When Tom Friedman justified the war on Iraq with his infamous and depraved comment that Iraqis needed to "Suck. On. This.," he might have been able to argue that he was using hyperbole and was not to be taken too literally. The argument would have been dishonest, of course: a bit too much brio, a bit too much relish, in the utterance. But he's settled the issue here: that other peoples should suck on hot metal is clearly for him no hyperbole, but both a political strategy and a moral philosophy.

Yesterday I posted as a positive step Rep. John Conyers' report documenting Bush and Cheney's illegal conduct. I feel so much more educated today.

David Swanson takes down Conyers 7-page forward, in which the House Judiciary Committee Chairman admits to the many acts which he agrees are impeachable:

Many think these acts rise to the level of impeachable conduct. I agree. I have never wavered in my belief that this President and Vice-President are among the most impeachable officials in our Nation’s history, and the more we learn the truer that becomes.

But then he goes on to describe at length and with great mental acrobatics, the myriad reasons why he did not act, including:

In my view, a failed impeachment – by an almost certainly lopsided vote – would have grossly lowered the bar for presidential behavior and caused great damage to our Constitution.

Swanson points out the obvious. Not only was failure not guaranteed if the effort afforded proper leadership, but "Would an attempted impeachment not have sent more of a warning to future presidents than doing nothing at all?"

But what if Conyers had failed? Swanson argues:

Never mind that the world would have honored his attempt. His colleagues would have seen a failure. And he would have been at odds with his party and perhaps been stripped of his chairmanship. These probably look like big significant things to Conyers. To the rest of us, a failed impeachment in 2007 or 2008 would have provided us with an ideal list of whom to reelect and whom to toss out on their ears in order to make impeachment happen in 2009.

Swanson also provides a history of impeachment that includes not only presidents, but judges, cabinet officers, and senators. He destroys the myth of the long impeachment. Swanson ends by predicting future consequences on the failure to impeach:

While prosecution of Bush and Cheney would be hard-pressed to fail, and politicians who supported it would be hard-pressed not to rise in popularity, Cheney has given us a preview of his legal defense: "We were never impeached."

http://counterpunch.org/swanson01142009.html

Cheerleaders for Israeli terrorism, such as Tom Friedman and other apologists for Israel's most recent attacks of largely civilians in Gaza, apparently cannot discriminate between Israel's right to self-defense and Israel's over-arching ambitions to absorb Gaza/West Bank and East Jerusalem at all costs.

Israel has kept Palestinians ghettoized in Gaza for nearly sixty years, meanwhile breaking earlier agreements by allowing Israeli settlers to encroach illegally year by year into Palestinian territory. Now, by invading heavily populated civilian areas with tanks, troops and incendiaries, and then denying humanitarian groups access to Palestinians suffering hunger and injury, Israel demonstrates it has learned its lessons well from the suffering they experienced under the expert terrorism of Nazism. How quickly the past is forgotten.

What I suspect is that Israel is nationalistically gripped by manifest destiny, much like its sponsoring state, the USA. The myth that God gave Palestine to the Hebrews becomes a rationale to imitate the genocide cited in the Pentateuch. Old Testament Hebrews slaughtered any tribe that occupied "their" lands. They do it still today. And writers like Friedman exemplify the cold-blooded detachment that a true terrorist exhibits. Friedman seems smugly blind to human suffering. He's too busy promoting Israel, right or wrong. Hopefully, Washington, D.C. will cut off funding Israel's terrorism and demand an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of illegal settlers from Gaza.

LIES. My God, have you no shame, Sirs..? Have you finally no shame..? (*Thanks, Joe Welch!*)

Really, Kids, you ALL need to immerse your scrawny selves in History. For a very, very long time. The ignorance and silliness is nausea provoking and a true salute to gov't schools in the modern age. Pathetic.

I'd be happy to help. I am, after all, a Giver.

The state of Israel, like all nations, is an artificial creation. When I assert that Israel is forfeiting her "right to exist," I am in no way advocating that it be wiped off the map in an atomic fireball.

Sure, I figured that. But I don't think asserting that forfeiture is very helpful. Perhaps you simply mean Israel has no more right to exist than Palestine. which I think is correct. But you may have a hard time convincing them.

So when are you going to illuminate us? What are you waiting for? Give us the lecture.

Lay it on us. You and bernbart.

Ewige Blumenkraft?

Ewige Schlangenkraft!

Ecce torpet probitas.

Don't delay!

Learn how to "edjamacate" a civilian population

The Stone Age way!

Really, Kids, you ALL need to immerse your scrawny selves in History. For a very, very long time. The ignorance and silliness is nausea provoking and a true salute to gov't schools in the modern age. Pathetic.

This is brave talk, indeed.

As Baldie said, lay it on us.

And it'd better not be goddamn pathetic or, as The Simpsons' Jasper once said, "that'll be paddlin'."

Lay it on me Cat Daddy..!

I'd be happy to help.

Looks like we're all anxiously awaiting our history lesson.

Democracy Now features a noted scholar in today's broadcast, who speaks to Israel's historical preference of violence over negotiation:

We speak with Oxford professor Avi Shlaim. He served in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading authorities on the Israeli-Arab conflict.

link @ sig

a true salute to gov't schools in the modern age. Pathetic.

I'd be happy to help. I am, after all, a Giver.

-- NeoConCabal

What is your definition of "the modern age"? I ask because most of us who might have been addressed by your comment - if we attended "government schools" - went to from elementary through high school school during the 50's through the 70's or maybe up to the 80's. That's from 30 to 60 years ago all told. Does that qualify as "the modern age" of "government schools"?

Did your mommy teach you arithmetic and science and social studies in her kitchen, and then you go out to play with all by yourself - with no freinds?