Letters to the Editor
-
@ Michael Harold
Our politicians say they are being practical. They are not being practical at all. They are being deceitful and disingenuous.
In a word, they are being "politicians". If you believe any promise a politician makes during a campaign, you get the government you deserve. Or as Mencken said: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
That's how Bush got into a pposition to get [s]elected by his pals on the SCOTUS. By touting Compassionate Conservatism and a promise to restore honoor to the Oval Office. How's that working out? I wish I could allay your fears about Iran. It's not as likely to happen as you think. I'm not saying it won't happen. Anything is possible but too many sane people are not on boarrd with that. That's Cheney's baby. He's not even part of the executive branch if you recall.
-
I'm not so sure about nabalzbbfr
He originally posted that remark on April 25th, at Michael Froomkin's blog, Discourse. net. To have kept it on his computer for nearly three months means he possibly regards it as the pinnacle of his literary experience.
-
Re: nabalzbbfr
Not satire.
-
missed one promise
"By touting Compassionate Conservatism and a promise to restore honoor to the Oval Office."
"Honor and Accountability"
-
Stop prosecuting an INNOCENT MAN!!!
Our president is not some "convict" you can just beat up on he is our brave commander in chief at a time of war when our brave fighting troop's are in harm's way to publicly accuse him of being a secertcy kind of guy borders on outragous!!! You have NO RIZGHT to infer that our commander in chief has to tell YOU what happened to Tillman which is CLEARLY a intelligents matter that would place our brave troops in harm's way in grave jepoerdy. And to infer that our president and commander in chief in a time of war is breaking the law borders ON TREASON!!! You can't prosecute our commander in chief this WAY!!! You MUST CEASE AND?OR DIDIST THIS KIND OF TREASONABLE ACTIVITY'S AT THIS POINT IN TIME RIGHT NOW!!! We don't ned to learn what happened to Tillman what our commander in chief told us is god enough for me and it's the truth anyway so WHY don't you stop trying to invent "scandels" where there aren't any if any of you "liberals' had ever served in our graet nation's uniform you'd understand what I'm talking about abd why you have NO RIGHT to slander our commander in chief at a time OF WAR!!!
-
rollotomasi
You state that John Dean "is correct about impeachment being a political process, and one presumably can extend this political context to contempt of Congress proceedings."
I would disagree strongly with you and Dean. I would say that impeachment is a bedrock principle of our Constitution which provides for the removal of those who have broken the law and are no longer fit to serve in public office.
What is political is the calculus of whether a bill bringing articles can pass and then be followed by conviction. Just because very poor decisions were made on this point in the past should have no bearing on choosing to move forward when it is warranted. In fact, arguments have been presented that the Constitution actually requires Congress to move forward with impeachment at this point, given the level of lawlessness demonstrated by the Bush Administration.
I would agree that speculation on the advisability of bringing charges now compared to last December is intriguing. I would add that Bush's response to the new amendment proposed by Warner and Lugar may play a large role for those reading the Senate tea leaves on this issue. In fact, Shailagh Murray actually writes the f-word (fillibuster) today in discussing the amendment.
Stay tuned, things could get very interesting in the next sixty days. (Snark alert, that amounts to 0.33 Friedman Units)
-
"Totally anathema to a democratic society"
From Bill Moyers:
"[Bush's crimes are more] worrisome than Clinton's because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don't have any right to know what he's doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He's claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015380.php
Jim White:
What is political is the calculus of whether a bill bringing articles can pass and then be followed by conviction. Just because very poor decisions were made on this point in the past should have no bearing on choosing to move forward when it is warranted. In fact, arguments have been presented that the Constitution actually requires Congress to move forward with impeachment at this point, given the level of lawlessness demonstrated by the Bush Administration.
Why do Republicans hate America?
-
John Dean was right: INHERENT CONTEMPT is the best option.
Here's one of the problems with civil enforcement under 28USC1365.
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title28/28usc1365.html
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have original jurisdiction ... over any civil action brought by the Senate ... to prevent a threatened refusal or failure to comply with, any subpena ...
... This section shall not apply to ... an officer or employee of the executive branch of the Federal Government acting within his or her official capacity, except that this section shall apply if the refusal to comply is based on the assertion of a personal privilege or objection and is not based on a governmental privilege or objection the assertion of which has been authorized by the executive branch of the Federal Government.
-
It is the failure to act
That is at the root of why Congress has managed, in but 6 months, to shoot down below the President in approval. It is not because the GOP is filibustering everything, it is not because they "just don't have the votes" to do, well, anything at all. It is because they DO, in fact, have all the power necessary to actually end all this but they adamantly REFUSE to use it. They are obstinately turning away from their legitimate and necessary powers and acting in concert with the Administration to simply run out the clock with NOTHING resolved.
I can ONLY assume that the Dems do not want to strip the President of the dictatorial powers he claims...because they want those powers for Hillary or Obama (the two the establishment Dems expect to be their DLC-picked leader), and assume that they can't lose and simply give these same powers to Guiliani or Thompson. They are in cahoots with Bush/Cheney for a little dictatorship, so long as THEY are the dictators.
Irrespective of the GOP obstructionism (that the Dems COULD handily do away with if they WANTED TO...otherwise, where was this supermagicpower the GOP minority is wielding when the DEMS were in the minority?!), it is the FACT that the Dems are so very stubborn in their do-nothingness. They virtually wallow in their ineffectualness.