Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

Rich Miles

Published Letters: 68
Editor's Choice: 3

Sunday, July 8, 2007 08:45 PM

Rules for wussing out

There have to be some limits to how quickly and thoroughly this bunch of slimeballs can be allowed to turn tail. I propose this:

For every single day a Repugnican congressman or senator (or a Democratic one, as rare as they are) supported the war and Bush, s/he must shut the f*ck up a day. I mean total silence on any issue of any description before the House or Senate - he or she must not express any opinion good bad or indifferent.

For every speech on the floor of either house of Congress or in front of more than 3 constituents or one TV camera in support of the war, they must STFU for a MONTH!

Thus they wouldn't be allowed to crawfish out of their craven support of the Bush Crime Family and their war of choice.

Under these rules, some of these bastards wouldn't be able to offer their thoughts on anything more important than their choice of paper or plastic before the turn of the next century.

I mean, fer feck's sake wasn't this, this mass lemming leap of Repug Bush-worshippers, predictable enough?? *I* saw it coming three years ago, just about this soon before the 04 elections, so it couldn't have been much of a secret.

This kind of cowardice and hypocrisy makes my guts roll. People DIED, you assh*les!!! It wasn't about politics, or Bush's reelection, or a "permanent Repug majority" - it was about BLOOD! and death and dying in huge numbers. And you can't get off the hook this easily.

Not by my rules, anyway.

Monday, July 9, 2007 08:06 AM

@Jack Hughes, here's another mythos for you

You may be right, Mr. Hughes, that the neocon mythmakers will go for the "stab in the back" play.

However, I'd propose that it's more likely they'll find a way, at the point in time when it's simply unavoidable, to make it BUSH'S IDEA to withdraw the troops, and blame it on the Dems and other opponents for taking so long. I mean hell, they've done it for years now: the 9/11 Commission, dropping SocSec reform, AND the ISG recommendations: resist till they can't resist any longer, then call it their idea.

It's not a perfect comparison, but there are features of interest...

I fully expect that, if it can't be pushed off to the next administration (assuming he leaves office in 09), this will be the way they'll go.

Monday, July 9, 2007 12:25 PM

Robert Lewis, Sir:

...There's no doubt that the Opus Dei crowd - Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, will support King George, but in August of 06, Kennedy keynote addressed the ABA and said:

The rule of law applies to the government and all of its officers.

One can only hope he is a man of his word.

Oh you poor, naive child. Didn't you read Kennedy's opinion in Carhart?

Justice Kennedy has officially gone over to the Dark Side. And as a result, we are so screwed when all this shit hits the various fans toward which it is now in flight.

Monday, July 9, 2007 12:34 PM

And besides...

If the 5-4 opinion comes down against him, he'll just say screw it, and go ahead and do whatever he wants anyway.

I mean, seriously: can you tell me what enforcement mechanism there is to arrest a sitting president who just literally or figuratively says, "I dare you to stop me" or worse? US Marshals? Capital Police? What?

Who will do it? Seriously?

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 06:18 AM
Original article: Cindy Sheehan's wrong turn

Best, Political. Move. Ever

I wish I could claim this idea for myself, but I can't.

On a Buzzflash comment thread the other day on the topic of impeachment, a commenter said more or less the following:

If the Dems would stop saying that impeachment's off the table, and would instead simply grab onto the wave of Republican defections, they might be able to impeach Bush and make it a truly bipartisan effort. Or at least have the ability to blame the whole thing on the R's.

Instead of "impeachment off the table", how about "Republicans, on the issue of impeachment, we're ready when you are"?

I'm sure all you political cynics here on Salon, Ms. Walsh foremost among them, will find ways to destroy this idea, but I think it's brilliant: classic "putting the ball in the opposition's court." Plus, to me it would seem to almost completely remove the Republicans' kneejerk tendency to defend their party's leader no matter how wrong they believe he is.

I mean, under this plan, what better way for every single member of both houses of Congress to have his/her position put on public record?

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 02:01 PM
Original article: The National Review mind

@NelsonC, I'll tell you who I feel sorry for...

I feel sorry for people like the ones profiled in this article on the cruise ship. It must be an awful existence, to have no other center to your life than to look to someone like Bush, or Podhoretz, or Goldberg et al., in order to know who to hate and fear. And then to have to hate and fear them CONSTANTLY - I mean, what a tiring and painful existence.

Hey, at least most of us lefties take a day off from our BDS occasionally...

Most Active Letters Threads

740

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
406

Do Obama officials know what his Afghanistan plan is?

What explains the completely contradictory statements from key aides on a central plank of the war strategy?
402

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
319

Palin: Birthers have "fair question" about Obama

Of Obama birth, the ex-governor says, "the public is still, rightfully, making it an issue" (Updated)
211

The poster boy for progressive self-delusion

Read Hayden's 2008 Obama endorsement to remember the way the left sold our centrist president to itself

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon