Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Jan. 28, 2007 at 1:04 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
69 Comments
A day ago, the headline in the Eagle was something like, “GOP Hopes to Elect Leader Who Will Unite”. Today the headline is, “Conservative to Lead State GOP”. The implicit message here is that there will be no unity. Electing Kobach to lead the State GOP is a manifestation of the same attitude as was involved with Johnson County electing Phil Kline to be district attorney. “Our way or the highway” is the message being delivered to GOP moderates.
Yep, tis a shame isn’t it?
I’m glad I’m not a republicon.
(February 12, 2007 issue)Impeachment: The Case in Favor
Elizabeth Holtzman
Approximately a year ago, I wrote in this magazine that President George W. Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached and removed from office. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.
Since then, the case against President Bush has, if anything, been strengthened by reports that he personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. In addition, courts have rejected some of his extreme assertions of executive power. The Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees, and a federal judge ruled that the President could not legally ignore FISA. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s recent announcement that the wiretapping program would from now on operate under FISA court supervision strongly suggests that Bush’s prior claims that it could not were untrue.
Despite scant attention from the mainstream media, since last year impeachment has won a wide audience. Amid a flurry of blogs, books and articles, a national grassroots movement has sprung up. In early December seventy-five pro-impeachment rallies were held around the country and pro-impeachment efforts are planned for Congressional districts across America. A Newsweek poll, conducted just before election day, showed 51 percent of Americans believed that impeachment of President Bush should be either a high or lower priority; 44 percent opposed it entirely. (Compare these results with the 63 percent of the public who in the fall of 1998 opposed President Clinton’s impeachment.) Most Americans understand the gravity of President Bush’s constitutional misconduct.
Public anger at Bush has been mounting. On November 7 voters swept away Republican control of the House and Senate. The President’s poll numbers continue to drop.
These facts should signal a propitious moment for impeachment proceedings to start. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment “off the table.” (Impeachment proceedings must commence in the House of Representatives.) Her position doesn’t mean impeachment is dead; it simply means a different route to it has to be pursued. Congressional investigations must start, and public pressure must build to make the House act.
This is no different from what took place during Watergate. In 1973 impeachment was not “on the table” for many months while President Nixon’s cover-up unraveled, even though Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But when Nixon fired the special prosecutor to avoid making his White House tapes public, the American people were outraged and put impeachment on the table, demanding that Congress act. That can happen again.
Congressional and other investigations that previously found serious misconduct in the Nixon White House made the public’s angry reaction to the firing of the special prosecutor–and the House response with impeachment proceedings–virtually inevitable. Early in 1973, once it appeared that the cover-up might involve the White House, the Senate created a select committee to investigate. The committee held hearings and uncovered critical evidence, including the existence of a White House taping system that could resolve the issue of presidential complicity. The Senate also forced the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Other committees looked into related matters. None of the investigations were prompted by the idea of impeachment. Still, they laid the groundwork for it–and the evidence they turned up was used by the House impeachment panel to prepare articles of impeachment against Nixon.
The same approach can govern now. Senate and House committees must commence serious investigations that could uncover more evidence to support impeachment. The investigations should ascertain the full extent of the President’s deceptions, exaggerations and lies that drove us into the Iraq War. (They can simply in effect resurrect Republican Senator Howard Baker’s famous questions about Richard Nixon: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”) Congress should also explore the wiretapping that has violated the FISA law, the President’s role in mistreatment of detainees and his gross indifference to the catastrophe facing the residents of New Orleans from Katrina.
Investigations should also be conducted into Vice President Cheney’s meetings with oil company executives at the outset of the Administration. If divvying up oil contracts in Iraq were discussed, as some suggest, this would help prove that the Iraq War had been contemplated well before 9/11, and that a key motivation was oil. Inquiries into Halliburton’s multibillion-dollar no-bid contracts should also be conducted, particularly given Cheney’s ties to the company.
White House documents about Katrina that have not already been turned over to Congress should be sought to document further the President’s failure to discharge his constitutional duty to help the people of New Orleans.
Our country’s Founders provided the power of impeachment to prevent the subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has subverted and defied the Constitution in many ways. His defiance and his subversion continue.
Failure to impeach Bush would condone his actions. It would allow him to assume he can simply continue to violate the laws on wiretapping and torture and violate other laws as well without fear of punishment. He could keep the Iraq War going or expand it even further than he just has on the basis of more lies, deceptions and exaggerations. Remember, as recently as October 26, Bush said, “Absolutely, we are winning” the war in Iraq–a blatant falsehood. Worse still, if Congress fails to act, Bush might be emboldened to believe he may start another war, perhaps against Iran, again on the basis of lies, deceptions and exaggerations.
There is no remedy short of impeachment to protect us from this President, whose ability to cause damage in the next two years is enormous. If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman
I saw a news story on tv last night about a bill in the legislature that would allow locals to pass laws that would keep sex offenders from living next to schools.
I would have thought that such restrictions were in place. Why does it seem that there has to be some terrible event before our lawmakers do something to protect families?
Did you see that Jim Ryun is boohooing that the media is why he was expelled?
kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/16555485.htm
STOP CALLING THE IRAQ WAR A WAR!
The correct term is Police Action…
From WiKiPeDia…
Sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, the United States Constitution, Article One, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war.
Five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war.
However, beginning with the Korean War, American presidents have not sought formal declarations of war, instead maintaining that they have the constitutional authority, as commander in chief (Article Two, Section Two) to use the military for “police actions”.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Its constitutionality has never been tested as Congress has always passed the required authorization when requested by the president.
Some legal scholars maintain that all military action taken without a Congressional declaration of war (regardless of the War Powers Resolution) is unconstitutional; however, the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the matter.
Its about time that someone says something regarding the fact that Congress has never “declared war” against Iraq. This is BUSH’S WAR (W. and his dad).
Its time for this to end, there is a time for every parent to let their child loose on the world. Its time for us to cut Iraq loose. If THEY choose to have a civil war, than that’s their problem, we can NOT stop that.
End It Now.
Whoops, forgot the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause
Tony: You said it all in your last three sentences.
Thanks RM…
Cant wait to see the righties say when they get out of their Sunday morning brainwashing meetings…
Good post Tony.
I have been quietly advising that we should stop allowing the use of the word war for some time.
Even in the broadest sense of the word, the “war” in Iraq was over in three weeks. Our trops won. To suggest otherwise is to insult the troops.
We need a NEW word for bush’s continued misadventure in Iraq……..
Any ideas?
The right wing-nuts are still in Topeka recovering from their hangovers. The koolaid was drunk in large quantities after the GOP chair election yesterday!
JR;
How about failed empire building? Call it what it was: an invasion- an unprovocted act of war.
JR: Clusterfuck ??
This is a war, there is no other term for it, and it’s not finished yet.
I don’t care what technicality it is called, but it is a war- and the men and women deserve the recognition of being war veterans.
I don’t think I cought the answer to this question, JR: The 401(k) that you redeemed, was it invested in stocks and/or bonds of American corporations?
Combat veterans, I believe, is a more appropriate term. Sitting behind a desk 3,000 miles away from the action in a certain year does not make one a “war” veteran.
Nah political mom ….
Refusing to call what is happening in Iraq a war does not diminish the troops.
They already won the “war”. It is not their fault the occupation was badly orchestrated and the peace virtually impossible. The troops have completed each mission as the overall mission has evolved. It’s just bush’s latest mission (a free and secure Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror) can not be accomplished. This may or may not be intentional.
No bush does not get to call this a war anymore. That lets him drag in and involve and blame others for what is basically his fault.
They’re ALL important positions rm, it makes me very upset that you think differently.
Serving during wartime IS important. Whether it’s the drill sargent training new troops at home, whether it’s the desk clerk distributing the checks, whether it is the officials who have to give the news of their spouse’s death…all very important.
It’s not the same thing, no, but to minimalize their service as less important is sad.
You’ve totally missed the point. I did not say they were not important. Indeed, they certainly are. I’m just making the distinction that there’s a hell of a difference between a paper cut and an RPG.
I disagree with you here JR. It’s a war, for better or for worse.
And none of this is our troops’ fault. They are all winners regardless of the outcome.
pmom thinks the accountant at the Pentagon in DC is the same as the troop in Bagdad.Brilliant!
Now that Hanoi Jane is in the mix, does that mean that in the next sniper video showing our soldiers being shot we see on CNN will also show Jane handing the rounds to the sniper??
Just wondering!
You are right there. We have the finest troops in the world. We have General Officers who are brilliant and could be making millions in the “outside”. Yet, they choose to stay because they believe in what they’re doing and their country.
And the f**king politicians, who couldn’t find a herd of buffalo in a phone booth during a 3 foot snowstorm, RUN THE SHOW !!! What’s wrong with this picture????
Where’s that big finger when we need it. It’d be appropriate here.
Will she giggle gleefully when the soldier drops and tell the sniper what a great shot he is?
political mom You have let your very noble regard for the troops to bring them to blame for what is bush’s folly. See? Bush’s “vision” or latest incarnation of it for Iraq is simply not achievable. I think almost everyone agrees on that. Even Nathan acknowledges that bush’s timetable is dishonest or unrealistic. If WE keep calling it a war, it is something WE all can lose, the troops too. We need a term that will place what is happening in Iraq firmly where it belongs on george bush. The troops do not deserve the stain of HIS failure.
Yeah Jane Fonda is not going to help anyone over here… be it US Military or Iraqi.
Yeah, we (the US Military) won this war with pretty much just the Air Force and little help from the ground-pounders… But almost immediately afterwards, the civilians took over and implemented their half-assed plan…
I can’t decide what is worse. The fact that we rushed in here on some BS Intel and (what I personally believe) lies from the White House or how we had no plan for the occupation and reconstruction…
Let me say, I think we have an obligation to win this war because we really fucked up, and we need to take care of it.
But to win, (I think) we need at least 300,000 troops to ensure control and eventual victory. But the problem then lies with America herself. The vast majority of the American people have no faith in our administration (and I don’t blame them). I don’t believe the support exists for that kind of troop increase whether it is support from Congress, the American people, or the weary soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen.
Yet I am willing to give this “surge” a chance. Not just because I have to, but even though I believe it will most likely not be enough, I really want to help fix this mess.
But as I told both of my Senators (from Texas, still Bush Cronies), if after a May there is still no visible progress, then its time to face facts and get us out.
Fleet is a little over his head here so all he has got is cheap shots a P-mom.
You go girl!
Anyone else think that these creepy posts from “…” are way over the line?
“…” threatens to send those with whom “…” disagrees on a “Baghdad taxi ride” or other kinds of beatings.
This is political intimidation of the Brownshirt variety, and I do not use Nazi terminology loosely.
Plus outing personal information about Andrew and Richard Heckler in another blatant attempt at further Brownshirt intimidation.
WE editors, isn’t it time you provided some responsible moderation of this site? I for one would be willing to pay the price of registering a valid email address in return for this moderation.
“…” is making the WE a creepy place to be, way creepy.
Right… he is trying to intimidate me with his Wiki/Google knowledge. Whatever, he is just a troll.
But I do have to mention that someone took my email, and now I a recieving 2-3 Sexually-Explicit emails a day… That pisses me off.
Yeah, I’d say that by now anybody using a live email address is a real target for thugs like “…”.
Without site moderation (i.e., allowing posters like “…” to divulge the personal information of those with whom s/he disagrees) this place is going to get way worse if only because the only links to the real people behind the writers here are the ISP addresses stored in the Eagle’s Typepad account.
“…”’s posts are some VERY creepy stuff.
The eagle staff discussed this at the meeting.
smart move: use an email that you can easily kill if you start getting beau coup unsolicited messages.
In a well-run forum for ideas, to which I assume the WE Blog aspires, posts of “…”’s kind would be trashed (no longer visible to the public but stored by the site owners, and the ISP addresses logged), “…” would be warned against such postings in the future, and if s/he keeps it up then s/he is banned from posting in the future. Although posters would be required to submit a valid email to post here, they banning wouldn’t be accomplished by this email address. Instead, anyone posting from the ISP address of the trashed posts would be banned.
Simple, safe, effective: posters are free to maintain their desired level of anonymity, but at the same time the kind of thug behavior displayed by “…” is not tolerated.
Because “…” is way over the line here.
“Right… he is trying to intimidate me with his Wiki/Google knowledge. Whatever, he is just a troll.
But I do have to mention that someone took my email, and now I a recieving 2-3 Sexually-Explicit emails a day… That pisses me off.”
That is what I said. Explain how that is crying about what you said. I know where you got that info, and I don’t care.
The best approach is to just ignore “…” rather than feed the beast. I used to allow myself to get PO’ed, but now I just ignore certain posters.
Ignoring posters like “…” is *an* approach, but imo it’s not the best approach. The best approach is when the site owners act more responsibly and actively weed out such posts, followed by a procedure to ban the poster of future occurrences.
That’s the BEST approach.
“That’s the BEST approach.”
Agreed, but the WE staff does not own the blog, so their hands are tied.
Well, to whoever does own the blog, I ask you.
Do you provide your most responsible posters the very best place to post their ideas when you also allow posters like “…” to threaten possibly these same posters?
Is this the best way to treat your most responsible guests, those who write here under their real names?
ANS: Not in a million years.
… is I have to admit over the line on most posts.
I suggest we just ignore him, I think he just feeds on our attention!
“write in here under their real names”
Dumb.
Dumb, yeah. Like the guy who throws his body over a live grenade to save his buddies, or the guy who works as a greeter and chases the robbers out of the store, or the lady who takes in her niece’s kids until her niece can “figure things out.”
Note that this kind of “dumb” also leads to positive increases in social order. Just as writing here under one’s own name makes one responsible for what one writes is better for society.
Just because “…” is now free to threaten others doesn’t make his level of freedom the ideal state.
Whoever owns the site can do better.
I responded to it once, and got quite a chuckle at its empty riposte.
Don’t feed the troll, folks.
Elipses: an empty pause between words, or an indication that something has been deliberately omitted. Quite an good choice of nic, actually.
Thanks for posting with the three dots, three dots troll.
It makes it easy to spot your posts and ignore them.
Gene RaLston–
Jane Fonda isn’t laughing when our boys die for your president’s lies.
You’re confusing her with yourself when you heard that John Kennedy and Martin Luther King were shot.
You giggled like the little girl you are . . .
Yeah, Pedant is against irresponsible free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc.
If Andrew doesn’t post personal information about himself here, then it shouldn’t be posted by anyone else. This is simple, a basic rule of civil discourse.
Anyone who posts personal info about others at this website should lose his/her rights to post here.
Another simple rule.
Editors?
KomradeAmerika <– proved his meaninglessness when he resorted to that old middle school ploy of calling someone “peckerwood”.
GoofNut–
What’s that you say, Peckerwood?
Hi all,
Life sucks living out of suitcase.No time to read blog now. Some good southern cooking being prepared. bye!
“Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating since Nixon. Here’s another coincidence.
Nixon had a dog named ‘Checkers.’
Bush plays checkers with his dog”
– David Letterman
..and usually beats his dog.
Thank you, editors/moderator.
…No, thank you Pedant…Dances on the head of a pin…
I saw a great vest patch at Run for the Wall in DC…it said:
“I will forgive Jane Fonda the day that the Jews forgive Hitler”
She gave aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war, which is the pure definition of treason. She should be hanged…slowly.
Although the terrible revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib hit the front pages in April 2004, no senior officials in the US military or the Bush Administration have yet been held accountable. The scandal has shamed and outraged many Americans, in addition to creating a greater threat of terrorism against the United States. But it has prompted no investigative commission (in the manner of the 9/11 commission) with a mandate to find the whole truth, or full-scale bipartisan Congressional hearings, as occurred during Watergate. Indeed, it is as though the Watergate investigations ended with the prosecution of only the burglars, which is what the cover-up was designed to insure, instead of reaching into the highest levels of government, which is what ultimately happened.
In just the latest sign of the current Administration’s nose-thumbing at accountability for higher-ups, Lieut. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq when the Abu Ghraib abuses occurred, is reportedly under consideration for promotion.
Nonetheless, higher-ups can be held to account. Difficult as it may be to achieve, our institutions of government can be pressured to do the right thing. If the public and the media insist on thorough investigations and appropriate punishments for those implicated–all the way up the chain of command–they can prevail.
Several episodes from recent history illustrate how public opposition can change even the most entrenched government policy. Neither President Johnson nor President Nixon wanted to withdraw from Vietnam, but growing public anger forced Congress, finally, to end the war. Likewise, in Watergate, Congress did not commence impeachment proceedings to hold President Nixon accountable for his abuse of power until the American people demanded action after the Saturday Night Massacre (in which Nixon ordered the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to keep him from getting incriminating personal tape recordings). And, of course, the most important example from the past fifty years is the civil rights movement, which brought down the system of segregation in the South through sustained and peaceful public protest.
The War Crimes Act of 1996
No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales, then-White House counsel to George W. Bush and now US Attorney General, expressed deep concern about possible prosecutions under the:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman
Jane Fonda should not have done what she did, there is no doubt. But she didn’t commit treason. She spoke her beliefs against the war in Vietnam.
Whoa I just saw “The Manchurian Candidate” for the first time today.
The character “Raymond”? The guy who is the manchurian canididate? I don’t know who that actor was but he is a ringer for Sam Brownback!
SO from now on I will refer to Sam Brownback as the manchurian candidate.
Oh and by the way? At the WEblog meetup the editors let us know that Brownbacks office in particular monitors our musings here.
Let’s show ‘em the “love”!
Where’s that finger when we need it?
J.R.: You saw the new one with Denzel Washington. The guy that you are talking about is Liev Schreiber. The movie was first made in ‘62 with Frank Sinatra and Laurance Harvey in those respective roles. The remake (that you saw) is better, but mostly because of the technology advancements of 40+ years. The ‘62 original is worth your time if you can find it, even though it’s in black and white.
The blog is kindof boring tonight. Lets talk about something fun.
A re-read of this thread suggests that the editors are alert to your activities mr(…)and that some earlier posts of yours were removed.
I need to tell you that the editors and the bloggers at the meetup on BOTH sides agreed to address trollers proactively. One person who was a persistent problem has been permanently blocked.You may be next…
rm
No I saw the original “Manchurian candidate” today on the Ameirican movie classics. I was not aware there was a remake. I need to find out who the actor who looked like Brownback was.
…cry babies on this blog…post with a different view this is trolling?…laughs…looks like lefties are cry babies…limp, impotent…whiners…
I ask the editors to bring special attention on the blogger calling himself “…”
JR,
Was it Lawrence Harvey?
If you ever have any questions about movies, actors/actresses, directors, TV and the rest, try:
http://imdb.com
Internet Movie DataBase
Yes, it was Lawrance Harvey.
A sad moment: They just broke in on the radio and announced that Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro was put down this morning.
Very sad, RM. As a native son of Kentucky, I was rooting for that horse to make it against the odds.
He had spirit. He had courage. He had determination.
He will be missed.
That is sad.
Hey, isn’t today Kansas Day?
Happy Birthday Kansas!