What I Really Think. . .on Cheney, Cuba, Hillary, Jonathan Powers, Berlin, and other stuff

-

cheney growl.jpg
This is going to be a bit of a disorganized, stream-of-consciousness roster of items on which I feel I owe some comment. Short and brief.
First of all, I have been pestered by quite a number of people and posters about Cheney/Bush and impeachment. Go back and read the blog. TWN has been one of the most persistent and compelling (in my view) vehicles for making the case against Cheney and his team. I wish those pursuing impeachment well. That said, I’m a realist. I have already spoken out against Cheney — and said that he needs to be contained, confined, and booted. But impeaching him or Bush — and failing — will blow the Dem’s chances next round out of the water. So, those engaged in the enterprise should follow their passions. I want to contain Cheney and his team in ways that I think have real traction and move a sensible agenda forward.
Second, this is old news. But I have been really bothered by Senator Robert Menendez’s endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s presidential aspirations. The price no doubt is her support of a backwards, counterproductive embargo against Cuba. Hillary Clinton believes in engagement with China, with Vietnam, and with other Communist states. She believes in “engagement”, people to people exchanges, and the 21st century/bridge to the future stuff her husband used to speak to.
But on Cuba, she is protecting an anachronistic, Cold War-fashioned policy that has been frozen for 40 years. This makes no sense.
I intend to encourage people who meet her everywhere in the country to go out of their way to ask why she can endorse such an incredibly backward and failed national policy towards Cuba that George Bush has taken to new absurd levels. With the stroke of a pen, George W. Bush tightened an already idiotically tight travel ban for Cuban American families.
Now, Cuban Americans must choose between attending their father’s funeral, or their mother’s. If they go to Cuba, which current law allows them to do under license once every three years, they may see a parent or family member who is sick — and then go back to the U.S., only to be unable then to attend a funeral if life turns death’s direction.
Why isn’t Hillary blowing that policy out of the water?! Tell me, please, that Senator Robert Menendez is not asking for the perpetuation of what is really an anti-Cuban-American policy that perpetuates the interestes of Venezuela, China, Israel, Europe, and just about everyone else but us in Cuba.
Third, the Washington Post is developing a story on new facilities in Iran designed to prepare for an attack. I can’t say more now, but it should be out over the weekend. And to my original sources — don’t worry — I found other sources. But while this is not “huge” news, it is significant to know that Iran is preparing for Cheney.
Fourth, for those looking for Congressional level political hope, Jonathan Powers is great. I have a profile in the works on him — but other distractions have impeded my progress on it. He is an Iraq War veteran who cared about the Iraqis — who set up a foundation working with Iraqi orphans — and who traveled with Gunner Palace director Michael Tucker for a period helping to market one of the most brilliant inside treatments on the insanity of the Iraq War that I have seen. You should kick his tires. I think he is someone who will take back some the terrain from bad guys.
Fifth, in case you missed it, this was one of the oddest items I have seen in some time. Giuliani’s campaign called for donations in the Jerusalem Post. Before you get too crazed, it is “legal” for Israeli-Americans who carry US passports to donate to American presidential campaigns.
But Guiliani panders in this letter:

Guiliani advertising in the Jerusalem Post
Dear Friend,
As a longtime friend and staunch supporter of Israel during my entire public life, I want to share with you my deep concern for the Jewish state and ask for your support as I campaign to become the next President of the United States.
We are at a crucial moment in history. We are once again at a point where the free world’s resolve in fighting evil is being tested.
In the 1990’s, we had the blinders on with regard to Islamic terrorism. Coddling terrorists — even applauding for winning the Nobel Peace prize as was done with Yasser Arafat — is a policy we cannot return to.
Yet, these blinders are still worn by some people who wish to lead our country.
In neither of their debates did the Democrats mention Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the threat they pose to our country. One candidate has even said that the global war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan. It makes the point that I’ve been making over and over again — that the Democrats, or at least some of them, are in denial.
I promise you that if elected President, I will make sure this country remains on offense against terrorism. But I need your help and support to get there. Will you consider giving $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 to my campaign?
Israel and the United States share common values. We cherish freedom, democracy, and human life. Our shared values have attracted common enemies. The terrorists Israel is fighting are the same terrorists America is fighting, and we must continue to fight them together.
Last week Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that the world would soon witness the destruction of Israel. This 2008 presidential campaign will determine how we deal with statements like these and the madmen who make them.
I stand by Israel and I’ll never embrace a terrorist like Arafat, a tyrant like Ahmadinejad, or a party like Hamas.
Will you join me and support my campaign for President so we can continue to work together? Your contribution of $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 will go a long way in helping us to ensure victory.
Please consider signing up for my email list as well. Doing so will keep you up to date on the latest news from my campaign.
A Giuliani administration won’t accept business as usual. We will stay strong amidst the threats of tyrants and we will stay on offense against the terrorists.
Sincerely,
Rudy Giuliani

This Giuliani plea would make a great vignette in Team America, World Police II.
And nearly lastly, I have a quote in The Guardian today warning my acquaintances on the left, the middle, and the reasonable right not to make the mistake of underestimating President Bush’s enduring influence and his Lazarus-like ability to continue to matter after some moment of reinvention. His numbers are incredibly low — but it doesn’t seem to make much difference in what he chooses to do.
And in other news, I am flying to Berlin today — and am sitting in JFK Airport now — the one some Trinidadian terrorists wanted to blow up, allegedly. Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism.
I think that Gordon Brown is finally getting it right by burying and abandoning the term, “Global War on Terror.” That is leadership.
But I will be in Berlin until next Thursday — and blogging from there.
More soon.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

45 comments on “What I Really Think. . .on Cheney, Cuba, Hillary, Jonathan Powers, Berlin, and other stuff

  1. Mimi Schaeffer says:

    The current Miami Cuban political Mafia are descendants of the elites under Fulgencio and yes, Hillary is pandering to the Cuban-Americans in Florida with ther continued support of the Cuban embargo; but…that’s not the whole story.
    Think about it. Has there EVER been an issue where Republicans and Democrats ALWAYS agree…?
    Every U.S. president has kept the embargo intact. Every last one of them.
    Lee Harvey Oswald was seen outside the Cuban embassy in Mexico; and it’s been well documented how the U.S. tried to kill Castro.
    Don’t you think the bearded one would want to repay the tribute…?
    Yes, I think Castro had Kennedy killed; the U.S. knows it; and probably, Hillary, as Bill’s wife, knows it as well.

    Reply

  2. Mimi Schaeffer says:

    The current Miami Cuban political Mafia are descendants of the elites under Fulgencio and yes, Hillary is pandering to the Cuban-Americans in Florida with ther continued support of the Cuban embargo; but…that’s not the whole story.
    Think about it. Has there EVER been an issue where Republicans and Democrats ALWAYS agree…?
    Every U.S. president has kept the embargo intact. Every last one of them.
    Lee Harvey Oswald was seen outside the Cuban embassy in Mexico; and it’s been well documented how the U.S. tried to kill Castro.
    Don’t you think the bearded one would want to repay the tribute…?
    Yes, I think Castro had Kennedy killed; the U.S. knows it; and probably, Hillary, as Bill’s wife, knows it as well.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Did someone say “wisdom” and “Democrtatic strategist” in the same sentence? If that’s what they call “strategy” we are in verrrrry deeeep doo doo. What Democratz call “strategy”, I call Pavlovian conditioned repsonses. The Roverator has them right where he wants them, too scared to think anything creative and original, not to mention courtageous and patriotic.
    Sorry Dems, but wearing your little flag lapel pins, while cowering in the corner of Rove’s choice, just doesn’t cut it with me. If Dems continue in this milktoast manner, their majority, at best, will remain razor thin, which is to say gridlock, if we even have another election.
    With Chertoff’s “gut feeling” I’m sure Repug defections will slow. If they can count on another “terrorist attack” and marital law, why bother? Just exactly how does a gutless wonder have a gut feeling?? Is it like phantom pain for a vestigial body part, amputated upon taking office? Was that how he figured out how to handle Katrina?
    Since everyone in this regime either outright lies or is dead wrong, I’d say we have nothing to worry about from al Qaeda, unless they are CIA assets, in which case, we can bet on another attack, just in time to keep Dopey and Darth in power, ad infinitum.

    Reply

  4. Sandy says:

    Thanks! Silly of me to be looking for its deeper meaning! :-)

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerica says:

    Justa mind lapse. I post as “PissedOffCitizen” at Tabor’s cesspool, and just absentmindedly typed it in here.
    Can’t post there as PissedOffAmerican, its got one too many letters.

    Reply

  6. Sandy says:

    Okay, I’ll bite. Why the “PissedOffCitizen” now?
    No longer “PissedOffAmerican”?

    Reply

  7. ... says:

    good point kathleen – spying on their own citizens but keeping everything they do secret… that sums up this admin quite well. that is just one of many reasons others believe impeachment is necessary.

    Reply

  8. Sandy says:

    Maybe the way the outcry for impeachment is growing at the grassroots level will help things along, Kathleen:
    July 7 / 8, 2007
    http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff07072007.html
    Independents Don’t Reside in the “Middle”
    Poll: Impeach the Bastards
    By DAVE LINDORFF
    “The latest poll by American Research Group, showing that 54 percent of Americans favor impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney, and that 46 percent favor impeaching President Bush, is encouraging news for impeachment advocates. Despite a corporate media blackout on impeachment that means almost nobody in the country knows that there is already a Cheney impeachment bill in the House with 14 co-sponsors (HR 333), over half the country nonetheless wants Cheney to get the boot.
    And despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s insistence that “impeachment is off the table,” almost half the people in the country say they want the president impeached.
    But other information in this scientific poll, which was conducted by random telephone calls to 1100 Americans during July 2-3, should have Democrats like Pelosi and other party leaders rethinking their obstructive position on impeachment.
    The Democratic leadership has been opposed to impeachment based on the absurd that while it is clearly popular among Democrats, an impeachment effort in Congress could “turn off” independent voters.
    In fact the opposite appears to be true.
    The American Research Group poll also reports that 50 percent of independents favored the impeachment of Bush while 51 percent of them favored impeaching Cheney. Hard to see how taking that position could be hurting Democrats with independents. Moreover, the poll found that 13 percent of Republicans wanted to see Bush impeached, while 17 percent wanted Cheney impeached. That is, roughly one in six Republicans would look favorably on a House impeachment effort, whichever member of the administration was the target!
    And Pelosi is against the idea for fear of alienating voters on the right.
    Interestingly, too, opposition to Bush’s commutation of I. “Scooter” Libby’s sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice was actually greater among independents (80 percent) than among Democrats (76 percent). So was opposition to a full pardon for Libby, with an astonishing 97 percent of independents opposed, compared to just 82 percent of Democrats.
    What does this tell us?
    What this suggests is that the prevailing wisdom among Democratic strategists, that independents are some mythical “middle of the road” group, is wildly off the mark. In fact, many independents appear to be to the left of the Democratic Party, particularly when it comes to how to handle the behavior of the criminal Bush administration. Or maybe left isn’t the right word. They are more concerned about preserving democracy than the Democratic Party is.
    These results help to explain why the public support for the Democratic Congress, which has failed to act on ending the Iraq War and which has failed to been studiously avoiding any talk of impeachment, has fallen from a heady 68 percent right after Democrats won the 2006 elections, to 23 percent today, several points below the president’s 27-percent approval rating.
    If Democrats don’t wake up and start impeachment proceedings, they are likely to lose control of Congress again in 2008, when these disgruntled independents and Constitution-loving Republicans, many of whom no doubt gave their votes to Democrats last November, stay home or vote for somebody else next time around.
    Meanwhile, the grassroots impeachment movement continues to build.
    Events that used to draw a few dozen people are now drawing hundreds or even thousands. Dennis Kucinich’s Cheney impeachment bill, which languished for a month without any co-sponsors, now has 13 co-sponsors, with more joining all the time.
    It’s all starting to come together.
    If it doesn’t, the Democratic majority in Congress is likely to come apart.”

    Reply

  9. Kathleen says:

    My reasons for wanting impeachment are not based on the war in Iraq, but rather for the contempt this administration has for our form of gov’t.
    Any adminstration that wants to illegally spy on citizens while keeping all their own actions secret is Un-American and needs to removed from office, post haste. Every elected official takes an oath of office that requires them to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies. Anything short of that is derreliction of duty.
    Dopey and Darth are subverting our Constitutional process and changing the balance of power between the three branches of gov’t. The separation of powers our Founding Fathers so carefully established in our gov’t is the best way to protect our country from tyranny.
    People who compare this cry for impeachment with that of President Clinton are wrong. The two situations are entirely different. Clinton did not commit a crime against the State. Dopey did when he spied on us. Dopey did when WH staff broke the Official Records act by using outside accounts for conducting official business. I don’t even care about the content of the e-mails. It was a crime to do it.
    The House has enough votes to impeach and they should. Dopey deserves, at a minimum, a huge black blot on his goddamned legacy. It is not “partisan” to impeach to protect our Constitutional process from abusers of power.
    It is imperative to impeach if we are to survive this adminstration. They did not sneak all those repressive clauses into various legislation without an intent to use them against us. Don’t be surprised if we have another “terrorist attack” and martial law and cancelled elections. Afterall, our Constitution is just a piece of paper, according to the Boy Idiot.

    Reply

  10. ... says:

    marky, i concur with poa in assessing ron pauls merits… at the top of the list is his acknowledgement of the connection between terrorism and usa foreign policy.
    i also believe if the usa does not impeach bush/cheney they will be headed down a worse road.. i can’t see these guys doing anything other then starting a war in iran next.. it will sidetrack all there past actions into another greater problem then all they have created to date… it is the only way to stop these mf.

    Reply

  11. Carl Varady says:

    I spoke to one of my elected representatives recently and told him that Bush and Cheney should be impeached. He said he agreed with the sentiment, but the votes are not there and Democrats won’t stir it up unless they can win. They rather focus on the next election cycle.
    Why aren’t the votes there? Because extremism and fear have cost us freedom of expression and debate and turned Congress into a bunch of butt sniffing cowardly dogs. You get votes through advocating what’s true and you take the consequences if you fail. Why should we be the least bit concerned about Republican think tanks, committees or study groups when people are dying to prop up the petro-dollar and our children’s’ futures are being economically and politically bankrupt? The fact that the Senate is split 50/50 means you have to work over the crooks, the weak kneed and half-committed. If they are in the pockets of the doomsday machine, expose this. Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi crying out for impeachment and an end to war? Where there’s this much support for the cause outside the hall of mirrors that inside the beltway, now is the time to “Bring it!”

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerica says:

    First, Ron Paul is willing to attribute terrorism to our foreign policies, and the “blowback” of those policies. Whats more, he has been unwavering in expressing his beliefs about the “causes” of terrorism. He hasn’t created the opinion out of political expediency. Its called conviction. Something these other posturing frauds are sorely lacking.
    And the realistic fear in regards to impeachment should be the sensible fear of what these fucking monsters may do if we do not remove them from office. Marky thinks the victim of a failed impeachment effort will be the democratic party. I think the failure to remove these people from office will have a far greater victim, world stability, a few million human beings, and quite possibly our Republic. Bush has nothing to lose. He is saying “fuck you” to Congress, to the law, and to the American people. He has just given himself unprecedented dictatorial powers in the event of a “national emergency”, and he has expressed the belief that he is doing God’s bidding in the middle east. If that doesn’t scare the shit out of you, nuthin’ will. Now, add the satanical Cheney to that equation, and wattaya got?
    Like I said, we will rue not removing these monsters from office while we still had the means to do it.

    Reply

  13. Marky says:

    And I do owe an apology to the posters here for my earlier comment. I don’t think the commentary here is stupid. This is a good discussion.
    I would like to see a more detailed and realistic discussion of the risks of failure to impeach, as I mentioned before. In addition, there needs to be some agreement about realistic impeachment charges. I see good movement in that direction here and elsewhere.
    I think the war should be out of any impeachment charges, but once Bush is out of office, several issues, including Bush’s complicity in authorizing torture, should be vigorously pursued.

    Reply

  14. Marky says:

    mr. “…” and POA, actually I’m curious what you like about Ron Paul, outside of Iraq and impeachment. I thought his leadership in those areas was the reason you liked him. Apparently not. I told you two reasons where I disagree with his politics. More broadly, I expect that the full range of his Libertarian proposals will include many positions to which I am totally opposed; however, I admit that I have not read much of his politics. Generally speaking, I listen to Libertarians for sometimes cogent criticism of our current political system, but I find their solutions totally unrealistic, in the main.
    So, I broke my promise already, but if you’ll be civil, I’d like to continue the conversation on Paul. About Kucinich, the new-age stuff really is a big turn off to me, and makes me think he is not quite sane; however, it is not a judgment of his politics, per se. As far as women’s rights, he has a poor record of supporting women’s rights to abortion. Those are two problems I have with him.
    I don’t align with him on troop withdrawal, necessarily. My position on Iraq is that we urgently need sound information before making a decision on redeploymen or withdrawal. Congress is in a bind, since the top military leaders feel free to blatantly misrepresent the situation in Iraq. If there were a way for Congress to subpoena more accurate information, I would prefer to do that before committing to any change in policy.
    I have argued against impeachment because I’d like to see the risks of failure considered more seriously; that said, I acknowledge there can be benefits even if the Democrats fail to impeach.

    Reply

  15. Marky says:

    Ron Paul stands for dismantling the IRS and for abolishing the estate tax. The first proposition is sheer lunacy and the second is deeply anti-progressive. Ron Paul shares almost no values with the Progressive Left in the US. Only in the area of Iraq—where he is in favor of troop withdrawal, and impeachment, do his positions mesh with the Left.
    If you want to align yourself with him on these issues, be my guest. I don’t have any objection to that, per se. If you want to support his full range of policy positions, you area also free to leave the Left.
    Ron Paul has nothing to do with the validity of impeachment—nothing at all. Likewise with Kucinich. I don’t have a strong antipathy for Kucinich, but his new age fruitcake-ism, and his lack of support for women’s rights, are two reasons I don’t care for his politics. The whole conversation about them is a total distraction—I hope you’ll grant me that much. I’ll refrain from mentioning them again. I really don’t care that much.
    Sandy,
    I do think that the use of impeachment hearings to override priviledge is the single strongest argument in favor of impeachment, regardless of success or failure.
    Last night, KagroX at TheNextHurrah
    http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/something-you-s.html
    mentioned the possibility of convening hearings to determine if there is enough evidence to impeach Bush. This would allow the House to override priviledge without committing to impeachment.
    I believe that actual evidence of impeachable offenses is scant right now, although in several cases, we have overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
    FISA is the strongest case, legally, from all I’ve read, so that is where I think hearings should start. Moreover, this will lead to evidence of domestic spying on political opponents, if such has occurred. If we find that, Bush is toast.
    The Libby sentence commutation also looks promising for an investigation into obstruction of justice—not solely for legal reasons, but because that act has outraged the public more than I could have hoped for. Beyond that, I think impeachment over the war is out of the question for many reasons, perhaps foremost because the Democrats also signed onto the war. If you want to impeach Bush, forget about the war case; take your ire out on the incumbents in 2008.

    Reply

  16. ... says:

    poc – i tend to agree with you about marky and especially the way ron paul has been characterized.. he stands for a lot of sound thinking, which is missing in the political sphere.

    Reply

  17. PissedOffCitizen says:

    “Personally, I’d rather have the nuclear option off the table and impeachment on, full speed ahead.”
    Marky’s arguments often lead to places he doesn’t claim to come from. His straw argument that I am holding Paul and Kucinich up purely from an impeachment standpoint, and his efforts here to marginalize and isolate them are transparently parallel to the RNC’s efforts to bury Ron Paul under the rug. The message carried by Ron Paul is an important one, and his message has not been shaped by the political winds.
    I distrust the underlying motives of Marky’s commentary. Always have. Just a gut feeling.

    Reply

  18. Kathleen says:

    Marky, it is just as wrong for Democratz to not impeach for partisan reasons, as it was for Newt the Brewt to do it for partisan reasons.
    I do agree that narrowing the grounds for impeachment down to those that are readilly provable, is a wise idea. Violating the FISA laws is such a one, plus contempt of Congress for refusing to produce documents requested and not allowing WH staff to testify, under oath.
    Strategically, it is the Democratz who are being stooooopid taking impeachment off the table. As General Odom just observed, impeachment may be needed as a real threat, to end this war.
    Further, if you listen to Dermocratz now on Iran, it is clear that they learned nothing from the debacle in Iraq. They are failing to read the fine print again, and posturing, as tough on national security. The UN IAEA has never reported that Iran is develooping weapons grade uranium. Democratz seem to think keeping all options on the table works with other countries, but not here at home with Busholini.
    Personally, I’d rather have the nuclear option off the table and impeachment on, full speed ahead.

    Reply

  19. Sandy says:

    Well, I was glad Marky called us Impeach Now-r’s “stupid”….’cause I spent some time, and I learned a lot.
    Arguments for Impeachment
    After reviewing some other references, and blogs, and hearing from some people I respect, many of whom have established legal backgrounds, including those on Marcy Wheeler’s blog, some important points surfaced (paraphrazed here with additions of my own comments):
    –No need to feel thwarted by the Democratic Leadership, Pelosi and Reid — the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, namely the 23 Democrats can vote to hold impeachment hearings. Get them to do it.
    –While there may be some political risks involved, THERE REALLY IS NO CHOICE in view of the risk of NOT proceeding and failing to defend and protect the Constitution and Rule of Law. Members of Congress take an oath to do so. Impeachment in the face of crimes is a LEGAL OBLIGATION of elected officials which must be done to enforce the law. Do not buy into the Republican charge that impeachment is a bad thing – saying that is an admission on their part that they want to block enforcement of the laws of this land.
    –Nuremberg concluded that nations that do NOT use impeachment are not civilized. The world knows we have violated the Geneva Conventions, e.g. Failure to take action is evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations…failing to prevent war crimes, etc. That is recklessness. There is no choice, really. Further, members of Congress themselves….along with legal counsel in EOP, OVP, and DoJ and DoD are defying the law by doing nothing.
    –Even if the Senate will not convict, there is great potential benefit of even a failed impeachment in laying bare the administration’s crimes. IN NO WAY would a failed impeachment mean Bush or Cheney was/were exonerated! It means we investigated potential crimes.
    –Impeachment helps educate the public that this is an essential part of the Constitution — the trial is to gather information to FIND OUT what they have been doing in our name. Because they are refusing to cooperate with Congress — and even refuse to recognize that Congress HAS any oversight responsibility (they believe they are above the law) impeachment as a fact-finding mechanism is the only means available to restore any transparency at all to the executive branch.
    –EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE vanishes (merely by STARTING impeachment proceedings!), along with Bush’s power to PARDON anyone (or promise to pardon them) who is part of the investigation. The language prohibiting it is in the Constitution. And, it doesn’t matter what the Senate ultimately says or does. Bush will not be allowed to immunize his co-conspirators!
    –Acc. to those at Marcy Wheeler’s blog, impeachment should be initiated….immediately….of AG Gonzales first; he has no credibility or sympathy in Congress or the country, and there is no dispute about high crimes and misdemeanors. And, they won’t be able to use the argument that “the commander in chief”…during a time of war….is being unfairly targeted. Cover the same crimes of AGAG that Bush and Cheney are guilty of…..thereby having already established evidence needed. Then impeach Cheney. By keeping them busy with impeachment, they will have less time to work on attacking Iran. By that time so much will have been uncovered and obvious to the public, there will likely be a public outcry to impeach Bush as well.
    — Possibly never in our history before has there been a situation more worthy of using the powers of impeachment the Founders gave us. To do less is to disrespect the very foundations on which the country was built.
    –As to backlash on the Dems –ask yourself — how badly did the GOP suffer for its raw political, hollow, and inappropriate impeachment of Clinton? And, in comparison, we will have done nothing (if we do not impeach BC)? How could that not be shameful? Letting them continue to tell the American people: Go Fuck Yourselves. We will have let them get away with that!
    –As it stands now, the OVP and the EOP are getting away with destroying evidence in RNC e-mails. That could be linked to unlawful war crimes planning….with grave consequences for those involved.
    –Polls show the people want impeachment to proceed. They are behind impeachment. They are, in fact, growing disillusioned that no action is being taken, thus “…the biggest RISK politically, morally, and constitutionally actually lies in NOT proceeding.”

    Reply

  20. ... says:

    marky, i agree with you on the october suprise and bush/reagan.. remember – like father, like son… this is an ongoing problem in american politics and increasingly the american public are held hostage by bad leaders who have self interest ahead of service.. if the president has the power to express self interest ahead of service, then america may as well kiss itself goodbye.. it is time to take a stand and impeach bush and change the direction..

    Reply

  21. Marky says:

    POA, I don’t see any reason to use Paul and Kucinich as standard bearers for impeachment. My distaste for both of them has nothing to do with their position on impeachment. By the way, I wasn’t asking you to marginalize them—i was pointing out that they ARE marginal. Anyway, its nothing to get in a huff about. They are not the issue. Bush is.
    As far as impeachment charges, I think that treason for the reasons you suggest is out of the question.
    Once someone becomes President, I think it becomes extremely difficult to argue that some of his actions are treason. Outing Plame as he did was a crime, but not treason. Removing her from her job would be within his discretion as President, and he could do so for almost any reason.
    On the other hand, I think Bush Sr. and Reagan both should have been tried for treason and hanged over the October Surprise business. Since they were NOT in office at the time of their actions, they were clearly committing treason by negotiating with Iran to hold the hostages past the election.

    Reply

  22. PissedOffCitizen says:

    “Forget Kucinich and Paul. They are not assets.”
    No. I will not marginalize them, or remove them from the debate, merely because you demand it. Your request perfectly underscores my point. Ron Paul is doing unexpectedly well in the polls, and has raised more money than McCain. His blog hits surpass the numbers of many of the “mass marketed” candidates, and his message and postures have been unwavering throughout the criminal reign of Bush/Cheney. He exemplifies the positions that insiders and pundits deem laudable, but are sorely lacking in the other candidates. Why, just because you ask me to, should I remove Kucinich and Ron Paul from the debate?
    Since when did honesty, and consistent conviction in regards to the issues fail to be an “asset”? And pointing out the reality of a media effort to marginalize Kucinich and Paul is “whining”? Sorry, Marky, but I think your argument, your semantics, and your values, suck.
    The charges? Lets start with treason. For exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative engaged in matters, (the proliferation of WMDs), directly affecting the security of the United States of America. The Plame exposure aided the “enemy”, (by Bush’s own definition of “enemy”), and compromised the security of the United States. As such, the crime meets the accepted standard of treason.

    Reply

  23. Marky says:

    POA,
    That was a good answer. I’m curious though—you seem to be tacitly assuming that a Democratic administration in 2008 will be as corrupt as Bush, or at least have the same faults.
    Let me make a little aside. Forget Kucinich and Paul. They are not assets. I don’t consider them significant players for impeachment. More importantly, whining about how Paul and Kucinich are marginalized distracts the focus from Bush.
    We all know Bush is horrible, a criminal, blah blah.
    I’m sure if you polled people on impeachment with the hypothetical that Bush would be out tomorrow, support would greatly increase. We all want Bush to go.
    So, suppose we have impeachment, then on what charges? I favor finding the strongest, narrowest charges, which can be proved most quickly, so that Bush can be removed as quickly as possible. Once Bush is gone, and his priviledge is gone, then all other issues will be open to examination.
    Breaking the FISA law is the best example of a narrow charge which is rock solid, IMO. On the other hand, an obstruction of justice charge stemming from the Libby pardon may have a greater chance of success.
    A second consideration I have is whehter Bush can be held accountable after he leaves office.
    If you look at Bush Sr., I don’t exactly understand how the pardon of Weinberger saved him, now that I think of it. After his pardon, Weinberger could not invoke 5th amendment priviledge, so he could have been forced to testify about Bush Sr. Isn’t that right?
    Wasn’t the real problem a lack of will, either from Congress or the Justice Department?

    Reply

  24. Sandy says:

    uh…that is, I can BE stupid. But I am NOT stupid.
    Oh, never mind!

    Reply

  25. Sandy says:

    Whap! You have slapped me upside my head with your white glove, Marky!
    I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE!
    …but I’ll have to get back to you. My husband wants (needs) his dinner.
    BTW, thanks for the thought experiment. I can be VERY stupid, yes, at times….and I admit I haven’t completely thought this through. I knew I wanted BOTH Bush and Cheney impeached….but (fantasize with me) what if it worked? I KNOW I don’t want Nancy Pelosi in charge! Hmmm.
    I’ll be baaack!
    But watch out.
    I may be crazy.
    But I’m not stupid.
    :-)

    Reply

  26. PissedOffCitizen says:

    Impeachment needs to be approached as a legal necessity, not as a political risk, or act of grandstanding. You freely admit that this administration has committed impeachable offenses in one breath, and in the next you advocate holding them above the law. Our laws are not designed, or intended, to only be applied whem it is politically expedient.
    If the polls are any indication, there are far more Americans that would support impeachment than you or the media would have us believe. I live in an exclusively Republican area of Central California, and I can tell you the INFORMED Republicans are as angry as the liberals I know are. “Informed” being the key word here.
    However, just like the attempts to discredit Kucinich and Ron Paul by consigning them to some sort of “conspiracy theorist” genre, and ignoring and marginalizing them in the media, we see the “impeachment movement” receiving the same kind of swiftboating and demonization. And it truly is a campaign of propagandizing the possibility of a successful impeachment campaign, or its failure. We are being told it will fail by the very forces that have no political will to pursue impeachment because they are the very forces that would be harmed by a successful impeachment.
    And your argument that 2008 will be the year of restoral is asinine to the extreme. The unfounded and unrealistic expectation that the next administration will adhere to the rule of law is ridiculous, especially considering that the current administration has escaped accountability with such ease, abetted by the cowardice and complicity of the so called “opposition party”. Do you actually believe the likes of Hillary or Obama offer us less corruption, cronyism, or favoritism?
    A sincere and focused impeachment effort would be educational to the American people that are still disengaged and uninformed, and support would grow as the American people began to fully recognize the serious and damaging nature of the crimes of this administration. All it would take is a concerted outcry by a few bipartisan members of the leadership of BOTH parties to get the ball rolling. But certainly, Obama’s despicable comments about Bush’s crimes not rising to the level of impeachable offense, and Pelosi’s cowardly “off the table” comments have not indicated a respect for the rule of law. Nor have their comments bode well for how they will conduct themselves should they manage to slime themselves into possessing as much power as Bush enjoys.
    This isn’t a “should we or shouldn’t we” question, Marky. The real question is whether or not we have equal justice before the law, and whether or not our so called “representatives” intend to respect their oaths of office.
    As to your question as to what would happen if impeachment efforts fail? Well, we would be exactly where we are now. With two distinct bodies of law. The one WE have to adhere to, and the one the elite have to adhere to.
    When do we impeach, Marky? When we no longer have the tools to do so? Thats what you are advocating, because your “solution” provides no deterence to the removal of those tools from the people’s checks and balances.
    Wait till 2008 is your plan? Well, its Bush’s plan too.
    Congrats, you’re the iceberg, not the ship.

    Reply

  27. Marky says:

    I have to say that the impeach now crowd has given me no evidence they are using their brains, and that gives me concern. Specifically, I don’t see ANY realisitic discussion among the impeachment crowd of the risks of impeachment. One huge risk is that a failure to impeach or convict Bush or Cheney will EXONERATE them. Also, I strongly believe that impeachment will make it completely impossible to move policy on Iraq.
    I could list more problems, but the issue isn’t whether I can rationally consider the possible outcomes of impeachment proceedings—the problem is that I see zero, zip, nada in terms of thinking through possible outcomes from the impeachment crowd, and that scares me.
    Do I believe Bush should be impeached? Absolutely, and more: I think Bush should be tried and imprisoned for war crimes, while Cheney should be tried for corruption and bribery at a minimum.
    Righteous stupidity is the last thing our Republic needs.
    So here is a challenge, for starters. Suppose impeachment of Bush begins, and suppose impeachment fails, either in the House or Senate. You have to agree that is the most likely outcome, given current support for Bush.
    What is the benefit of a failed impeachment, and when does that benefit accrue? What is the long term strategy which requires impeachment even if it fails?
    If your answer is that only impeachment will punish Bush, I don’t see it, because failed impeachment doesn’t punish Bush at all.
    If your answer is that only impeachment will bring to light Bush’s crimes, I am extremely skeptical. Congress has been very successful to date in exposing some of the details of Bush scandals; given 18 months, I expect that Congress will succeed in showing with great clarity exactly how corrupt the Bush administration is. As a corollary, they will also expose the enabling behavior of the GOP in Congress.
    If you think that the choice is impeachment or nothing, I think you should reconsider. Don’t accuse me of cowardice… well, unless you’re mad about me calling you stupid. The emotion cuts both ways and I am getting furious at the non-arguments of the pro-impeachment crowd who are making no effort at all to be smart and play for the long term victory over the GOP.
    In the final analysis, I’m very open to the possibility that some particular scandal may final drive the public towards such a level of support for impeachment that Congress has no choice but to proceed in that direction. That said, I have zero confidence in such a scenario. Bush has been manifestly unfit for the job since 1999, when I first saw him. His first year in office, was a complete disaster up until 9/11, at which point it became a catastrophe of historic proportions. He should have been forced to resign by 2002 for his pre 9/11 failures. By 2002 it was a miracle that he had such a high level of public support.
    And so on. What I understand and accept is that the Bush PR machine is incredibily effective at diverting attention from Bushs’ failures. I have hoped for 5 years that public and institutional support of Bush would collapse at some point. That hasn’t happened, and I’m not counting on it to happen before 2008

    Reply

  28. Sandy says:

    “The Bush administration’s greatest success is its ability to escape accountability for its numerous impeachable offenses.
    The administration’s offenses against US law, the US Constitution, civil liberties, human rights, and the Geneva Conventions, its lies to Congress and the American people, its vote-rigging scandals, its sweetheart no-bid contracts to favored firms, its political firing of Republican US Attorneys, its practice of kidnapping and torturing people in foreign hellholes, and its persecution of whistle blowers are altogether so vast that it is a major undertaking just to list them all.
    Bush admits that he violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spied on US citizens without warrants, a felony under the Act. Bush has shown total disrespect for civil liberty and the Constitution and has suffered rebukes from the Supreme Count. The evidence is overwhelming that the Bush administration manufactured false “intelligence” to justify military aggression against Iraq. The Halliburton contract scandals are notorious, as is the use of electronic voting machines programmed to miscount the actual vote.
    The chief-of-staff to Vice President Cheney has been convicted for obstructing justice in the outing of a covert CIA officer. Proof of torture is overwhelming, and the Bush administration has even had the temerity to have permissive legislation passed after the fact that permits it to continue to torture “detainees.” The Sibel Edmonds and other whistle blower cases are well known. The Senate Judiciary Committee has just issued subpoenas to Justice (sic) Dept. officials involved in the scandalous removal of US Attorneys who refused to be
    politicized.
    Yet the Democrats have taken impeachment ‘off the table.’ Many Democrats and Republicans and a great many Christians can contemplate
    illegal military aggression against Iran,
    but not the impeachment of the greatest criminal administration in US history.
    Far from being scandalized by what the entire world views as an unjust invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US, leading Democratic and Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination rushed to inform the Israel Lobby, AIPAC, that they, if elected, will keep US troops in Iraq….
    …we have become desensitized by the avalanche of Bush-Cheney crimes, lies, and disdain for Congress, courts, and public opinion.
    Our elected representatives, if not the American people, now regard as normal such heinous actions as war crimes, the rape of the Constitution, self-serving use of government office, and the constant stream of lies and propaganda from the highest offices of the executive branch.
    …If the notion has departed that the highest political offices in the land are supposed to be occupied by people who are honest and faithful to their oath to the Constitution, then we are far advanced on the road to tyranny.
    In future history books, will Bush-Cheney mark the transition of the United States from constitutional rule to the unaccountable rule of the unitary executive who cancels out Congress with signing statements and silences critics with the police state means that are now part of the US legal code?”
    http://tinyurl.com/yvkhf6
    The world is watching us now. Making the choice to avoid impeachment proceedings….whatever the rationale…is
    WRONG!
    Maybe you don’t remember the TELEVISED Clinton impeachment hearings. The BUSH-CHENEY crimes need to be TELEVISED for the world to see…and hear.
    Saying “we don’t have the votes” is a COP-OUT! And everyone knows it! PRESENT THE EVIDENCE!
    PRESENT THE CRIMES TO THE WORLD!
    SHOW — as Kathleen says —
    “Congress has a duty to uphold the law and protect the Constitution, period.
    The issue is whether we are going to stand by and watch crimes being committed with impugnity, at our expense and in our name.
    If we expect average citizens to respect the rule of law, then the rule of law MUST apply to all equally, or it isn’t worth the paper it’s written upon. Surely our Constitution is worth an earnest attempt to protect it….”
    IMPEACH BUSH-CHENEY NOW!

    Reply

  29. JN says:

    In a world that became perfect, it would be capital punishment that Bush et al would receive after a fair trial that would find him, and them, guilty of lying the country into an unnecessary, premeditated, illegal, and immoral war of aggression against Iraq that has resulted in the death of 100,000+. Very simple outcome, in a perfect world.
    In our un-perfect world, let grow sentiments for impeachment without actually going there. Let it be the by-word for the popular acknowledgment of high crimes having been committed. Dig deep into all the particular crimes this administration has engaged in with the help of ALL Republicans through their silence if not by their outright approval. Make these crimes the indelible brand of the Republican party. Make this administration the poster boy for what ALL Republicans stand for: corruption, crime and War Crime. Remind people, election after election, for the next generation that Republican = Criminal and cite the crimes of this administration which are the inherently in its genes, a criminal Republican DNA. It’s so very obvious who these people are. Destroy them with the truth.
    Jugular Now.

    Reply

  30. Kathleen says:

    Congress has a duty to uphold the law and protect the Constitution, period.
    The issue is whether we are going to stand by and watch crimes being committed with impugnity, at our expense and in our name.
    If we expect average citizens to respect the rule of law, then the rule of law MUST apply to all equally, or it isn’t worth the paper it’s written upon. Surely our Constitution is worth an earnest attempt to protect it. Who the hell needs enemies with this bunch in office, Repugs and Democratz alike, with some notable exceptions.
    Anyone who is too goddamned chicken to protect our Constitution from domestic enemies who circumvent it at every turn, flouting it, ignoring it, and scoffing at it in our faces, is complicit in eroding the public’s trust in our gov’t.
    For God’s sake, speak up now, before we all have to goosestep off to some labor camp, built by Halliburton of course.
    Nazisim took hold in Germany, bit by bit, in the fine print, with subtle legalese that no one noticed particularly. We have such legal clauses on our books now thanks to our own homegrown NeoNutzis parked on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
    It’s past time to flush this bunch down the crapper.
    Do you suppose Darth Cheney’s face is so crooked because he’s actually a ventriloquist?

    Reply

  31. PissedOffAmerican says:

    If we don’t impeach Bush/Cheney, than our Republic is lost. Our failure to do so lays the groundwork for equally as egregious, or worse, abuses by the incoming administrations. If this administration has not met the bar for impeachment, than no administration ever will.

    Reply

  32. MP says:

    I tend to agree with you Marky (and Steve) on this…as much as Bush et al deserve impeachment.

    Reply

  33. Marky says:

    Here is Armando at Talkleft making the same point about impeachment. In fact, when impeachment does not result in conviction, Franklin referred to that result as “honorable acquital”.
    If Bush is impeached but not convicted, he will actually be exonerated, going by the spirit of the Founders.
    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/7/7/172255/7265

    Reply

  34. marky says:

    About sending a message: a failed impeachment gives two mains messages. First, that the Democrats are weak and ineffective, and second, that Bush is not guilty of the charges brought, because the Senate acquitted him.
    Is that really a message we want to send?

    Reply

  35. Marky says:

    About impeachment: It seems clear to me that impeachment charges will be narrowly drawn. If I’m wrong, then the rest of my argument is irrelevant. But suppose that impeachment is focused on one, narrow issue—e.g. Bush violating the FISA law. That’s certainly an impeachable offense. The problem I see is that once impeachment starts, the possibility of devoting adequate resources to uncovering the rest of the Bush administrations misdeeds becomes much slimmer.
    To my mind, exposing as much as possible of the machinations of Bushco should come before impeachment. Of particular importance is getting concrete evidence of the Republican vote-suppression strategy. I would much rather the GOP role in that despicable strategy fully fleshed out then see Bush impeached over, say, FISA violations alone.
    And voter-suppression is only a very small part of what needs to be shown to the public.
    Its quite possible that the Republicans will never abandon Bush to the extent that they will vote to impeach; however, by following my strategy, the Democrats should be able to make the Republicans pay a very heavy price in 2008.
    Make Bush sink the GOP—-hard, or have Republicans begging to join the impeachment parade. That seems like smart thinking to me.
    A failed impeachment will have unpredictable effects. I think it most likely the Dems will be hurt badly in that event. Playing smart now can pay off big in 2008.

    Reply

  36. Sandy says:

    Yes, the OUTRAGE, really, that there IS evidence of war crimes and you and others speak of The Hague…and yet…..and yet….
    …the world sees the American people ….just like the Germans decades back…. turning their heads the other way….and doing
    N O T H I N G. Just as responsible.
    Shocking!
    I am sick to death of hearing “there aren’t enough votes” for impeachment.
    LAME.
    Anyone who says this knows VERY WELL that, by now, there are SO MANY different areas of law breaking…..power grabbing…..ignoring….trampling ….the Constitution and Rule of Law….together with EVIDENCE — CRIMES….far far worse than WATERGATE…..WHITEWATER (a joke)…..and Clinton’s Monica lying.
    Just start with the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the Libby case. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE not only by Libby. By President Bush. By VP Cheney. The lying us into this War on Iraq. These are not crimes? These are not worse than breaking into the Watergate?
    No….it isn’t about not having enough votes. It’s about the work involved. It’s about waiting to win in 2008. It’s about the myriad ways in which they’ve been PAID OFF to DO NOTHING.
    The corruption has spread like a cancer throughout the Congress. Each one as bought-and-paid-for as the other.
    There isn’t any question about the crimes. There isn’t any question what the American people want…..and NEED.
    I’m sending a check to Dennis Kucinich.
    One of the few with any integrity and conviction.

    Reply

  37. Anonymous says:

    On impeachment, I take your point about the risk of not getting a conviction.
    The real problem to solve is how to set a clear red line precedent for future Presidents and their administrations. Short of impeachment, how do you make it clear to future administrations that secret illegal spying and all the rest will not be tolerated? How do you create an environment that will yield people who will quit rather than commit crimes and prevent the Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcrofts, and the like, who will accommodate bad policies, even evil policies like torture?
    Some of the answer lies in clear legislation, for example, giving people standing to sue the government for secret spying, if you can get Republicans to sign on. But a lot of the answer lies in education, digging into the facts and making a public case, for example, in the context of an impeachment process, win or lose. But it’s also true the USA hearings, the Libby trial, these and similar events seem to have done well surfacing facts that people can use to make informed judgments. This sort of public “outing” also can help the media readjust their values, too.
    And it’s also true that past administrations at times have clearly gone overboard legally. Bush is unique perhaps only in degree. I only hope we can, with or without impeachment, set clear precedents so this does not happen again. We need to think about how we can make everyone agree, regardless of party, that certain behaviors are off the table. If we can punish people, hold them accountable, to me that’s a bonus.
    Personally, I’m waiting to see if some uppity Iraqi walks into the Hague with documents already surfaced to charge Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the rest with war crimes, a la Pinochet. Not that it will do any more than prevent them from overseas travel, if they’re convicted. But it would further educate people about the acceptable limits of future government behavior.

    Reply

  38. ... says:

    what is hilary clintons excuse for the same tack on cuba then? she is such a buffoon.

    Reply

  39. JohnH says:

    Rick, it wasn’t just organized crime that was heavily involved in Cuba. Kevin Phillips describes Bush family involvement:
    “George H. Walker was a real piece of work. I mean, he was a buccaneer. He was sort of a Joe Kennedy, but with a social register type qualification. He got involved in the 1920’s with a bunch of Cuban companies, because of his ties to Percy Rockefeller and the National City Bank. They handled a lot of investments in Cuba. He was a director during the 1920’s of eight or nine Cuban companies. George H. Walker had ties to the — investment ties that were independent, so he had invested in some of these companies. One of them turned out several — several turned out to merge into something called West Indies Sugar. West Indies Sugar became one of the major American companies in Cuba, and George H. Walker Jr., the son of George H. Walker and Prescott, Bush’s cousin was a director, held a family seat on West Indies Sugar. Now during the late 1950’s, West Indies Sugar was based in the Indy province in Cuba. That’s where the Castro insurgency was developing. Castro and his people sort of shook down West Indies Sugar. They used their trucks and hit them up for money and so forth. They were unhappy with the Castro movement. In 1959 or 1960, I forget which year, Castro’s people nationalized West Indies Sugar, and at this time George H. W. Bush’s uncle was Director of West Indies Sugar. The value of West Indies sugar had been about $50 million and it wound up being virtually peanuts. I don’t know how much their stake was. I couldn’t begin to guess. It may not have been nearly as much as one would suggest from the bigger numbers. They were an unhappy set of campers when West Indies Sugar went bye-bye.”
    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/12/1448237
    As usual, there’s more than ideology involved here. There’s family money at stake here!

    Reply

  40. ... says:

    rick it is nice to see someone actually educate themselves on cuba/american history and come to an independent position based on knowledge as opposed to what american foreign policy towards cuba has been the past however many years.. kudos to you. it would be great if more americans viewed it with intelligence.. of course the same could be said for so many things politically in the usa.. i think impeaching bush and cheney is the only way to go, but alas so many americans are ‘muddled up in the middle’ and staying stuck in the mud as a result. the usa will get nowhere with a moderate approach, while its leaders take a far right facist type approach.. more drastic measures are needed by american citizens.. steve characterizes the moderate approach.. it isn’t working. bush/cheney are probably laughing at how easy it is to take advantage of the populace, what with a complicit media and a political framework that is essentially apathic in spite of all the high sounding talk.

    Reply

  41. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Ya gotta love the Wonkette.
    One of the posters asks the incredibly intelligent question…..
    “Who do I gotta blow to get impeachment procedings going?”

    Reply

  42. larry birnbaum says:

    How can she support a ridiculous Cuban policy? Because she understands that first of all, if she’s going to do any good, she needs to get elected.
    Our Cuban policy is counterproductive; it no doubt hurts people. But it’s strategically inconsequential one way or the other.
    One of the things I always admired about her husband was his instinctual understanding that the best is the enemy of the good. I’m glad to see she understands this as well.

    Reply

  43. Rick B says:

    On Cuba
    I have been reviewing the history of the American relationship with Cuba and the Mafia. Castro revolted against Fulgencio Batista largely because of the way Batista literally farmed the Cuban people for money. Batista had gotten his power on his own but after WW II when “Lucky” Luciano was released from prison as a reward for his services to the OSS in WW II he moved to Havana, from which location he dominated organized crime in the U.S. East Coast and in Cuba. Meyer Lansky and numerous organized crime leaders from South Florida ran the gambling and organized crime in Cuba, reputedly paying Batista 30% from the Lansky casinos (the Hotel Nacional, the Montmartre Club and others.) Lansky was also providing a cut to Lucky Luciano until after the Castro-led Revolution succeeded.
    Even as a high school student I was aware that Castro’s revolution was justified by the circumstances on the ground in Cuba. But Castro committed the ultimate crime. He kicked both Batista and organized crime out of Cuba. After that, Castro couldn’t be bought off. Taking the Organized crime empire over in Cuba was one thing, but refusing to be bought off was the ultimate crime.
    Presumably a large part of the anti-Castro Cuban exile families are the descendants of those Mafioso who were kicked out of Cuba. They’ve made it clear for five decades they want to go back. I’d be very interested to know how Senator Menendez’ family fits into this history. East Coast organized crime still has its hands in who gets elected to the major positions.
    The Florida “Cuban Exile Families” will remain a major block to decent relations with Cuba. Castro’s “Communism” has always been a code-word for “This is personal. No one steals my family’s property.” They may be looking for a new code-word, but the basic motivation remains what it has been since the Cuban Revolution.
    Needless to say, the Cuban people do not want the descendants of Lansky back, and the Cuban Exile Families still want what their families lost to Castro back. The Americans won’t admit the U.S. involvement in the crime domination of pre-Castro Cuba, so until all this is dealt with openly and honestly, nothing is going to move.

    Reply

  44. Carroll says:

    Well, I can’t think of a better PR message the US could send to the world at large than impeaching Bush-Cheney.
    But the dems are too chickenshit and corrupt themselves to even investigate the people who lied us into war so fat chance they will impeach anyone. Besides nothing is about America remember?….it’s all about the parties. If they are keeping their power dry it’s for the election, nothing else.
    Oh yea…just elect us and we will fix it…uh huh, been there, done that…no thanks.
    Hillary caters to the Cuban exiles for the same reason she caters to the Jewish Israeli cult.
    Ditto Giuliani.
    If anyone wants to mention Orwellian, I don’t know a better example than that…all these US presidential candidates campaigning on how they will use the US for the benefit of a foreign country. America is really Israel? We need to restore Cuba to the Bastisa fascist in Miami?
    Oh well, one of these days….the war between the Jewish Israelis and the rest of America will begin.
    I think maybe Russia is helping Iran install some anti missile systems.
    I will check out Powers.
    Gordon Brown made a smart move for Britian.

    Reply

  45. daCascadian says:

    While I agree with you on the reality of the Impeachment action I think it is a very bad mistake, far worse than not following through on Watergate
    “We the people…” are going to suffer very badly for failing on this as is the reat of the planet`s population
    “He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.” – Francis Bacon

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *