We're talking about a Congress that won't even censure the President. They won't even oppose anything he wants. They repeatedly endorse the most extremist and lawless aspects of his presidency.

And yet you think that impeachment is an actual possibility? From this Congress? I know it feels really good and purifying and energizing to be the most radical one in the room, but I'm more interested in outcomes that are within the realm of what's real.

-- GlennGreenwald

Whether it is "an actual possibility" is not the point and you damn well know that. And you still have only given a partial answer to the question... Censure isn't/wasn't possible and yet you mention it and give Feingold props so why not Kucinich and impeachment? Where is the Act Blue netroots support for that? Where is the netroots support for attacking the root of our problems like Pelosi and Reid and yes BushCo instead of some minor sycophant that few outside of his district have ever heard of? (I have forgotten his name already)

Impeachment is "radical" now? That is where you are at this point? It no longer is the correct, lawful and constitutional way to oust an out-of-control, lawless, monarchical executive? It is radical. I think I am beginning to see...

No, it doesn't "feel really good" to be the considered the most radical. I would normally embrace such a description, given that the antonym of radical is conservative, but in this place, in this comments section to the blog Unclaimed Territory, I find the realization that that is how you see me, that that is rhetoric you would use in an attempt to marginalize people advocating for fundamental change and true citizen control of our government, depressing in the extreme. It is depressing because, if I am the most radical -- if I represent the most radical element, with my crazy-radical ideas of impeachment and advocacy for real measures of action which would produce lasting change -- then I know for a fact that we are well and truly screwed.

So, let me address the non-radical... the (by definition) conservative readers and commenters who make up the vast majority of the UT community one final time.

We live in an era of unprecedented lawlessness and corruption where our "representatives" no longer resemble that descriptive title in any meaningful way. Our very system of government is so corrupted and dominated by corporate/moneyed interests that it has actually become, in many ways, a machine of anti-populace intention and sentiment. The rule of law is a farce used to subjugate and dominate the little guy. The constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper that isn't worth much because no one cares about the rule of law and civil liberties if they are dead. This is our system as it is now. This is the state of the empire. We all know this. Our representatives and their corporate/MIC partners, working within the system that we have allowed them to fashion in their image, will do everything within their power to perpetuate and maintain this status quo. They are not afraid of us. They will not fundamentally change their ways because of begging, complaining, phone calls and stern letter writing.

This establishment system does not allow good intentioned, decent, responsible and responsive representatives of the people to operate unimpeded. It corrupts those it can and marginalizes the few it cannot. As a result, and as any reasonable, logical and realistic assessment would dictate, the "more and better Democrats" plan is not an answer and it will never be. The major players in the so called "liberal" netroots -- Daily Kos, FireDogLake, Digby, Greenwald, etc, -- are selling you a bill of goods. We the People will either have to recognize that and change our tactics or live with the consequences of our inaction, with the consequences of focusing on "outcomes that are within the realm of what's real," because, what some of us believe is the best way to achieve what is "real," is, in fact, fantasy.

What is with the use of "falsehood(s)?" Why not just lie(s)? Is "lie" unserious?" While they are synonymous obviously, falsehood makes it seem like he is just wrong... he just got it wrong, potentially unintentionally. Lie doesn't make that mistake... it could never be misinterpreted in that way. It also holds more punch. The use of falsehood makes it seem like there is wiggle room or there is potential that he doesn't mean to lie.

John Yoo is a fucking liar. So is Bush. So are Cheney and Rice and damn near every other crank conservative on God's green earth. Falsehood makes it seem like you are scared to call him what he is. Falsehood is a Joe Klein word. A David Broder word.

John Yoo's ongoing falsehoods in service...

John Yoo's ongoing lies in service...

Which reads and sounds more accurate?