Letters to the Editor

• Typical conservative response ... obfuscate and divert ...

  [Read the article: Bush and Cheney walk, too]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  To those neo-con apologists still defending this administration, when will you wise-up and act not only in your best interests but those of the country? To compare the actions of this administration with any other in history is as disengenuous as it is wrong-headed. Even your hero Reagan would've cut these guys loose by now.

  To Sic Semper Morannis ... I suggest you stick to the point and quit obfuscating the arguement, a typical conservative debate tactic. When you can't win the debate on it's merits, you change the subject. You may well be justified in pointing out that Marc Rich was inexcusably pardoned by Clinton if you hold that ALL pardons are inexcusable. Then your standard can be applied because all are the same.

  Most here don't seek to defend Clinton's pardons. Why? Because it's not germane to the debate. However, let's be clear on one thing, Marc Rich was not part of the Clinton Administration nor did he act on it's behalf at any point; a not insignificant distinction. Libby was part of this White House and as such, whether in word or deed, directly or indirectly, his actions were that of the Administration's. As Mr. Blumenthal accurately points out, Bush's pardon is self-serving as it grants clemency to someone who's conviction was based on actions he engaged in while employed by the White House.

  You speak of hypocrisy. Let's be careful how we throw that term around ... you know the admonishment of glass houses and stones. Maybe we can use the word 'inconsistent' instead.

  Bush famously said he'd "deal with anyone who leaked". I guess we should have asked him to be more precise. Perhaps he meant he'd CUT a deal with anyone who leaked rather than punish anyone who leaked. Shame on us for taking The Decider at his word. I guess pardon and commute are the same thing as 'deal' in his lexicon.

  I think Chris Matthews summed it up best ...

  “For him (Bush) to say that the penalty is 'excessive' may well be true, but it was the same crime that President Bill Clinton was impeached for by a Republican House of Representatives and in which 50 U.S. senators, Republicans, voted to remove him from office. So Republicans as a party thought perjury and obstruction of justice were sufficient to remove a twice-elected president from office. And now the president is saying that 30 months in prison is an excessive penalty for the same exact crime. It’s inconsistent.”

  The Decider's actions are yet another in a growing list of inconsistencies and falsehoods that hold his imperial presidency above the laws of this land. He has at least been consistent about his loyalty to his own and his disdain for accountability. Is this what he meant by restoring honor and dignity to the White House?

  Permalink Thursday, July 5, 2007 11:06 AM

• Herd the sheeple toward the cliff?

  [Read the article: The three stooges]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Like most here, I fear the only recourse left to our foundering Democracy is nothing short of impeachment proceedings on this Adminstration. I live in California and I now intend to write my repugnican congressman and Pelosi and Boxer and Feinstein weekly to push for impeachment. We have no other choice.

  The nature of power is that those who gain it cling to it like claws to a branch. The same is true for the Dems who now cling to a small vestige of power and they're afraid it might slip from their grasp. Thus, they propose timid and half-baked resolutions designed to look like they're doing something when in fact, as is amply pointed out in these pages, nothing actually changes. I give credit to Leahy and Conyers and Inslee who appear to have found their spines and won't be easily warned off but where's the support? Our Congress now takes on the look and action of someone who inadvertently enables an alcoholic or addict ... a not so subtle reference to the Current Occupant. An enabler worries and gnashes their teeth and threatens the addict but in the end, the behavior doesn't change because nothing of consequence occurred. This admin knows this all too well and fears not the consequences.

  We must now ask, ney demand, that the Democratic leadership do the bold thing to save the nation, perhaps placing themselves in jeopardy to do so. The fire of Democracy demands sacrifice and perhaps Pelosi and Reid et all should put aside their agendas and understand that, unless we prosecute this administration, they will reap the whirlwind. Hollow victory the WH would be in 2009, no? I have said for years that the RCS views the White House as their personal property and they will act accordingly. Hell, they'll even engage in "slash & burn" if it suits their needs.

  There is no appeasement for this crowd. There is no bargaining. They're hypocrites and hyperbolic to the core. They understand power and the use of power. Use the power of indictment and impeachment and herd the sheeple toward the cliff of reason and enlightenment. As one poster pointed out, "how can you expect to accomplish that which you're afraid to begin?" It's about critical mass ... once you initiate the reaction, it becomes self-sustaining. I submit that once it starts, the people of this nation will rise and demand justice from their Congress. They serve at our pleasure, never ever forget that.

  We require bold action of our representatives, write your senators and congressmen and demand they support the saving of our nation and stop enabling these criminals. Call bulls**t on anyone who accuses you of being unpatriotic or supporting partisan politics and politely tell them to go f**k themselves and take a lesson in civics and history while they're at it!

  IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!

  Permalink Thursday, August 2, 2007 03:42 PM