IMPEACHMENT- A CAN OF WORMS

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Congress; Democratic; Impeachment; Iraq
Add to My Group

December 31, 2007 at 21:01:36

IMPEACHMENT- A CAN OF WORMS

by Carol Wolman Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Why are the Democrats keeping impeachment off the table, in the face of more and more flagrant crimes and violations of the Constitution? "Spineless" no longer works, since they have succeeded in getting rid of Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Rove, by way of hearings, subpoenas and various other manuevers. Bush and Cheney are much weakened, and yet they are still being shielded from accountability.

Before the 2006 elections, we were told that the Democrats were avoiding impeachment because it would lose them votes. Yet as soon as the results were in, giving the Dems a clear majority in the House (it only takes a majority to impeach- count the votes), Pelosi and Conyers again announced that impeachment is off the table.

Why are they protecting Bush and Cheney? Politically, it makes much more sense to expose their crimes and discredit them once and for all. This is happening anyway, as more and more truth leaks out.

The revelation that Pelosi knew about waterboarding back in 2002 and did not object, gives us a clue. The Democrats have overtly been complicit in many of the illegal actions of the Bush administration. They voted to let him invade Iraq, and have not rescinded that decision, continue to fund the occupation, despite the evident disaster of this military adventure. They have acquiesced to torture, warrantless wiretapping, media consolidation, and many other executive outrages. They have not formally objected to signing statements that overrule the laws they pass, or insisted on the oversight that the Constitution assigns to them.

Digging deeper, it's evident that the Bush and Cheney family fortunes, via their corporations Carlyle and Halliburton, have profited enormously from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The national treasury has been looted by pirates, and the country is facing bankruptcy. If the financial transactions of these and related companies were brought to light, how many members of Congress would also be implicated? How many succumbed to the blandishments of Abramoff and the K Street gang, and are susceptible to blackmail because they accepted bribes and favors? How many would have to retire in disgrace, like Cunningham?

Darker speculations yet have led many to wonder to what degree the Bush and Cheney crime families have made Mafia-style threats to members of Congress? Who killed Paul Wellstone and Dennis Carnahan? Who sent anthrax to key Senators right after 9-11, effectively closing down the Senate office buildings for several months? How have Bush and Cheney obtained protection against impeachment from a Democratic Congress? What bribes or threats have they used?

A can of worms indeed! I say, let's open the can and clean house! Any member of Congress who is NOT actively working for impeachment has violated the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. They deserve to be replaced.

Check out www.newbroomcoalition.org We need a clean sweep of Congress.

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
impeach Bush and Cheney

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTowK03sr7Q

Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is a cochair of Bay Area Impeach Bush-Cheney. You can join or form a local group at http://impeachbush.meetup.com/ She ran for Congress in '06, and is now a Gteen candidate for Congress in CA district 1. She is a coordinator of The New Broom Coalition, for a clean sweep of Congress.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)
                                                 (More...)

Comments: Expand Shrink Hide

12 comments

A political junky from childhood cut my teeth on vietnam era protests.Have lived in Bucks county all my life.My favaorite saying" Good ani't cheap and cheap ain't good,never has been never will be"
tjbA political junky from childhood cut my teeth on vietnam era protests.Have lived in Bucks county all my life.My favaorite saying" Good ani't cheap and cheap ain't good,never has been never will be"

And one more reason...

And don't Forget the executive privilege cover-up of the Pat Tillman murder. After eight investigations the story hasn't been told truthfully yet. Were there any Blackwaters near his execution site. What detailed records of these bastard's movements in and out and around Iraq do we have to examine? If Pat Tillman can be shot three times in his face  we had better impeach or shut up.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 169 comments) on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 7:49:17 AM

Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.
Richard MynickRichard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.

The D's won't impeach because they represent a section of

elite interests, which in turn rests on the same social structures that the Republicans rest on. To formulate it as an "equation," one might say that "Democrats + Republicans = The Establishment." There are differences between D's & R's, to be sure, but they obviously share many fundamental interests & ideas.
To be acccepted by the masses as society's legitimate leadership, The Establishment needs to impose a certain mode of thought on the population. Usually, this mode of thought goes unspoken of, and unchallenged -- it's virtually "automatic" & reflexive, most of the time. But if this mode of thought is brought to the surface -- to everyone's conscious attention -- for serious examination, there's the danger that sections of the population will begin to reject large parts of it. This would threaten the whole Establishment -- not just its Republican half.
Opening the "can of worms" poses this danger to the Democrats: if they initiate a process aimed at exposing the criminality of Republicans, there's the definite risk that they'll wind up exposing the criminality of the entire Establishment, as well. It's not a matter of individuals (ie, the specific dirty business deals of Jane Harman, or Feinstein's husband, etc). The danger is that the broad population will have its eyes opened to how the US elite systematically uses politics to loot the rest of the population. This kind of elevated awareness could easily "get out of control," from the Dems' point of view. It might trigger a mass wave of revulsion against the 2-party system, and against elite privilege in general.
That's why they don't mess around with that can of worms.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments) on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 11:55:24 AM

Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is a cochair of Bay Area Impeach Bush-Cheney. You can join or form a local group at http://impeachbush.meetup.com/

She ran for Congress in '06, and is now a Gteen candidate for Congress in CA district 1. She is a coordinator of The New Broom Coalition, for a clean sweep of Congress.
Carol WolmanCarol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is a cochair of Bay Area Impeach Bush-Cheney. You can join or form a local group at http://impeachbush.meetup.com/

She ran for Congress in '06, and is now a Gteen candidate for Congress in CA district 1. She is a coordinator of The New Broom Coalition, for a clean sweep of Congress.

well said

yes, the whole system would be looked at, and open to change.

by Carol Wolman (214 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 93 comments) on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 2:06:43 PM

Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments.
Joel S. HirschhornJoel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments.

Big understatement

"The Democrats have overtly been complicit in many of the illegal actions of the Bush administration."
Pretty much every evil, unconstitutional thing Bush has done. And don't forget the whole 9/11 coverup, still ongoing. Just like impeachment, revealing 9/11 truth would move the nation into a stronger anti-establishment mindset that inevitably produces desire to eliminate the two-party stranglehold on our political system.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (113 articles, 20 quicklinks, 46 diaries, 428 comments) on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 2:32:16 PM

Bill Cain is a professional travel photo-journalist who writes primarily for the Concord Monitor in Concord, New Hampshire. He's visited all seven continents, countless countries and his travel experiences have contributed to and are reflected in his world views.
Bill CainBill Cain is a professional travel photo-journalist who writes primarily for the Concord Monitor in Concord, New Hampshire. He's visited all seven continents, countless countries and his travel experiences have contributed to and are reflected in his world views.

Big Understatement

Yes, only the exposure of 9-11 Truth to the masses is going to change anything.

by Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 242 comments) on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 9:11:21 PM

I am a World War II Marine Corps veteran who spent seven years in Vietnam throughout most of the Vietnam War as a refugee advisor for US Agency for International Development and wrote an eye witness documentary of the genocide I witnessed by our troops and agencies in Vietnam. No publisher wants to even look at the manuscript. They claim that their clientele doesn't want to know such truth. Truth hurts. We are a nation of cowards.
eagleeyeI am a World War II Marine Corps veteran who spent seven years in Vietnam throughout most of the Vietnam War as a refugee advisor for US Agency for International Development and wrote an eye witness documentary of the genocide I witnessed by our troops and agencies in Vietnam. No publisher wants to even look at the manuscript. They claim that their clientele doesn't want to know such truth. Truth hurts. We are a nation of cowards.

In Name Only

In reality the Democrats do not have a majority in Congress. Many so called Democrats are Democrats in name only. They side with the Republicans and Bush ninety per cent of the time. Hillary Clinton is a good example of this.

by eagleeye (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 3:54:01 PM

Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.
Brett PaatschBrett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.

There is an error in this Carol. Though I agree with most.

"The Democrats have overtly been complicit in many of the illegal actions of the Bush administration. They voted to let him invade Iraq, and have not rescinded that decision, continue to fund the occupation, despite the evident disaster of this military adventure."

This is wrong Carol. And its important because exceeding the authority in the authorisation to use Military Force is one of the grounds on which Congress can and should impeach the President. Its what makes the illegal invasion of Iraq on the grounds in which the President did it, a high crime.
Yes Congress (including the Democrats) did, in October 2002, give an Authorisation to Use Military Force to the President but the words of that Authorisation make clear that that Authorisation was to ENFORCE UN security council resolutions not to BREAK them. Congress did NOT Authorise the President to break a Security Council resolution. (And indeed to have done so would have been legally absurd - which I grant isn't the same as impossible but it would really have been extremely sloppy for the nations lawmaking body to have made that sort of law making error - especially when it does have the power to achieve the same result without making such an error by revoking the Charter). Anyway an authorisation to enforce doesn't amount to an authorisation to break UN resolutions anymore than authorising a police officer to enforce the laws doesn't amount to authorising that police office to break them.
Had weapons of mass distruction been found in Iraq and the UN security council agreed as a consequence to an invasion, the President would have needed that authorisation from congress to send in US troops because the power to make war (under the Constitution) is the congresses not just the Presidents.

Congress was appropriately giving the President a full range of legal options in October 2002 when it gave the President the authorisation. But Bush exceeded the authorisation when he refused to wait for the Security Council to deem Iraq's final opportunity (granted in November 2002 under 1441) over and sent in the troops without Security Council approval in March 2003.
Because the United States (under the Bush administration) along with the rest of the Security Council formed a later UN Resolution, Resolution 1441 in November, which afforded Iraq a "final opportunity" and declared that the Security Council was "seized of the matter" the President was obliged under the terms of the UN Charter which specify how decisions of the Security Council are to be made, to let the Security Council decide when the "final opportunity" was over.
As we can recall and history shows us other members of the Security Council were not willing to have Bush deem the final opportunity over when they wanted weapons inspections to continue.
Carol, you consistently champion impeachment, so its important that you have you facts straight. I've made this point to others that also consistently champion impeachment and also seem to get this wrong. If you Google on Authorisation to Use force you will find the October 2002 document and will be able to see for yourself that its about enforcing not breaking UN resolutions.
I agree that Congress (particularly some members of it) may be embarassed by how much it went along with the President or perhaps as in the case of Pelosi and Clinton how potentially embarrassing it could be to them personally that they did their own oversight jobs so poorly when they were amongst the few that had access to information - Pelosi on waterboarding and Clinton on the National Intelligence Estimate she says she didn't read. But their embarrassment not withstanding, it was not them that broke the law with respect to the invasion of Iraq. The buck for that one stops with the President as commander in chief. Pelosi and Clinton and other democrats can and should put their embarassment aside and uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution and impeach.
But having said all of that, the folks that most matter now for impeachment are the democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee whose positions on impeachment are not yet on the public record. They are the people that matter most right now for bringing impeachment forward.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 770 comments) on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 4:58:24 PM

Nobody special.
WatchingNobody special.

Explain to me, then

why, when Bush exceeded the authority granted to him by Congress, that they di not revoke that authority on the spot? Why do they continue to play along? We could have avoided years of senseless death and destruction if Congress had done their job and reigned in the President at the first sign he was abusing his authority. I have to think that after all this time since Congress has done nothing to stop this power mad executive, that they are in it just as deeply as he is.

by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 306 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 12:54:20 AM

Brett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.
Brett PaatschBrett Paatsch is an Australian born secular humanist with degrees in management and science and an interest in politics. He is a former pro-American that wishes to be pro-American again and thinks the impeachment and repudiation of President George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is necessary to reestablish trust in American signatures on international treaties and confidence in the global rule of law.

Briefly, because this has all been talked to death.

Explain to me, then

why, when Bush exceeded the authority granted to him by Congress, that they di not revoke that authority on the spot?

Bush gave the order to invade in March 2003. At that time (pre Katrina, pre Abu Graib, pre Wilson-Plame, pre Donald Kays report on there being no WMDs) he was still popular and most Americans and I suspect most Congressional representatives expected to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and still essentially trusted their President who after all was in a better position to have access to relevant and sensitive sources of intelligence than they were. Post 9-11 I think most Congressional Representatives were adopting the same the-ends-justifies-the-means thinking as most ordinary Americans do. It was only when the invasion started to go wrong that it became politically unpopular in the US. That it was very likely to go wrong of course is one of the reasons previous generations of war remembering Americans put laws in place against launching aggressive invasions.

Congress being essentially a very large committee cannot make decisions on the spot like a President as commander in chief can.

Most Congressional representatives in March 2003 would have been aware how little most voting Americans cared about esoterics like international law and prohibitions on torture. And all of them would have been aware that foreigners don't vote. In short each Congressional representative would have different reasons for doing what they did and not doing what the should have but politicial calculation of the consequences of being perceived to be soft on terror would have factored highly.

Congressional Representatives do take a lot of cues from the people they represent. If the people make it hot enough for them then impeachment is definately something they will do. It depends on what the people want.

Why do they continue to play along?

Again its a political calculation. So far American citizens have allowed playing along to remain the line of least resistance. Individual congressional representatives recognize that some of you will blame them but they hope that most of you will blame someone else and reelect them.

We could have avoided years of senseless death and destruction if Congress had done their job and reigned in the President at the first sign he was abusing his authority.

You could have but realistically it would have been very hard to anticipate how off the rails this Presidency was going to go. Impeachment is always going to have to be retrospective. The doctrine of pre-emption doesn't apply to impeachment. People are entitled to trust their Presidents are going to do the right thing until the evidence suggests otherwise. There is of course no guarantee that a President will not lie or dissemble when he or she takes the oath of office other than that the people will hold them accountable when they do.

I have to think that after all this time since Congress has done nothing to stop this power mad executive, that they are in it just as deeply as he is.

No most Congressional Representatives are accessories after the fact. They aren't perpetrators.

If you want impeachment to happen you can do something about it. Find out who the House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are and ask them their views on impeaching Cheney. Get them on the record and begin a discussion with them. Apart from a few of them, the names of those men and women are still largely unknown to people who claim to want impeachment and yet impeachment is now in their hands. And, as it always has been, it is still partly in yours as an American citizen. You can help make impeachment rather than non impeachment the line of least resistance for those representatives who are on the House Judiciary Committee and have taken an oath to defend the constitution. Its your constitution.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 770 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 4:06:52 AM

Between jobs, passions are motorcycles, music, and green-tech
truthtruffleBetween jobs, passions are motorcycles, music, and green-tech

Who let the dogs out? Who, indeed

Well, there's just over 1 year left to impeach the Bush administration
and they're betting it ain't gonna happen. And, with Pelosi apparently
sticking with her position of impeachment being 'off the table', well,
I'm reluctantly inclined to agree. If they can, they should. but they
kind of look like they won't. But, the People have nonetheless spoken,
and hopefully been heard, they can't take your birthday away for
questioning and criticizing...some of them might WANT to do that, but,
they can't. And, with no draft, they can't force you to join the service,
either. They CAN apparently force Congress to spend more money on
their war, but Congress can also refuse to spend another plug nickel
for the rest of the year. Hold your breath for the outcome on that'n...
Anyway, happy new year, and, if you're so inclined, add your name to the
rolls supporting impeachment:
www.wexlerwantshearings.com
and:
www.impeachbush.org
Duly logged, and so noted, etc...

by truthtruffle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 91 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 2:25:53 AM

American against War and Violence. Writer, English Teacher, Inventor, Creator of the First Manmade Floating Farm On The Ocean.... My companies name is ACET: Algae Charcoal Ethanol Technicorp. We grow Algae for Oil.
Dom JermanoAmerican against War and Violence. Writer, English Teacher, Inventor, Creator of the First Manmade Floating Farm On The Ocean.... My companies name is ACET: Algae Charcoal Ethanol Technicorp. We grow Algae for Oil.

Impeachment of Bushareff and Mush

Carol I wrote an article about this too, entitled: Impeachment Phobia of Pelosi and Reid.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dom_jerm_071221_impeachment_phobia_o.htm
You know this impeachment not being tabled brings to mind a hidden picture that perhaps people should reconsider. Remember after the stolen election and Al Gore giving his the need to accept speech? Well Michael Moore made a movie I am sure you remember entitle Farenheit 911. I have been rewatching that video and I see something entirely different than the first time I saw it. I saw an establishment that did not have one Senator sign the petition from Black Congressmen and women for the voting fraud to Black Americans. Then I see an Al Gore giving reasons to why the Bush presidency should go forward, with cutey face comments like "Well the rules do care! " applause happenstance conjectures. I felt Al Gore was just caving in, for what? Why would he be that way? Why wouldn't he fight for his right to the Presidency, well knowing the rigging to Black American voters?
Has anyone ever thought or had the feeling that Al Gore threw the election to Bush, for whatever purpose there may be to impending future events? Likewise the Senate not beinging concerned and not one of them signed the petitions? Does anyone have the thought or feeling that perhaps 911 happenings was really a 2 party participation conspiracy, in order to heist and schamboozle the American people? I have that feeling.
Anyone do investigations on Al Gores possible involvement in 911, and whether he benefitted personally from Defense Contractor investments? How about other Senators as well?
This thing seems to get deeper and deeper, and I have a real sideline sciatic nerve telling me, that you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours is really going on here, and is why impeachment remains off the table.
Another real scarey thing in watching Michaels Movie, it shows a makeup team primping up Bush, Cheney, Condi, Powell, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft.
And the evil face Bush was giving and his laughing and fooling around is quite heart wrenching to see, because it was going on right before his speech to the nation that America was going to war. Do we really think a President of our Country would be clowning around before such a terrible occurance that he was embarking us on? I find it quite astonishing, and noting something is radically wrong with our ability to elect leaders. I find Democarcy is really a myth and a fraud to say the least.
Actually America is controlled not by Israel but by Saudi Arabia. Are American's really clueless to this fact? I need to say that Saudi Arabia has control of trillions of dollars in the USA. Americans are like dead leaves falling off the Tree's of Siam, and Osessame. America is impotent and the Bush family is so deeply involved with it.
Then we have so many people running for office, and only one is really doing anything toward the rule of law, which is Dennis Kucinich, with his courage in pressing for impeachment.
You know what do we do? A terrorist could easily wipe out Dennis, just like Bhutto, and it would be blamed on binLadin. These Sons of Bitches are playing a game, that has nothing to do with Law and Order, but with the power of the gun, and the control of the Media in what is said. I really fail to see how Impeachment can go forward, but the fact is history does not lie, people can see that coincidences just don't really happen, and that so called real America is a prisoner to forces that can only die off within the precepts of time. I wouldn't trust Al Gore anymore than Hillary, and Obama, who clearly are not seeking impeachment of Bush. Americans better realize that Democracy is a farce and a myth. Elections can not be won, they can only be rigged and hijacked. It is a question of who can create the headlines meaning a violent act to sway fear dollars their way to bolster their controls and agenda's.
Whether we care to believe it or not, selection and standing in line to the grasps for power may prove to be the only less violent option. If anything Americans should limit term years served for the President to only 1 year, and a new standin selection candidate appointed each year.
Impeachment? Yeah! Just look in Presidential history they all deserve it, the lyings Fu(ks!

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 934 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 6:42:13 AM

American against War and Violence. Writer, English Teacher, Inventor, Creator of the First Manmade Floating Farm On The Ocean.... My companies name is ACET: Algae Charcoal Ethanol Technicorp. We grow Algae for Oil.
Dom JermanoAmerican against War and Violence. Writer, English Teacher, Inventor, Creator of the First Manmade Floating Farm On The Ocean.... My companies name is ACET: Algae Charcoal Ethanol Technicorp. We grow Algae for Oil.

More Reasons and Worms from the Can.

The Corporate Establishment can readily be portrayed as a complex web of interlinked companies and executives, and the fact that Carlyle holds ownership stakes in 164 companies and ranks as the eleventh largest defence contractor in the US further emphasises its pre-eminence within this web, and the somewhat disproportionate links to the intelligence services listed above is reflected in its ownership - via BDM International - of the CIA-front company, Vinnell Corp., which has been operating under contract in Saudi Arabia since 1975. It is of pertinence to note here (if only to stress the close relationship between the Administration and the corporate establishment) that BDM’s President & CEO is one Philip Odeen who served as Chairman of Clinton’s National Defense Panel. Another filament of this web: in 1990 George W. Bush - now President - was on the board of directors of one of Carlyle Group’s subsidiaries, Caterair, an airline catering company.
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/carlyle.htm
To understand more clearly the role being played by this superpower, it is first necessary to accept the fact that the US Administration is - and has been for decades - under the control of its capitalist corporations, a group wielding enormous power due to its vast industrial capacity and world-wide capital investments - to say nothing of its cabalistic, cohesive nature. To confirm this, one has only to scan the lists of the top individuals in both the US Administration and the corporate boards over the past few decades to see the close linkage between the two. As for the post of President: this is an executive post carrying such autocratic power that the Corporate Establishment ensures that ‘their man’ is elected. This election is, in effect, an auction, as exemplified by the fact that oil companies contributed $1.8 million towards George W. Bush’s campaign in the year 2000 - thirteen times as much as they gave his opponent! Again, the Electric utilities donated $447,000 to Bush, but only $65,000 to Al Gore, etc. And, inasmuch as the President-to-be appoints administrators who are, in effect, the policy-makers, the Corporate Establishment - as the highest bidder in the ‘auction’ - ensures that it is well-placed in the seat-of-power. Is this the form of democracy the Athenians had in mind?
By any standard, the Carlyle Group has the right address. Its suite of offices are on Pennsylvania Avenue midway between the White House and Congress--a 15-minute walk to each.
It was founded as a small private-equity firm in 1987 by David M. Rubenstein, a young lawyer who had worked as an aide in Jimmy Carter's White House, and two investment specialists. They named the company after their favorite hotel in New York and started out with a modest portfolio of $100 million.
You will notice Carol the money really flows into Carlyle Group and to think upsetting that rail of money profiteers with impeachment is going to happen is a tough seed to swallow. Lots of people are involved in the money making from Democrats to working people in their districts.
Last February, the California Public Employees' Retirement System announced it was investing $425 million in "a strategic partnership" with Carlyle. Even the company owned by Osama bin Laden's estranged billionaire family in Saudi Arabia was among Carlyle's clients--a mere $2-million investment that Carlyle said it bought out after Sept. 11 "for image reasons," Ullman said. He declined to say whether the Bin Ladens made a profit.
Ullman downplayed Carlyle's defense connections, saying that today less than 10% of its $12.5-billion portfolio is in defense, an additional 15% percent in commercial aerospace, intel, and the rest in real estate, health care, telecommunications and consumer industries. http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.11F.Arms.Carlyle.htm
They work just like Saddam, when they claimed he would hide behind innocent civilians. Carlyle does the same thing, by using other industries besides defense to bolster payoffs to support them; especially against impeachment proceedings. They don't care about law, they care about money. And to make it even more secure, they have trillions from Saudi Arabia to back them up.
More good reasons to why it seems futile to fight these people? Yeah...and I say never give up....it is not how much money you have. They have a lot to lose, when they have to face their crimes. In fact it is for their own good, because although they are claiming all these successes, there are many key pillars of financial security that are falling into the abyss. #1 the mortgage and loan industry, and the fact that terrorism is increasing, and more countries are having rigged elections and civil wars.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 934 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 8:43:16 AM

12 comments

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008