The refusal to impeach George W. Bush for the innumerable and immeasurable high crimes everyone knows he’s committed, and which have already been substantively proven through public records, is ultimately a corruption which not only fails the American people, but which is laying the ground work for the continuation of major war for energy reserves in the Middle East, under the blanket of 20 years of American deception.
The Democratic Party is not your friend. They do not seek peace. They seek only power, and unless the American people can awaken themselves enough to seek the truth in very short order, the last 20 years of deception will remain as the tool of choice to effect the next war. When Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is the next President, and they launch air strikes against Iran, once again predicated on the mass impartation of a totally false history, who then will the left turn to, to stop it?
This is the last chance for informed people who want the truth, and who want peace, to stop the American Empire from once again, acting under cover of the lies which it maintains. If you believe the lies begin and end with George W. Bush, you are not only wrong, but will be unwitting participants in the next deception.
Demand impeachment and trials now. No one in their right, informed mind ought to be considering Hillary Clinton as the next President. We should be discussing her own impeachment as a Senator for her current role in pre-war deceptions. Anything less than the impeachment of Bush now, will be ultimately lethal, and with no way out. Impeachment is going to be our last chance for peace and to save this country from what surely comes otherwise.
The interview with Hussein Kamel: the text of the transcript is here
I agree to some extent, but I think you push the argument way too far, especially as concerns the Clintons being responsible for so many Iraqi deaths. Check your facts, including the fact that those were UN santions. I didn't agree with them, but that's another story.
I don't want another Clinton as President, but that's because I don't want another DLC member, corporate-loving, take-as-much-money-as-it-takes-to-get-elected Democrat as president. I want someone like Al Gore, Russ Feingold, etc., but currently those choices are off the table.
If you hate what the Republicans are doing, write the Democrats in Congess once a week and tell them to impeach. If enough people write, it just might be forced through congress. I write to them constantly, do you?
John
by
John R Moffett (83 articles, 17 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 649 comments)
on Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 2:41:51 PM
I agree to some extent, but I think you push the argument way too far, especially as concerns the Clintons being responsible for so many Iraqi deaths. Check your facts, including the fact that those were UN santions. I didn't agree with them, but that's another story."
ESBE: Here is an excellent analysis which I linked to when I submitted the article, but which the website software deleted from my article:
hxxp://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html (Replace xx with tt in the URL, this was the only way I was able to post the address here)
The American people have been lead into a false paradigm, very deliberately, between faith in the U.N., and faith in their elected officials. Neither one has been remotely ethical. The hobsen's choice was further manifested with the appointment of that gigantic asshole John Bolten. The powers that be don't really care which political party you vote for, because they pass the ball back and forth every four or eight years in a game of globalization that kills millions of people. The DNC corporatists you refere to are there to insure that at the end of the day, politicians do the bidding of the IMF. Clinton's war on Yugoslavia was in reality, nothing more than a competently executed version of Bush' war on Iraq, done for exactly the same reasons. I consider him a successful war criminal insofar as he managed to gain an actual international coalition to commit his attrocities.
In my book, neither coalitions, UN approval, or any other political measure sanctioning an action, substitutes for the actual ethics of an action, or the truth of facts on the ground. The United States is not the only corrupt power in the world; most of them are corrupt. But this is my country, and I expect it to act honestly in the world, even if it's the only one. As it stands, we are the worst offender and at the epicenter of almost every corruption of global policy because the UN has been rendered nothing more than a tool of US imperialism.
"I don't want another Clinton as President, but that's because I don't want another DLC member, corporate-loving, take-as-much-money-as-it-takes-to-get-elected Democrat as president. I want someone like Al Gore, Russ Feingold, etc., but currently those choices are off the table. "
ESBE: I absolutely believe Hillary Clinton will attack Iran if she's elected.
"If you hate what the Republicans are doing, write the Democrats in Congess once a week and tell them to impeach. If enough people write, it just might be forced through congress. I write to them constantly, do you?
John"
ESBE: I write to them often.
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 8:31:52 AM
Correction: 150+ Democrats voted against Iraq War Resolutio
Vote= #00237
some reason, links I provided when I submitted my article disappeared and the hyperlink function is not working for me.
The Senate is where the rubber meets the road as far as I'm concerned, but you can put lipstick on it by adding the dems from both houses all together if you want to. I personally find it desperate.
The bottom line is that the Democrats could easily have stopped the resolution.
You are spinning and factually incorrect regarding the information Congress had available to it prior to the authorization. The transcript of Hussein Kamel's interrogation was freely available online not just to congress, but to the public, and if you do a google search, you will find it was referenced, analysed, and linked by many anti-war bloggers prior to the war authorization.
I read found and the transcript before this war, and I expect anyone actually charged with making a decision of the magnitude of the one made, to have done the same. Perhaps you're just more tolerant of a cowardly, lazy, and stupid congress after 600,000 plus deaths for no reason than I am.
Call me non-partisen, but I do believe I shall continue to cling to my stubborn demand that people be competent, honest, and held accountable when they aren't.
Here are the rest of the links deleted from my original submission:
The interview with Hussein Kamel: the text of the transcript is here:
www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf
More analysis at: hxxp://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html (replace xx with tt in URL)
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 8:16:39 AM
More like NOT mentioning all elected Democrats in congress who voted a certain way in order to artificially lower the count is simply dishonest.
A valid point doesnt need selective inclusion of facts where you omit those that are inconvenient to your thesis.
This is so typical of the "Blame the Democrats for Everything" crowd here. Convenient exclusion of facts, moving the goalposts when the Democrats do something good that many of you folks said "The Democrats would never have the guts to do X..." .
Honesty is tough, particularly when one has become what Orwell termed as an Anti-Nationalist against someone or some group. Oh, sure, you are happy to research to minute detail any possible reason to discredit Democrats, but you are curiously negligent in your research when it comes to reasons to credit them with something. Did you mention Bob Graham? No. Wellstone? No. Kucinich? No. Maxine Waters? No. Obama? No. You conveniently neglected to mention them even though as many Democrats voted opposite of how you suggested as not. Would anyone here care to mention how any graduate level thesis or scientific peer reviewed paper would be received when the facts stack up 50-50 for and against?
The final point I will make here is that it seems there is a clear line of legacy of the strategy used by those in the "Blame Democrats for Everything" crowd to the 1980's Republicans and all the way back to the Goebbels and Streichers of this world and that is "Repeat a lie often enough and people begin to believe it".
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 9:30:44 AM
Congresspeople outside of the House and Senate Intelligence committees were not privy to much of the information you cite. Erstwhile Democratic Senator from Florida Bob Graham said as much when explaining his Nay vote and why other Democrats may not have voted that way.
It wasnt just the Democratic congressional caucus that was split just about down the middle. The 50 million or so registered Democrats in this country were split 50-50. I remember arguing with the pro-war 50% regularly.
Its easy to wantonly criticize people. It takes a lot more effort to be objective and fair and to do a more thorough analysis of what was actually happening at the time and who knew what, and when.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 1:08:56 AM
Congresspeople outside of the House and Senate Intelligence committees were not privy to much of the information you cite."
ESBE: That's simply untrue. The transcript of Hussein Kamel's interrogation referenced in my article was available not only to congress, but to anyone who cared to to read it online. These people did not do their homework.
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 8:36:34 AM
Bob Graham, who has often been described by friends, foes, and everything in between as the most honest person they have met, has consistently said since the day of his "Nay" vote that he and Durbin and other members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee had access to important information that other members of congress did not.
It was after I spoke with Graham in person (He was my senator when I lived in Florida and I was a Democratic Party District Chairperson in Pinellas County so I had some access) that I became firmly anti-war. He couldnt devulge any special information to me but it was because he said he had reasons due to his membership in the committee and that was enough for me. His reputation for honesty is, as I said, unparalleled. Your word does not compare with his.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 9:51:05 AM
Bob Graham, who has often been described by friends, foes, and everything in between as the most honest person they have met, has consistently said since the day of his "Nay" vote that he and Durbin and other members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee had access to important information that other members of congress did not."
ESBE: Now who is "moving goal posts" here? Your originally stated that "information that ***YOU*** [SIC] cited was not available to Congress".
I correctly stated that that is not true. YES IT WAS. READ my friend, for I went on to ackowledge that the Select Foriegn Intelligence Commitee DID receive information that the rest of congress was not privy to. THAT -however- was NOT the information I cited. Neither you OR I know what that information was at this date. No soup for you. And that fact doesn't change the other facts I put forth; the information I DID cite WAS available, not only to congress, but to anyone who cared enough to do their homework. It was MORE than enough information to come to the right conclusion. I did. Lots of people did.
As to your accusation that I'm some kind of partisan hater of Democrats, well that's just too goddamned ridicules for words. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I voted for John Kerry in 2004. And I voted a straight Democratic ticket across the board in 2006, in what I then believed, and now know that I RIGHTLY believed, was going to be in vain because MOST of these people are EXACTLY what I allege them to be. It's really YOU who's displaying a partisen bent here. You think it's fundamentally dishonest of me not to add together both houses when making the point that a majority of Democrats supported this war. Go ahead then and add them together on the part of dems who supported the war, and it's STILL a majority of Democrats who supported this war. And for the record, I have NEVER voted for a Republican candidate in a general election, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but an independant who has long recognized the threat presented by the GOP and who has done MY part to stop them. So you're not going to get ANY traction with alleging bullshit about Esbe's political allegiences.
The next FACT (that is what I deal in much to your apparent dismay) is that the GOP's Hitlerian enabling of Bush could easily have been stopped in EITHER house, by the dems, and there were simply not enough good men to do it, even though less than half of either house could have brought it all to a sreaming halt before it ever got off the ground.
You need a reality check, beginning with OWNING the culpability of the Democratic party in allowing this to happen, and I for one, am not going to allow anyone's partisan spin of what were clearly unassailable facts, inconvienient though they may be, to go unanswered.
"It was after I spoke with Graham in person (He was my senator when I lived in Florida and I was a Democratic Party District Chairperson in Pinellas County so I had some access) that I became firmly anti-war. He couldnt devulge any special information to me but it was because he said he had reasons due to his membership in the committee and that was enough for me. His reputation for honesty is, as I said, unparalleled. Your word does not compare with his."
ESBE: The attack on Iraq was a major international war crime, illegal under our Constitution, and illegal among all bodies of world government. IF Mr. Graham is really the wonderful public servant you allege him to be, he owes it to his country to quite cowering behind his desk, and to convene a press conference to tell the American people what he knows. That's an opinion, it's mine, and I leave it to the reader to determine whether Graham's inaction in the face of treason is more ethical than my reasoning.
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 9:14:57 PM
Because we are going around in circles, let me say this as my final comment. You ask what Graham "did about his beliefs" vis-a-vis Iraq? He ran for President. That isnt exactly hiding behind his desk. Every campaign speech he gave he spoke his mind. Did YOU do anything to try to hear what he had to say? Obviously not because you are completely ignorant about him.
You are ignorant about him because you are willfully so about anything that would disturb your one sided rant against Democrats.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 8:30:39 AM
ESBE: No we're not. You falsely attributed a claim to me, and then went on the issue a claim I DID MAKE, that you you dis-attributed to be, that I in fact clearly made. That's not a circle. That's me refuting you with facts. Facts which are there for anyone who cares to read what I wrote, ALL OF IT, can see.
"let me say this as my final comment. You ask what Graham "did about his beliefs" vis-a-vis Iraq?"
ESBE: No I didn't. I asked why he didn't come forward with what he knew. I know this is less convienient for you to deal with, but that is what I asked. You have yet to answer that.
"He ran for President. That isnt exactly hiding behind his desk. Every campaign speech he gave he spoke his mind. Did YOU do anything to try to hear what he had to say? Obviously not because you are completely ignorant about him."
ESBE: I'm not ignorant about Graham. I know who he is, and I've followed his statements rather carefully. But apprently my replies and questions have reduced you to an ad-hominim personal attack here. I'm satisfied to leave this argument where you've left it, for the facts I provided are still standing, and your personal attack means nothing to me.
"You are ignorant about him because you are willfully so about anything that would disturb your one sided rant against Democrats.
by sleser001 (108 articles, 416 comments) on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 8:30:39 AM"
ESBE" "one sided rant against Democrats". Now that is hillarious. Thanks. Allow me to leave you with excerpts from my "one sided rant", that those who read YOUR accusation, might read it in the presence of the following excerpts from my editorial:
"It is a crime against the court in every court to knowingly withhold exculpatory evidence……….
the deliberate secreting of the most important exculpatory statement on record, was proof positive that the Bush administration was lying through their teeth.
The innumerable statements by Bush and Cheney that regarding WMD “There can be no doubt”, was not only the biggest lie ever told in the political history of the United States, but the most easilly proven lie ever told. There was nothing BUT “doubt” and they knew it.
The refusal to impeach George W. Bush for the innumerable and immeasurable high crimes everyone knows he’s committed, and which have already been substantively proven through public records,……
……. demand impeachment and trials now." -Jay Esbe
Maybe I can get a job working for Bush/Cheney and the GOP via a letter of recommendation from you, no?
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Monday, May 14, 2007 at 10:39:55 AM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
