at length and over many months, no you demean yourself by such a poor choice of words.

You will never win over any person that does not share your concern or your passion when you start by calling them names.

How do you feel when instead of discussing the issue someone devolves into calling you negative or how about someone starts off by calling you worse names? Does it help their efforts to convince you of anything?

You do not convince anybody David is a jerk that did not already think David is a jerk but you risk others applying that label to you.

I know you feel passionately about this and many other subjects so I understand there are emotional outbursts but can you seriously make a case that David is anything (jerk or otherwise) based wholly on what he posts and writes? (keep in mind many people think you live in a dark funk of negativity base wholly on what you post - is that any more accurate?)

That is my opinion - for what it is worth.


capt said...

Adulthood isn't an award they'll give you for being a good child. You can waste... years, trying to get someone to give that respect to you, as though it were a sort of promotion or raise in pay. If only you do enough, if only you are good enough. No. You have to just... take it. Give it to yourself, I suppose. Say, I'm sorry you feel like that and walk away. But that's hard.

~ Lois McMaster Bujold, A Civil Campaign, 1999

capt said...

Civilization is built on a number of ultimate principles...respect for human life, the punishment of crimes against property and persons, the equality of all good citizens before the law...or, in a word justice.
Max Nordau (1849 - 1923)

Justice requires that to lawfully constituted Authority there be given that respect and obedience which is its due; that the laws which are made shall be in wise conformity with the common good; and that, as a matter of conscience all men shall render obedience to these laws.
Pope Pius XI (1857 - 1939)

It is better in some respects to be admired by those with whom you live, than to be loved by them. And this is not on account of any gratification of vanity, but because admiration is so much more tolerant than love.
Sir Arthur Helps

To have respect for ourselves guides our morals; and to have a deference for others governs our manners.
Lawrence Sterne (1713 - 1768)

The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.
Richard Bach, Illusions [1977]

capt said...

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.": Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator 1935 Source: Mein Kampf, p. 197(?) 14th Edition.

"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs, when he first appears he is a protector." -- Plato (429-347 BC) Source: The Republic

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!": Samuel Adams - (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution." Source: letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776


Read this newsletter online http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy

Thanks ICH Newsletter!

capt said...

Newly Released FBI Documents Disclose Grave Deficiencies in the War on Terrorism

The National Whistleblower Center, a nationally recognized FBI Watchdog group, has released to the public extensive sworn and documentary evidence concerning the FBI’s actual response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The documents include the sworn deposition of every major FBI manager responsible for the creation the FBI’s post September 11 counterterrorism division and the implementation of the FBI’s "War on Terror." Sworn depositions of Director Robert Mueller, former Director Louis Freeh and numerous executive assistant directors and assistant directors for the bureau’s counterterrorism program are included.

The NWC is making this unprecedented release in order to give the American public the inside and uncensored view of the domestic response to the September 11 attacks. The NWC strongly encourages every American concerned with the prevention of the next September 11 to carefully evaluate this documentation and use the materials to insist the U.S. government defend our democracy from a new attack.

The depositions and FBI documents were obtained as a result of a lawsuit filed by Bassem Youssef, a Unit Chief currently employed in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. Prior to holding his current position, Mr. Youssef coordinated the national counterterrorism investigation into the Islamic Group (the organization responsible for the first World Trade bombing), was the recipient of the prestigious "Director of Central Intelligence" award and was tapped by former FBI Director Louis Freeh to establish the FBI’s field office serving seven Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Kuwait. Mr. Youssef is the highest ranking Arab-American agent employed by the FBI. In July, 2006 the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that the FBI illegally retaliated against Mr. Youssef because Mr. Youssef had made whistleblower disclosures to the Director of the FBI and a Member of Congress.

Click here to view the documents.


*****end of clip*****

I truly believe Bush should face charges of crimes against humanity and against the peace.

That his abject incompetence should have him in jail for what he has done to our once great nation and the hundreds of thousands that are dead because of his recklessness, lies, manipulations and evil machinations.

As long as Bush can claim stupidity as a defense he is off the hook for the illegal and unwise invasion of Iraq but his violations of the law domestically and his disregard for the constitution demands impeachment and those articles would sustain a conviction.

We are talking about our country not the person GW and we are defining the presidency not GW's legacy.


David B. Benson said...

GW Bush can surely correctly claim stupidity as a defense against everything. However, nobody is above the law...

corky said...


corky said...

I like your new set up!! Troll free?? I think impeachment will depend on the emperor's behaviour.
If he stays in his bubble and and keeps doing the same old jackass crap, it may happen. Take care my friends.

Saladin said...

Capt, many people read David's words and take them to heart. Of all the things he has written in the past two years this is of the utmost importance. Whether I call him names, or anyone calls me names has nothing to do with it. He has so badly let me down I no longer trust him. Yes, that is just my opinion, but it is all I have. I don't really care what people think of my writing or my opinion, it is of no consequence because I have no political sway of any kind, but when a major editor of The Nation magazine jumps on the "let's just all get along" bandwagon it pisses me off!! If we can't depend on the voices of reason to stand up for what is right, what do we have left? I am a nothing in the big or little scheme of things, but he is a BIG something. To throw that away to appease the DNC or whoever makes me ashamed. I guess the chips will fall where they will and there isn't shit I can do about it, but I will voice my opinion, even if it is worthless or people call me negative. That sure isn't anything new. David Corn has disappointed me, yeh, I know, tough shit, get over it. But he will have to answer to a lot more important people than me, that is, if he cares. Or if the people care.

David B. Benson said...

On Huffington Post, a commenter named Palermo quotes the Repugs regarding impeachment of the previous President. Do they still mean it?


anonymous wak said...

help it's 1300 degrees in here!

capt said...

US staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq

Washington at large and President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in particular may apply every contortionist trick in the geopolitical book to save their skins in Iraq - and the reasons are not entirely political.

In addition to the recently released report by the Iraq Study Group, any other Washington establishment report - Pentagon, State Department, think-tanks - considered by the White House cannot deviate from much of the ISG. There can be no firm timeline for a complete US withdrawal because it all depends on Iraq's new oil law being passed and US troops being able to defend Big Oil's investment.

Once again, it's the oil. The Bush-Cheney system by all accounts went to Iraq to grab those fabulous reserves. The only way for an overall solution to the Iraqi tragedy would be for the Bush administration to give up the oil - with no preconditions, turning the US into an honest broker. Realpolitik practitioners know this is not going to happen.

Instead, the ISG is explicitly in favor of privatizing Iraq's oil industry - to the benefit of Anglo-American Big Oil - after the impending passage of a new oil law that was initially scheduled to be passed this month by the Iraqi Parliament.

For Big Oil, the new oil law is the holiest of holies: once the exploitation of Iraq's fabulous resources is in the bag, "security" is just a minor detail. Enter the ISG's much-hyped provision of US troops remaining in Iraq until an unclear date to protect not the Iraqi population, but Big Oil's supreme interests. This is really what ISG co-head James Baker means by "responsible transition".


*****end of clip*****

Three pages that are well worth reading.


O'Reilly said...

Ignoring the Majority View

But the president doesn't care to hear from anyone who represents the majority view.

From yesterday's briefing:

" Q Is he going to talk with people who differ considerably from his view, like people who absolutely want to get out of Iraq?

" MR. SNOW: No, because that does not, in fact, achieve your goal."


Hajji said...

Well, well, well...

I'm too tired to say it well, but like my friends have overwhelmingly voiced here, I think David is far off the mark with this one.

We all know his history with the "impeach" topic and much like his pooh-poohing of investigating highly questionable election results this one cannot sit well with those of us who have a desire to know the deepest truths.

This posting, as a chosen position and rebuttle to another is a skillful bit of political advisory, but hardly comes close to the heart of the matter.

Laws have been broken. The privacy and security of US citizens and those of the planet have been foresaken. "We the People" have been lied to by the very people in whom we SHOULD hold the most faith.

A half-million or more lives have already been cut short and likely many, many more will meet their demise before the effects of actions of this godsforsaken idiot asshole that lots of people somehow voted for have rippled to the shore.

I check the goddamn DOD's casualties list daily...and now that Spanky's off a "guard week" and on a "mission week", I'll probably be checking them hourly. I'll breath easier with each little "I'm OK" e-mails we get regularly while feeling guilty for that relief in the face of all the other names I read, each one a national and personal family tragedy.

If this isn't enough "political motivation" for you to call for investigation of the actions of this goddamned malAdministration with an eye to accountability, culpability and prosecution under the laws of this goddamned cracked and peeling republic...then FUCK POLITICS, FUCK BUSH and yes, David Corn...FUCK YOU!

...and thanks for all your work.


capt said...

Bush's anti-terrorism law upheld

A US court has upheld President George W Bush's new anti-terror law, agreeing that Guantanamo inmates cannot challenge their imprisonment in courts.

District Judge James Robertson rejected a challenge by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver of Osama Bin Laden.

Mr Hamdan's case prompted the Supreme Court to strike down the government's policy on detainees last year.

But Mr Bush later signed a new law that established military commissions to try enemy combatants.

Judge Robertson ruled that the new law - signed by Mr Bush in October - removed federal court jurisdiction to hear cases like Mr Hamden.

The verdict is a legal victory for the White House, which has been fending off criticism of the new law from Democrats and civil rights groups.


*****end of clip*****

This is the world in which we live. We have to stop the madness.


O'Reilly said...

Scooter Libby Watch

: Graymail Averted

Joel Seidman writes for NBC News: "A federal judge has accepted a series of redactions and substitutions proposed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald - to be provided to I Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's defense team - which will limit what Libby can share with jurors at his upcoming trial on some of the specifics of his top-secret White House briefings.

"U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton also ordered the review by national security agencies of classified documents requested by Libby - Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff - for his defense of perjury and obstruction charges in the Valerie Plame, CIA/Leak case, must be completed by December 22. . . .

"The new substitutions submitted by Fitzgerald may also effectively end what prosecutors say was Libby's attempt to try to get the case dismissed by demanding so much sensitive information that the government would have no choice but to refuse. The legal gambit is called 'graymail.'"

Matt Apuzzo writes for the Associated Press: "The ruling helps keep the trial on track for next month. That could still be delayed, however, if Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush aide Karl Rove claim they cannot testify because of separation-of-powers issues."

capt said...

Bush to seek $100 bln more war funds: House report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will soon seek about $100 billion in additional emergency funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report on Wednesday by Democratic staffers for two key panels in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Such a large request would mark a rapid escalation in the cost of the Iraq war at a time when public support is plummeting and Bush is looking for new answers to stem violence that threatens to spin out of control.

In a broad report criticizing Republicans' fiscal decisions, Democratic staffers on the House Appropriations Committee and House Budget Committee also noted that Congress already had appropriated about $379 billion for the war in Iraq.


*****end of clip*****

Forget impeachment how about someone saying no? On anything? No Dumya - that is enough!

Will the Democratic party muster a spine? Will the newbies drive for change?

(hint - continue breathing)


O'Reilly said...

Here is James Bamford's fascinating and important review in yesterday's Washington Post of "On the Brink: An Insider's Account of How the White House Compromised American Intelligence," by Tyler Drumheller, the CIA's former chief spy for Europe.

Even as former CIA director George Tenet and the White House were building a case for war that depended heavily on claims from a source code-named Curveball, Drumheller was gathering evidence that Curveball was lying. (Which he was.)

Writes Bamford: "Like Paul Revere in a trench coat, [Drumheller] began racing through the CIA attempting to spread the warning. But it was too late; war fever had gripped Tenet and his top aides, as well as the CIA's weapons analysts. 'The White House took our work and twisted it for its own ends,' Drumheller writes, 'and Tenet set a tone whereby people knew what he and the White House wanted to hear. We all felt under pressure,' and war seemed 'inevitable.' The Bush administration, he adds, 'has compromised the work of this nation's intelligence community like none before.'

"Later, as the war turned into a debacle, many of those same officials denied having heard the warnings that Iraq might not have doomsday weapons programs. But Drumheller has the evidence in the form of paper trails. Nevertheless, in Republican-dominated Washington, no one wanted to point fingers, and most of those responsible for the screw-ups either retired with golden parachutes or were promoted. . . .

"Added Drumheller: 'The books had been cooked, the bets placed. It was insane. I had joined the CIA to stop wars -- but not a needless one launched by my very own government.'"

O'Reilly said...

The Camel Bookmobile is my third novel, coming out in April from HarperCollins, and based on an actual bookmobile that delivers books on the backs of dromedaries to semi-nomadic settlements in the African bush of Kenya near the border with Somalia.


capt said...

Today's POAC Headlines

Expert alleges Anthrax attacks covered up by FBI 12-13

Democrats pick up another Republican House seat, this time in Texas. 12-13

25,000 US Troops Dead Or Injured In Iraq. 12-13

Bush to delay presenting any new strategy for Iraq until early next year. What's the rush? He's got brush to clear. 12-13

Saudis announce plan to back Sunnis in case of Iraqi civil war. The Iranians will no doubt back the Shiites. Neither plans on waiting until next year. 12-13

Within the next two years the Americans will fill the military emergency stockpiles in Israel with double the equipment they now hold. 12-13

Gulf states demand UN action on Israeli nuclear arms 12-13

Oil producing countries have reduced their exposure to the dollar to the lowest level in two years and shifted oil income into euros, yen and sterling 12-13

POAC merchandise featuring our award-winning graphics can be found in the POAC store

Military Christianists: America #3 on their Loyalty list 12-13

More POAC Headlines HERE

Gerald said...

capt, I have grave concerns about how various religions are being used to undermine my God, a God who embraces love, mercy, justice, and peace. Unless our nation returns to the true God, Nazi America will feel His wrath. I see Nazi America moving each day to be more evil, vile, and wicked in actions, behaviors, and deeds. I have also posted that Nazi America is sliding into the abyss od hell. Frankly, capt, the slide is over and we are now residing in hell. NAZI AMERICA IS THE DEVIL INCARNATE NATION!!!!!

Gerald said...

Nazi America is a nation of devil worshippers!!!!!

Gerald said...

America disrespects God

Gerald said...

25,000 (12-13-06)

capt said...

Slow But Steady

The White House has postponed the unveiling of a new Iraq policy until after the holidays. Here's why.

In a series of 45-minute sessions, Bush has worked through a steady program of question-and-answer exchanges with his own officials and a handful of outside experts. According to senior White House officials, who declined to be named when discussing Oval Office meetings, the extensive internal reviews have been moving along slowly but steadily.

That slow progress explains in large part why the White House has delayed the president’s announcement of his new approach to Iraq until the new year. Just a week ago, senior Bush aides believed they were still on track for a set-piece speech that would detail the new approach to Iraq before Christmas.

But the sessions started from a basic level of strategy before narrowing down on the critical decisions about troop levels and posture inside Iraq. That lengthy approach to the internal review of Iraq policy bears all the hallmarks of the granular, detail-driven style of chief of staff Josh Bolten and national-security adviser Steve Hadley.


Pat said...

If some people are above the law, then the law is meaningless. If you're pulled over for speeding, can you say "Hey, that's in the past; let's move on?"

It's ludicrous to say impeachment is off the table, before any investigation has even begun. If this administration is a danger to our country and our democracy, and to the peace and to humanity, then let the chips fall where they may, with the constitutional remedies provided.

People, we are dealing with tiny bits of information that have managed to get out to our level. Can you imagine what those on the "inside" really know? Why won't some of them take the risk and tell all? They must be mighty scared.

capt said...

Slow But Steady

The challenge for Bush's team was to make the president appear as though he were taking the release of the report seriously, without necessarily embracing its conclusions. In the days following the report's release, Bush the Decider transformed himself into Bush the Listener. Usually prickly with war critics—on the rare occasions he spoke to them at all—the president now invited them in from the cold and kept quiet.

The Baker-Hamilton report may not change Bush's military or diplomatic strategy in Iraq. But the report has had one noticeable effect: it marks a point of no return in the way Bush talks about the war and deals with his critics. He may not always be as accommodating as he seemed to be last week. But from here on in, the president can no longer plausibly dismiss Democrats as wanting to "cut and run" or blame the media for overplaying the violence and ignoring the "good news" from Baghdad. The change in Bush's approach had its beginnings well before the Baker group put pen to paper. It came about in part because of a slow, careful effort by Bush's closest aides—under the direction of chief of staff Josh Bolten—to convince the president that he had to listen to different voices on Iraq, and ultimately change direction. The results of that effort will be unveiled next week, when Bush is expected to announce what he calls "The New Way Forward," his latest plan to salvage the mission in Iraq.


*****end of clip*****

Bush will announce his original plan was not wrong it was ineffective because we did not use enough force. He will then say that is why he is going to send tens of thousands of troops to provide security while we train the blah blah blah.

Maybe Dummypants will go for the trifecta - increase the troops level, pardon Libby to preserve national security and attack Iran? Let the true lame-duck president do as he always intended.


uncledad said...


I have read your posts, and many others on this topic, and I could not agree with you more. (Name calling excluded) If the C-student in chief is not held accountable for his many crimes to date, then I fear, as you do that our democracy is broken. For "progressives" to advocate looking the other way out of some misguided need for the political middle ground is in my mind almost as contemptible as the impeachable offenses themselves. If a newly elected majority is willing to look the other way in order to advance their “agenda” then I want nothing of it.

Lets look back at recent history. Didn’t the republicans enter orders of impeachment for bubba getting head? Did that cost the conservatives the majority? What cost the conservatives their majority is the fact that they have done nothing, looked the other way, tried to find the political center, while bu$hco has plunged this country into a needless and costly war. If you talk to many real conservatives they disagree with the Iraq war as well, it’s the neo-consuperfratboy’s, Israel firsters that wanted this thing.

I think Corn’s analysis of this subject shows his “inside the beltway” everything is politics mentality. I suggest he review the results of the last election to find what may be politically expedient. On the other hand having a more moderate position may get you more appearances on “This week with George Stephanopoulos”.

kathleen said...

I have always agreed with Corn on this one. While I think this administration deserves to be put in front of a firing squad made up of Iraqi and American people who have lost family members in this "illegal war of choice".

If the many investigations into the "how and why" we pre-emptively invaded Iraq were completed, those investigations would more than likely lead to impeachment.


Ivory Bill Woodpecker said...

I'm home from the Ministry of Silly Walks, and finally remembered to sign up. I don't really have anything to say beyond agreeing the Chimperor should be impeached, but I just wanted to let folks know I have returned.

From the swamps of Arkansas, Ivory Bill Woodpecker

capt said...

Flan, Corky, IBW!!!

Very good to hear from you all!


Saladin said...

Hajji, I think that was beautifully said!
Uncledad, I'm willing to bet Corn's post provoked a lot more colorful name calling then what I came up with, I was sure thinking worse! That is what happens when I pin even the least little bit of hope on any pundit or political figure, I am so disgusted with this whole thing. Two long years of hell, but it seems Gerald is right, we haven't reached the seventh level yet and they won't be satisified until we do. When any writer of David's status can, with a clear conscience, say that we as a country are above the rule of law that we impose on the rest of the world, why was saddam removed again, could someone refresh my memory? Then you know we are in the last throes of empire. Empires cannot survive treachery from within. No one has the right to opine that this or that person is above the law, especially laws that govern the freedom and security of ALL people, not just Americans. What will the next administration have as an example? That they can also go forth and wreak havok on hapless nations without fear of consequences because the laws don't apply to them? As ledeen put it, pick up some tiny country and throw it against the wall to prove we mean business? I really hope David rethinks this position, from the commentary I have been reading out on the web he is in a small minority with this thinking. The dems cannot allow this to create civil war within their party. If they don't stick together 100% on this they will piss the people off enough to lose what they fought so hard to gain. Just do the right thing.
Ivory Bill! So glad you're back! Of all your handles that one was always my favorite!

Gerald said...


Saladin said...

Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Knew people in FAA on day of hijackings who said intercept procedures should have been enacted as normal

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, December 14, 2006

A former Boston Center air traffic controller has gone public on his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets. In an astounding telephone interview, Robin Hordon claims air traffic controllers have been ignored or silenced to protect the true perpetrators of 9/11.

A recording of the phone conversation was posted on Google video late yesterday by the Pilots For 9/11 Truth organization.

After having acquired a background in aviation, Hordon underwent rigorous FAA training to become an air traffic controller and was posted to Boston Center where he worked for eleven years. He did not work at Boston Center when 9/11 occurred but still knows people that did who concur with his conclusions. In comparing the stand down of air defense on 9/11 and what should have occurred according to standard operating procedure, he quickly concluded on the very afternoon of the attacks that they could represent nothing other than an inside job.

"On September 11th I'm one of the few people who really within quite a few hours of the whole event taking place just simply knew that it was an inside job, and it wasn't because of the visuals, the collapses, whatever....I knew that it was an inside job I think within about four or five o'clock that afternoon and the reason that I knew is because when those aircraft did collide and then we got the news and information on where the aircraft were and where they went....if they knew where the aircraft were and were talking to them at a certain time then normal protocol is to get fighter jet aircraft up assist," said Hordon.

Hordon said that from personal experience he knew the system was always ready to immediately scramble intercepting fighters and that any reversal of that procedure would have been unprecedented and abnormal. He had also personally handled both real hijacking situations in his airspace and other emergency procedures.

"I know people who work there who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers could do the job, they followed their own protocols," he stated.

Hordon said that the only way the airliners could have avoided being intercepted was if a massive electrical and communications failure had occurred which it didn't on that day, adding that there was "no way" the hijacked airliners could have reached their targets otherwise.

He highlighted the fact that only an emergency handling of aircraft protocol change on that day could have interrupted standard operating procedure and hijacking protocol. Hordon said it was unbelievable how far American Airlines Flight 11 was allowed to go off course without the appropriate action being taken on behalf of flight controllers.

Hordon emphasized that the debate has deliberately been channeled by NORAD and the government to focus on reactions to hijackings, when the real issue is the emergency condition of the aircraft well before a hijacking is even confirmed.

He went on to explain how as soon as the hijacking of Flight 11 was confirmed at around 8:24am, the entire system, from every FAA center coast to coast, to the Pentagon, to the President were informed and knew of the hijacking.

"The system now had to make some phone calls and call up Rummy's Pentagon and Rummy's Pentagon is the one that would then make the decision."

"Well, Rummy's Pentagon on American 11 didn't answer the phone, neither 175, didn't answer the phone and they didn't answer the phone until they were absolutely embarrassed into answering the phone somewhere along the flight of United 93 and American 77 - first formal contact was at this particular time," said Hordon.

"That is all distractionary, that is all designed to keep people off the focus - the real focus is what the air traffic controller did immediately upon seeing that American 11 was in trouble and what we do as air traffic controllers is we get eyes and ears on this flight."

Hordon underscored the fact that after the confirmed hijacking of Flight 11, the entire FAA system would have been on full alert and obsessively watching the skies for any unusual activity, and that such activity as the hijacking of Flight 77 would have been immediately reported to supervisors instantaneously, as well as being continually tracked.

"If the air traffic controller were going by emergency procedures which he is trained to do, he would have reached out directly to ADC (NORAD) and say what do you see?" said Hordon.

Hordon debunked the recent Vanity Fair piece that whitewashed NORAD's response as a consequence of confusion and the supposition that NORAD needs exact flight coordinates to enact any kind of response, and that the planes were supposedly invisible to radar and couldn't be tracked properly.

"It's very clear now through testimony and documents given to us by the federal government that indeed....the Boston Center actually tracked American 11 as a primary target after it lost its radar, after it lost its transponder, all the way to World Trade Center," he said.

"Further information indicates later the NORAD radars had it tracked....the bottom line of the story is that all of those aircraft were always tracked all the time by the FAA air traffic control centers," said Hordon, pointing out that information showing air traffic controllers tried insistently to alert military command structures is being locked down because it points to finger of responsibility to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, who were also tracking all the aircraft from the point of hijacking to the impact on their targets.

This is the reason why, as Hordon stated, that we don't have complete access to flight data recorders and FAA tapes, which in the case of a conversation between six New York Air Route Traffic Control Center controllers was ordered to be shredded, because if studies of that evidence were undertaken it would become very clear as to who was really behind the attack.

"What they did is they cherry picked transmissions, communications and statements made all on these four flights that were able to paint and write a story that the public would look at and so ooh wow, this really happened - but it wasn't factual, it was a story and it tell not tell anything other than what the high perps wanted the public to hear - they cherry picked this information," said Hordon.

Hordon ended by saying that only with the testimony from the dozens of flight controllers who have been silenced or ignored would the true story about who carried out 9/11 begin to emerge.
This was all very obvious a long time ago. Finger pointing at NORAD was always pure bullshit. The FAA and NORAD had very precise procedures that were hijacked that day, and rummy as well as cheney were behind it.

Gerald said...

This is the party that impeached Bill Clinton for nothing?

My point is this: America may well be enduring what historicans will call the worst president in American history and the worst Vice President in American history.

America will continue to endure the war so arrogantly and incompetently planned by the man historians may well call the worst Secretary of Defense in American history.

America has had to endure the vacation-like schedule, massive corruptions and failures of duty of a Republican Congress that the historians may well conclude was the worst Congress in American history, a dishonor of some magnitude.

America has had to endure a corrupted politics and a Republican National Committee that ran racist and bigoted ads, with dirty money, from corrupted sources, who have hired armies of criminal lawyers and Washington firms that specialize in defending guilty clients, fearing catastrophic investigations.

Gerald said...

I love America. Yes, I love America. How can anyone not love America? The land of murderers, war criminals, hatred, and corruption!

A failed war!!! No dialogue is permitted by the stupidest idiot to have been burped upon us at birth.

Hitler Bush makes me puke, vomit, upchuck, throw up, and barf.

Saladin said...

Alleged Liquid Bomb Plot Credibility Crumbles
Court clears Rauf of charges as much vaunted transatlantic airliner attack dissipates into another staged terror alert

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The alleged ringleader of a much vaunted plot to blow up multiple transatlantic airliners using liquid explosives has been cleared of terrorism charges and of being a member of any terrorist group, rendering August's terror scare another hyped creation of government scare mongering.

In every single major terror bust or terror alert we have proven the evidence to be flawed and the charges to be cooked up nonsense aimed at prolonging the illusion that terror cells are lurking around every corner waiting to cause mayhem. The geopolitical agenda of the U.S., Britain and Israel depends on the proliferation phony terror threats in order to continue the farcical war on terror and take more of our innate freedoms at home to stifle dissent against the plot for worldwide hegemony.

The supposed transatlantic bomb plot has dissipated into another staged terror alert.

The BBC reports,

"A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges.
He has moved the case of Rashid Rauf, a Briton, from an anti-terrorism court to a regular court, where he faces lesser charges such as forgery."

"The Pakistani authorities described him as a key figure."

"But an anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi found no evidence that he had been involved in terrorist activities or that he belonged to a terrorist organisation."

Since the panic surrounding the ridiculous hoax that led to an outright ban on all liquids in U.S. and British airports, the credibility of the alleged plot itself has crumbled.

In a series of reports following the August 10th scare, we traced the source of the alleged attack plot to Pakistani and British intelligence and were rapidly able to confirm that the story was nothing more than a manufactured ploy to frighten travelers at the height of the holiday season.
But then those of us with logical thinking abilities already knew that as soon as we heard it. The real terrorists reside within the true "axis of evil," Britain, America and Israel.

Ivory Bill Woodpecker said...

If "Elephascist" is too clumsy a term, how about calling the GOP "Royalists", since they apparently think the president should be an [expletive deleted] king. That way, they could keep the initial "R".

Saladin said...

US Government Biological Weapons Legislator Says 2001 Anthrax Attacks Part Of Government Bio-warfare Program
Expert says FBI covered up the plot to attack Congress which may have been perpetrated by the same people who carried out the 9/11 attacks

Steve Watson
Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The real culprits behind the 2001 anthrax attack on Congress were most likely US government scientists at the army's Ft. Detrick, MD., bioterrorism lab according to a former government biological weapons legislator and University of Illinois Professor.

Dr Franics A. Boyle says the FBI covered up these facts and has also quite clearly stated that he doubts the official government story that 19 arabs with boxcutters perpetrated the attacks of 9/11.

Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.

"I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind these terrorist anthrax attacks upon the United States Congress in the Fall of 2001, and that the culprits were US government-related scientists involved in a criminal US government bio-warfare program," Boyle says in his new book Biowarfare and Terrorism.

Only a "handful" of scientists had the means to carry out the attack, yet the FBI ordered the destruction of the anthrax culture collection at Ames, IA., from which the Ft. Detrick lab got its pathogens. Boyle states that only top level scientists with access to "moonsuits" that enabled them to safely process and manufacture super-weapons-grade anthrax could have carried out the attacks.

"The trail of genetic evidence would have led directly back to a secret but officially-sponsored US government biowarfare program that was illegal and criminal" , Boyle said. However, impartial scientists were not allowed to perform genetic reconstruction of the anthrax found in letters mailed to Senators Daschle (D-S.D.) and Patrick Leahy, (D -Vt.) in late 2001.

We have previously exposed how leading members of the Bush administration and White House staff were on the anthrax-treating antibiotic Cipro up to six weeks before the attacks occurred. It is also documented that the anthrax strain used was military grade. This was widely reported in 2002 in publications such as the New Scientist. However, this fact has recently been totally changed with the FBI now suggesting that common anthrax, not military grade anthrax was used.

The whole thing "appears to be a cover-up orchestrated by the FBI." according to Dr Boyle.

Boyle goes on to inquire, "Could the real culprits behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the immediately following terrorist anthrax attacks upon Congress ultimately prove to be the same people? Could it truly be coincidental that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist anthrax attacks - Senators Daschle and Leahy - were holding up the speedy passage of the pre-planned USA Patriot Act ... an act which provided the federal government with unprecedented powers in relation to US citizens and institutions?"

Clearly Dr Boyle has a hard time believing what the government says happened on 9/11.
I know this is kinda old news, but another lie bites the dust. But then, what does this guy know? He is obviously wack! And completely lacking in credentials!

Gerald said...

Prime example why Nazi America is a horseshit nation

Gerald said...

Looking back on all this eight years later, it's difficult to fathom what the fuss was all about.

Today, America is saddled with an unbelievably corrupt occupant in the White House. Bush is guilty of a long list of horrible crimes, from embracing torture as official state policy to illegal wiretaps to lying America into a war that has turned out to be the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history.

And what's the U.S. media's reaction to all this? (You know, the same "liberal media" that was screaming and hollering for Clinton to resign for lying about a blow job?)


Not one major newspaper has called for Bush to resign.

capt said...

Secret Mel Gibson image in Apocalypto trailer

It's hard to believe that this isn't a joke (or perhaps a publicity stunt -- although, with vigorous opening weekend numbers it doesn't look like raging antisemitism poses any problem for America's moviegoers), but the Apple.com trailer for Apocalypto has a ridiculous still image of Mel Gibson a la spider hole Saddam, embedded.

I slowed it down for you in the video to the right, but it's still hard to catch. The still is posted in any case...


*****end of clip*****

What is up with this?


O'Reilly said...

Joint Chiefs Advise Change In War Strategy

Leaders Seek No Major Troop Increase, Urge Shift in Focus to Support of Iraqi Army

By Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, December 14, 2006; A01

The nation's top uniformed leaders are recommending that the United States change its main military mission in Iraq from combating insurgents to supporting Iraqi troops and hunting terrorists, said sources familiar with the White House's ongoing Iraq policy review.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney met with the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday at the Pentagon for more than an hour, and the president engaged his top military advisers on different options. The chiefs made no dramatic proposals but, at a time of intensifying national debate about how to solve the Iraq crisis, offered a pragmatic assessment of what can and cannot be done by the military, the sources said.

The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq, said sources familiar with their thinking, but see strengthening the Iraqi army as pivotal to achieving some degree of stability. They also are pressing for a much greater U.S. effort on economic reconstruction and political reconciliation.

capt said...

Govt Subpoenas ACLU to Recover Classified Document

Government attorneys reached deep into their legal bag of tricks to devise a subpoena (pdf) against the American Civil Liberties Union demanding "any and all copies" of a classified document that was leaked to the ACLU in October.

Questioned by an ACLU attorney as to the authority for this demand, a government attorney cited the espionage statutes in 18 USC 793 and 798.

Such an action is unprecedented, the ACLU said in a motion to quash (pdf) the subpoena, and it is also an improper use of subpoena authority.

If successful, this tactic could be used to confiscate classified documents from news organizations, effectively imposing prior restraint on publication and curtailing freedom of the press.

"No official secrets act has yet been enacted into law, and the grand jury's subpoena power cannot be employed to create one," the ACLU said.

The story was covered in the New York Times here, and the Washington Post here.

The subpoena against the ACLU is the latest in a series of new government efforts to tighten controls on classified information and to punish those who disclose such information.

A recent issue of The News Media & The Law, published by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, focuses on "Journalists and the Espionage Act" and provides updates on several ongoing cases and controversies.


*****end of clip*****

Might be the most important thing to happen in a while and I bet the MSM takes a pass pn reporting it.


capt said...

Olmert-Prodi talk taped

Israeli television broadcast footage that appeared to show Ehud Olmert coaching his Italian counterpart on what to tell reporters about the Palestinians.

Channel 10 on Wednesday aired footage of the Israeli prime minister, who visited Rome earlier in the day, quietly conferring with Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi ahead of their joint press conference.

"It is important that you emphasize the three principles of `the Quartet’ — that they are not negotiated.

They are the basis for everything. Please say this?" Olmert tells his counterpart, referring to Western demands that the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and honor past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Addressing reporters later, Prodi did make such a statement, and also endorsed Israel’s character as a Jewish state.

This, Channel 10 suggested, was another result of Olmert’s back-room lobbying.

The footage, apparently taken without Olmert’s knowledge, was another embarrassment to a prime minister who has seen his popularity plummet since the Lebanon war this summer.


*****end of clip*****

There goes the illusion that politicians are spontaneous and honest. Darn.


capt said...

Is James Baker a Match for AIPAC?

The report by the Iraq Study Group is an attempt by elder statesmen of the American political establishment to take U.S. foreign policy out of the incompetent hands of President Bush and the self-serving hands of the Israeli Lobby. The Iraq Study Group's effort may or may not succeed.

Others have expressed disappointment that the ISG elder statesmen did not call for Bush's impeachment and immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. Such wishful thinking caused writers to pour cold water over the establishment's attempt to save Bush and the U.S. from a "grave and deteriorating" situation.

Even war critic Pat Buchanan is dismissive of the ISG report. Buchanan, however, comes closer to the truth than the report's other critics when he writes that the purpose of the report is to save the establishment from any responsibility for the debacle that Bush and his neoconservative government have produced.

The Iraq Study Group, which includes Bush's new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, realizes that far from being the macho superpower that controls the world's destiny, the U.S. does not even control its own destiny. The U.S. is in a "grave and deteriorating" situation that can easily result in a far greater calamity than merely a bruised ego from a lost war. The entire Middle East can come undone.

The real problem is the Israeli Lobby's powerful influence – about which the Lobby brags – over U.S. policy in the Middle East and Israel's inflexibility toward the Palestinians, whose land Israel has stolen. As long as Israel exercises a veto over U.S. policy in the Middle East, the powder keg will remain alight.


Saladin said...

" The U.S. is in a "grave and deteriorating" situation that can easily result in a far greater calamity than merely a bruised ego from a lost war."
Capt, what I am really afraid of is the very real possibility that this is the entire plan. Since a democratic republic such as the one we USED to enjoy is a serious thorn in the sides of the NWO psychos, undermining it is the only way for the plan to progress. I just cannot believe that it is all the result of incompetence. Greed I believe, but to have sustained the amount of economic and reputation damage that we have endured in 6 short years strikes me as being both intentional and well thought out. The news of the dollar crashing at the same time as the talk of the emerging Amero is no mere coincidence. There is a method to this madness, and the people of America are the dupes.

Detroit Don said...


FYI - I don't know if you've noticed yet, but Greenwald cites one of your comments in an update to his most recent post.

You've hit the Big Time in the Blogosphere, buddy!

capt said...



I was notified by a friend this morning that I was in the update. How cool is that!

WAY better than my dusty old quote - I was blown away by the following post on GG from Gator90:

I wonder how the corporate media would react if Bush denied the Holocaust. Maybe something like:

The politically charged controversy over whether Nazi Germany engaged in the large-scale killing of European Jews during World War II, an alleged historical event referred to as the "Holocaust" by those who believe it occurred, became the subject of partisan bickering after a reporter asked President Bush for his view on the subject. Never afraid to take a stand, the president stated firmly that "If the Nazis were really killin' all them Jews, my granddaddy wouldn't have stood for it."

Democrats eagerly pounced on Bush's statement in an effort to score political points by claiming that the "Holocaust" did in fact occur and is well documented. But the president's press secretary countered that some people also believe evolution is well documented, even though the jury is still out. Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is Jewish, said that he personally believes that the "Holocaust" may have occurred, but warned Democrats not to "play politics" with the issue by criticizing the Commander in Chief in a time of war. Lieberman also pointed to Bush's support for Israel as evidence of the president's high regard for Jews, notwithstanding the "honest difference of opinion" regarding the fate of some Jews many years ago.

Also disagreeing with Bush was Sophie Wasserman, 89, who claimed to have personally witnessed the murder of her husband and children in a Nazi "concentration camp" in the German city of Dachau. However, conservative humorist Ann Coulter disputed Wasserman's account. Coulter, using her trademark tongue-in-cheek cleverness, described Wasserman as a "vicious, senile whore" whose husband and children "probably committed suicide to get away from her."

Gator90 | 12.14.06 - 10:46 am |


I hope everyone enjoys the most excellent humor!


capt said...


"I just cannot believe that it is all the result of incompetence."

There isn't enough incompetence in the universe, no there is some very solid and long range planning involved and applied. No coincidence, no accidental politicians, no bumbling doofus feeling around in the dark.

If there were ever any good intentions behind the power they have been made into paving stones for this hell-bound hand-basket long ago.

It is all perverted and twisted and evil. The only real good these days is in the occasional good acts of individuals - and those are more sparse than ever before.


Carey said...

Regarding David Corn's recent post on Jeane Kirkpatrick and your ensuing discussion of her, I though ya'll might be interested in this. Sidney Blumenthal wrote an excellent, erudite essay on her and neoconservatism.

It's top notch.

Mugged by Reality

Once the warrior queen of neoconservatism, Jeane Kirkpatrick died a critic of Bush's unilateralism. Her death illuminates the conflicting legacies of the movement she helped found.

Please repost this if a new thread is imminent.

Carey said...

Excellent discussions here. Great stuff.

David B. Benson said...

Of course a possible defect with impeachment and removal from office of Bush & Cheney is that Pelosi becomes President?

capt --- Congradulations on your new popularity. (I thought it was a good quotation, too.)

Gerald said...

There is growing talk that we need between 20,000 to 150,000 more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that we can now say that Iraq and Afganistan are the new Vietnam War.

Why is there no talk of why we went into Iraq? This invasion is a thunderous blunder. I have printed for several years that Nazi America will rue the day that she invaded Iraq.

Saladin said...

Woo Hoo! Capt's famous!
My understanding of the Iranian conference was that it would allow people to discuss the Holocaust openly, without fear of reprisal. There are people in prison for daring to even question the official narrative much less deny it. That it happened is unquestionable, the details however are clouded with propaganda and outright lies, as is much of American and European history, FDR and Pearl Harbor being the perfect example. I've always loved history but I want to know the truth, no matter how ugly it is. That the Zionist headquarters were largely responsible for what happened in Germany is completely left out of the picture, but is very important. Hitler was no doubt a psycho but I don't think we have even begun to understand what really happened all those decades ago. It is never how they present it in high school history, and the winners always get to paint the picture.

David B. Benson said...

saladin --- Assuming it happens, are you going to be happier with President Pelosi?

O'Reilly said...

Not for nothing Capt but when a blog credits you for contributing an apropos quote, it's one thing, and when it's Glenn Greenwald's blog, well... that's quite another. Cool. Very Cool.

O'Reilly said...

Why is there no talk of why we went into Iraq?


It's clear, we'er not there to disarm WMDs.

it's clear, we're backing away from democrary to self-substaining government with privatized oil fields.

So why aren't we talking about our purpose rather than how many of few americans it will take?

Saladin said...

D. Benson. I have not even considered the possibility, I doubt it will come to that, but if it does the answer is no, I will not be happier with a dem running roughshod over innocent people then I am with bushco doing it. I don't care what little crumbs they throw our way, all I care about is an end to this evil, bullshit war on terror and bringing ALL our troops home to protect our borders, where they belong. Anything else is gravy. I know pelosi, she has sworn the whole countries fealty to Israel, no matter what, and I am so opposed to that I would love to tell her to her face that she has no right to pledge anyone's fealty besides her own. Putting the nuclear power of Israel first is the very foundation of our problems, and as long as she or any politician does that I will never support them, our precious troops are getting slaughtered because of that.

capt said...

What does this say about their judgment?

People like Mickey Kaus, David Frum, Glenn Reynolds, and National Review's Andrew McCarthy and Byron York have spent the last week disseminating claims that the Clinton administration eavesdropped on Princess Diana. They've been insinuating all sorts of wrongdoing based on these reports, all which came from unreliable British press accounts.

Some of them -- Kaus and York in particular -- were spewing all sorts of speculative accusations that the Clinton administration broke the law and that the real target of the eavesdropping was Diana's boyfriend, New York billionaire Ted Forstmann. That led Kaus to speculate that the whole thing was all a plot by Hillary, because Forstmann was a potential rival for her Senate seat and she wanted to eavesdrop on his conversations with Diana for that reason.

The official British Government investigative report was released today, and as it turns out -- and as was painfully predictable -- the whole story is a sham, completely untrue. As York is forced to admit today: "Did the Clinton Administration Spy On Princess Diana? No." And Frum: "The bugging Diana story turns out to be a hoax or anyway an error. " And Kaus: "That official police report on Diana's death appears to be a bust, as far as alleging spying by the Clinton Administration on Republican magnate Ted Forstmann."


*****end of clip*****

Glenn has the above post where he toasts a handful of Mr. David Corn's foils. He cooks them well and sticks a fork in them.


Hajji said...


Last night, I ended a post in a way that I likely shouldn't have.

My anger, the angst seems to have gotten me worked up as I realized what Corn's position really was re:impeachment.

Even if it was an honest expressions of my feelings, I should be a better guest, here, than my mouth allowed last night. The weariness the worry, the sale price on Alice White merlot...all contributed. Maybe I need to call Mel or Robin or just about any Kennedy or Superchurch Evangelical and get the name of a good "program"...

Thank you all, again for your continued support, your words...MANY of your actions...

And to you, Captain Perfectquote, especially, I offer thanks.

Now where's that goddamn corkscrew!?


capt said...


I was actually going to post that I wished I could post with that much honesty and balance. I mean you did thank Mr. Corn for all his work. I feared it would seem a bit brown-nosed.

Never an apology needed.


capt said...

Hume, Borger, Cavuto falsely reported Sen. Johnson would be replaced if "incapacitated"

Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume, CBS national political correspondent Gloria Borger, and Fox News host Neil Cavuto reported that if Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), who was hospitalized on December 13 with intracerebral bleeding and underwent brain surgery, were "incapacitated" or "unable to serve in any way," or his condition were to "worsen," then South Dakota Gov. Michael Rounds (R) would appoint a replacement to take Johnson's seat until the 2008 general election. In fact, the U.S. Constitution states that the governor may appoint a replacement senator only if Johnson's seat becomes vacant and, in contrast with provisions concerning the presidency, includes no provision allowing officials to declare that a senator is incapable of serving. Indeed, several senators have remained in office despite significant infirmities.

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." The Constitution does not address the ability of a Senator to carry out his or her duties. In contrast, the 25th Amendment deals specifically with "Presidential Disability" and provides a mechanism for people other than the president to determine that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and appoint a replacement without the president's permission.

South Dakota state law echoes the 17th Amendment: "Pursuant to the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Governor may fill by temporary appointment, until a special election is held pursuant to this chapter, vacancies in the office of senator in the Senate of the United States."

As USA Today reported on December 14, there exists no legal precedent for declaring a senator unable to serve, and senators have continued to serve in spite of infirmities:


*****end of clip*****

The MSM and especially Fox News no longer report or fact-check they simply offer some notion off the tops of their little pointy heads and call it a "REPORT".


kathleen said...

US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
Plant an Olive Tree in Palestine for the Holidays

This week you should be receiving in your mail a year-end newsletter from the US
Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. Below is an on-line version of this special

We ask you to give a generous, tax-deductible contribution to the US Campaign to End
the Israeli Occupation by clicking here:

For every $25 that you donate to the US Campaign, we will plant an olive tree in
Palestine in your name or that of a loved one through our friends at Zatoun.

Thank you for your support this holiday season and for enabling us to strengthen our
work in the upcoming year.

Donate Today to Support Our Work

The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is recognized by the IRS as a 501c3
charitable organization; donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

This holiday season, we're teaming up with Trees for Life to replant olive trees in
Palestine. Working through the Palestine Fair Trade Association, Trees for Life
provides fair-trade certified farmers in the regions of Jenin, Nablus, Salfit, and
Ramallah with olive tree saplings.

For every $25 that you donate to the US Campaign, we will replant one olive tree in
your name or in the name of a loved one and send you a suitable-to-frame certificate
of planting. There's no limit—you can plant 5, 10, 100 or more olive trees today!
Don't miss out on this wonderful way to help us and fair-trade certified Palestinian
farmers at the same time. Makes a great holiday gift! To donate, click here:

capt said...

New Thread.