Letters to the Editor
-
timeline
What jumps out at me is the urgency of pushing this thing forward during March 2004. What was going on at this time? Oh yeah, a presidential election.
-
IngSoc:
That wasn't a mathematical certainty or ESP, it's called a hypothetical (which clearly draws the line between patriots and traitors). BTW: your side was able to find 29 Senators to vote with al Qaeda today -- good luck with that!!!
P.S. to sajwan -- we'll have to see which Knight is standing on January 20, 2009 ; )
-
Impeach Gonzales. Impeach Cheney. Impeach Bush
Yet another stake to drive into the heart of the Bush administration. Why won't Pelosi let the dogs out to hunt?
-
@ kovie
I was just teasing, of course. ;-) Not that you were intentionally looking for him on other blogs, but the fact that you found him on one was something that I found kind of funny. Think of him as the dolphin you caught while trolling for tuna. Or, perhaps more appropriately, the sea worm you caught while trolling for signs of intelligent life forms.
Actually, I spotted him the millisecond he stepped in the front door here several threads back. I just wanted to highlight some of his "greatest hits" so that people will know exactly what they're dealing with and respond appropriately.
"Jake" is a Ph.D historian, a vet, a registered "independent", an old man horrified by today's incivility, fluent in many languages, and an expert on the law ... and -- mirabile dictu -- echos every "talking point" of the RW Mighty Wurlitzer over and over again (not to mention throwing in "red herrings" as fast as he can shovel 'em into an conversation to distract and disrupt).
Cheers,
-
I'm not afraid (much)
of the government spying on me to find out what I'm doing wrong.
I'm much more terrified that the government is spying on me to find out what I am doing right!
And I think that it what they were doing.
-
Is there any reason
on God's green earth that Gonzales cannot be impeached now? (Not to mention his boss....)
One, maybe. Don't solve the Republicans problems for them. Make them do it. Checkmate them legally, but make them repudiate their own rot, or not.
They'll be impeached, don't you see, 'just before they could set the whole thing straight'.
-
bucky1
I do not obsess over what a delusional, moronic and/or hateful 20-30% of the country believe or don't believe. We are sadly burdened with their presence--especially folks like you who have to endure them up close--but so long as they can be put in their place marginalized, they can only do so much harm.
I am encouraged by the growing ranks of self-identified Democrats, who are both growing in number and becoming more politically aware and active, by both outrage at the past and present and hope for the future. The one positive outcome of the Bush years may well be to have caused this. We now outnumber the former by a decent margin. And we're smarter.
I am, though, somewhat worried, as you are, by those in the political middle, neither red nor blue, but voting for whichever side does the best job of winning them over each election cycle--if they bother to vote at all. These are the people who made Bush possible. No, he didn't win--either time in my opinion--but they allowed him to get close enough that he could cheat his way just barely over the top. They bought into the "compassionate conservative" bullshit the first time around, and the "Osama's going to come and git ya if ya vote Democrat" bullshit the second time around.
And it is these people who voted Dem last fall, in part due to their disgust with GOP corruption. All the exit polls showed this. It was Iraq, corruption and incompetence. Do you really think these people want Libby to go free, whatever lies Andrea Mitchell tells? Do you really think these people want Gonzo to remain as AG? Do you really think these people believe that BushCo are honest and decent people?
If so, why did they vote blue last fall? It took them forever to catch on, but they can now see for themselves just how high the rot goes in this administration, and how broad and deep it is. We're nowhere near impeachment yet and already 40% of the country supports it. That is an astounding figure. Just imagine what it'll be when those other shoes drop--and they will.
It remains to be seen just how aggressively and smartly Dems will go after BushCo, and what the courts will do to support or obstruct them. I am cautiously and hesitantly optimistic about both. Dems have both the desire and motivation to go after them, if not out of principle, then out of political calculation--it's a surefire winner for '08, as it was for '06, and they know that the public won't view it as a "witch hunt", but as justice persued.
Sure, the courts may present certain problems, but I'm not convinced that they're so packed with Bush cronies that they will uniformly rule in favor of BushCo. Hamdi and Hamdan proved that to me. They may allow Bush, Cheney and some others to avoid the worst, but I doubt that they'll allow all of them to get away totally clean. They are politically astute and know that the country wants justice and a housecleaning, and don't want to be saddled with the reputation of having let BushCo get away with its crimes for the rest of their careers. Vanity and the hope of future promotions will take care of that--cynicism works both ways, you know.
But I do have a problem with knee-jerk cynical pronouncements that basically state that "life's a bitch, deal with it". Such "analyses" are neither helpful nor true. They're also quite lazy and naive, because they don't account for Nixon's fall or FDR, and they tend to view our times as somehow unique in historical perspective. They are not. History is filled with regimes like Bush's--and with their eventual overthrow or downfall and ensuing progressive eras.
But if it's easier for you to see things through a glass, darkly, go right ahead. You're just playing right into their hands, because they WANT us to feel discouraged and give up.