Strike to Impeach

Global General Strike 9/11/08 for details: www.votestrike.com

by chris rice (59 articles, 42 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 165 comments) on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 11:31:01 AM
 

Don't count on impeachment

I think the real reason these guys don't feel comfortable about impeachment is because too many of them, and/or their heros, are culpable of the same things they accuse Bush over.

Top Democrats were reportedly fine with the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program early on, and in fact probably most Americans don't have a big problem with the fact that 3 top level Al-Qaeda guys, some involved in the planning for 9/11, were waterboarded a little bit.

Folks like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were nearly as gung-go as Bush in their approval of taking action against Saddam Hussein in 2002/2003. During the last years of Hillary's administration, there was deafening saber rattling over Iraq, with dire warnings from Bill Clinton regarding their chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons threats, should we not act. His administration even cited connections between Saddam and Bin Laden, as justification for action. Media of the day were brimming with such accounts.

Bill bombed Kosovo, and thousands died. Nobody ever even brought up the subject of impeaching him over that. Nobody ever talked about impeaching FDR over the thousands of civilians killed by U.S. bombs, or over his internment of Japanese Americans. Nor Truman for the over 100,000 civilians killed in Japan. I don't remember any serious calls for Johnson's impeachment over the however many thousands of civilians killed in Vietnam, except of course those coming from the college crowd.

Impeachment proceedings against Bush would result in all this kind of stuff being highlighted by his defense, and Democrats would look like foolish hypocrites. It would be like if for instance, Bill's impeachment defense was able to point to the previous President or even a top congressman getting a Lewinski in their office. The whole thing just wouldn't have gone very far, if it had started at all.

They don't really want impeachment, they just want you to think that they do.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 649 comments) on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 11:58:25 AM
 

thanks

for those links showing the Saddam-Osama BS was being hyped well before 9/11; one objection people raise to asking questions about 9/11 is that "if Bullshit and Cheney wanted to attack Iraq, why'd they use Osama the Saudi as a patsy?"

Absolutely Bill Clinton should be held to account for any crimes he's committed- even all the way back  to when the Iran-Contra cocaine was being run thru Mena, AK by Barry Seal for the Bullshit's, while Clinton was govnr- that's probly why he got invited to Bilderberg and was made into an electable household name, doncha think?

And i think you're pretty right on about why this Congress is soooo spineless about even having the few subpoenas they issue enforced; cuz the kooks got their hands on the nukes, now, that's why.

I doubt Duhbya wants to be tyrant past Jan 09; he looks like he's aged 20 years. Him and daddy both bought ranches in Paraguay, which doesn't have an extradition treaty w/ the US.

Without massive popular support, there's not likely to be any investigation by a Republocrat like Obama; he seems pretty savvy- he probly knows where he shouldn't tread, if he doesn't want to end up like a Kennedy. And Hillary Clinton's already sending him those messages via the media.

I am quite optimistic about the future, though; how much longer can officialdom keep referring to 9/11 as if the official story is credible and acceptable? 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 418 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments) on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 4:51:45 PM
 

How much longer?

Assumedly until something beyond mere speculation and agenda-driven selective analysis is presented as evidence of an "inside job".

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 649 comments) on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 5:24:25 PM
 

How much longer?

Although there is plenty of agenda-driven speculation and selective analysis on both sides of the question, the hypothesis that *depends* on it is that it was not an inside job, as has been shown repeatedly.  But if you consider careful, thorough commentators like Stephen Jones, David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott to be selective, agenda-driven analysts, I really can't argue with you.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 242 comments) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 8:32:54 AM
 

Where's the article?

I only see one line of text, saying these are remarks made on 24 may at some conference,and then the author's bio. wazzup?

by wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 114 comments) on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 6:50:00 PM
 

Link

Here ya go.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 649 comments) on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 7:20:32 PM
 

Thanks

basically the same talking points I bring up when trying to wake up a sheeple

by wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 114 comments) on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 8:05:23 PM
 

Good article

showing Obama weasling and raising the question will Obama supporters support him in his weasling.

    "'What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve. So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.'"

American progressives are not on average the good guys - they are neocon lite. They want their priviledges back, education for them, healthcare for them, judges friendly to their agenda, they don't want the rule of law for all that would be too much work.

Support Obama without demanding he give you any promises or undertakings NOT to impede indictments and NOT to pardon and you may as well be a neocon.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments) on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 11:35:21 PM
 

General Strike to Impeach

Excellent comments. No reply from the author?

This is our last chance folks....

by chris rice (59 articles, 42 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 165 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM