Sevens

On August 6, 2001, George W. Bush received the infamous PDB that he ignored, titled “bin-Laden Determined to Strike the U.S.”. Seven years later, the implications of ignoring the memo are larger than ever.

Commentary By: Richard Blair

Seven years ago today, at the outset of a four week vacation in Crawford, George Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing memo titled “bin-Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.“. He then proceeded to shoot a 7 on the first hole at his local golf course. The legacy media was dutifully impressed. (“Watch this drive.”)

During the first seven months of 2001, George Tenet was running around Washington, DC with his “hair on fire”, trying to get George Bush (or anyone in his administration) to listen to the intelligence chatter about a pending al-Qaeda strike. Richard Clarke documented Tenet’s head blaze, as did Andy Borowitz (a must-read if there ever was one).

On Sept. 11th, 2001, after George W. Bush was informed of the attacks on the World Trade Center, he sat reading a children’s book for another seven minutes.

Coincidence? You decide.

Wednesday, August 6th, 2008 by Richard Blair |

White House Ordered Forgery of Saddam / al-Qaeda Link?

In a new book hitting the stores, Ron Suskind writes that, post-9/11, the White House directed the CIA to forge a letter from Saddam’s security minister to create the impression of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Bush administration spokesperson Tony Fratto characterized Suskind’s claim as “absurd” – and interestingly enough, Fratto is right.

Commentary By: Richard Blair

File this under “just another outrage”. Well, maybe not. According to Politico, author Ron Suskind claims in a new book that’s hitting the stores:

…the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.

Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.

The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.” …

Normally, I’d just let such a report fall through the cracks of my mind (and ASZ). I mean, how many tell-all books have to be written to document the lies, secrecy and deceit that have become the legacy of George Bush’s presidency? There’s already a special library section dedicated to the genre, written by either former administration insiders (such as O’Neill, Clarke, and McClellan) or credible authors (like Suskind, Hersh, and Woodward), each of whom had unique access to the movers, shakers, and decision makers. So why am I picking on this particular instance? For instructional purposes.

Here’s how a “non-denial-denial” works:

The White House flatly denied Suskind’s account. Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, told Politico: “The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is just absurd.” …

Damnation. Mr. Fratto is right. It is absurd. Which is why it’s probably true. Note that Fratto did not deny the allegation, only that it was absurd.

Absurd (–‰–™b-s–»rd’, -z–»rd’) adj: So senseless as to be laughable. Syn: foolish, harebrained, idiotic, imbecilic, insane, lunatic, mad, moronic, nonsensical, preposterous, silly, softheaded, tomfool, unearthly

Yep, I’d say that just about sums up the entire 7+ years of the Bush administration.

Our esteemed colleague Jill has more.

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 by Richard Blair |

Impeachment or Burger King

In May of 2006, Speaker of the House-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi took “impeachment off the table”. For months now, Dennis Kucinich has been trying to put the issue back on the table, to little avail. Finally, it looks like at least one of his Articles of Impeachment will receive a Judiciary Committee hearing.

Commentary By: Richard Blair

Way back before the Democratic Party sweep in 2006, months before Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House in January, 2007, she put forth the now-infamous proclamation at a party caucus meeting: “Impeachment is off the table.

Dennis Kucinich, the gadfly Dem congressman from Ohio and former presidential contender, recently introduced a wide ranging impeachment resolution against George W. Bush. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee (headed by John Conyers), where it is all but certain to experience an ignoble death. One count of the indictment, though, will apparently merit a committee hearing.

Impeachment is on the table.

But Congress is not allowed to bite.

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on one of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the chamber have signaled that they do not want the committee – let alone the full House – to take a vote on impeachment.

How’s that?

The Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the president’s abuses of power – perhaps as soon as next week…

But, when all is said and done, the committee is only supposed to “accumulate” the evidence of imperial over-reach, not to act upon it.

John Cole has excellent advice for the Democratic Party congressional “leadership” on this parliamentary maneuver: it’s time to shit or get off the pot, or get a job at Burger King.

(h/t to Brendan for for the lead!)

Friday, July 18th, 2008 by Richard Blair |

Why the hell are you celebrating?

We celebrate this day in order to honor the time when our founders decided that the excesses of the Monarchy were too much to bear. Unfortunately we are now victims of their success. Distracted by our present we willfully close our eyes to a future wherein the rights of our children are negotiable.


Commentary By: E in MD

Does this look familiar?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…

(more…)

Saturday, July 5th, 2008 by E in MD |

Impeachment Imperative

Presidential impeachment is the only remedy the American people have against the establishment of rule by a dictator, and is not an action to be taken lightly (as it was in the recent past). However, neither should it be considered “optional” for political reasons when a sitting President has committed criminal acts.


Commentary By: E in MD

On the tenth of June we saw the Democratic Congressman of Ohio’s 10th District draft and bring to the floor of Congress the Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush. Impeachment is a process that is long, expensive, and exhausting to the American people and the system of government that supports and protects them. However, some people seem to feel that impeachment in this case is either not justified or is just a waste of time.

Granted, Congress does have a whole host of important issues on their plate right now. The war, telecom immunity, domestic infrastructure, the energy crisis, the mortgage crisis. The list seems endless and perhaps that is why we have a Congress in the first place. The people occupying space in Congress are elected in order to do two things: the first, something they seem to have forgotten on many fronts, is to be the direct representative for the American people to their government. Obviously with three hundred million plus citizens, we can’t all head down to DC and start shouting and expect to get anything done, although given the track record Congress has had in doing this job over the last few years, perhaps it’s time that a large portion of us did just that. The second job of Congress is to provide a check on the other two branches of government.

Our government really isn’t that complicated, though it can certainly seem that way when you are trying to get something accomplished. We have three branches with each one co-equal and important. Each branch has specific things that fall under their jurisdiction and each branch is set up so that the competition inherent in our species will help to mitigate personal ambition amongst the members. The legislative branch, of which the Congress is but one part, is responsible for writing the laws and for keeping a budget. The executive branch is tasked with signing or rejecting the laws and then executing the laws that have been approved and making sure that they are applied equally to all people. The judicial branch is there primarily to ensure compliance with the Constitution and to make sure that restitution in some form is made when the executive discovers and prosecutes someone breaking the laws made by the legislative branch.

The executive is not empowered to interpret the law. That is the strict province of the judicial branch. The legislative branch is not entitled to prosecute the law, with the exceptions of impeachment and as the need arises in their capacity of advice and consent. The judicial branch is neither empowered to write, nor approve, nor execute the law. This system works because each branch balances out the powers of the others, thus preventing the consolidation of power within one branch, entity, group, or individual.

The biggest problems occur when parts of the system break down as they have now. For two full Congressional sessions, we had a Republican-controlled legislature that effectively gave the President anything he wanted with no real debate, study, or even much thought, all out of party loyalty and individuals grasping for power. We can see this in the rhetoric and tactics that the Republican party uses in its propaganda campaigns.

The Democrat-controlled Congress is suddenly a –do nothing Congress’, but they fail to mention the reason why nothing is getting done is because the Republicans are blocking every bill that comes along, even ones honoring the contributions of American mothers on Mother’s Day. When by some miracle a bill manages to appeal to the –minority’ enough that it passes, the President simply vetoes it. When the Republicans were in the majority they controlled everything including scheduling and committee assignments, and in many cases locked the minority out of the entire process using procedural delays and maneuvers. Now that they are in the minority they are still exercising control because of the threat of filibustering in the Senate and the delay of debate in the Congress. They are doing this not because the bills coming through are particularly offensive, but rather they are doing it out of sheer spite. They are playing the system for their own personal gain and to avoid culpability not only for their party but for their President.

It was only when the Democratic party recaptured a slim majority in Congress in 2006 that the Congress again started doing their job and began to question the actions and motivations of the Bush administration. By this time, however, Bush had already been re-elected and was two years into his second term in office. The new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has stated outright that impeachment as an issue was “off the table”, when she has absolutely no right to do so. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say: the Speaker of the House shall be gifted with the power to selectively ignore parts of this document at his or her leisure. Her desire to somehow appear nonpartisan in the face of such obvious corruption has effectively destroyed all credibility and power the Congress retained merely by her failure to act. This power she sacrificed is OUR power, the only power we as American citizens can truly wield, short of outright revolution.

With all of these things these things in mind, I must say that: There is no more important issue than impeachment.

On June 12th of 2008, in the Sun-Sentinel newspaper an editorial was written stating:

The nation does have a few pressing issues pending that could use some attention from our federal lawmakers.

Let’s see. There are a couple of wars going on, unemployment is on the rise as the value of a house continues to fall, millions of Americans have no health insurance, and did we mention that gas prices are expected to hit $5 a gallon? You get the idea. And still, some in Congress feel the nation is just itching for another presidential impeachment.


In this nation, right now, because of the machinations by the 107-110th Congresses, I as an American citizen, can be dragged out of my house in the middle of the night, jailed indefinitely, be subjected to torture, have all of my financial accounts frozen and my property and land seized, all because of the word of one man and one man alone. Having this much power in the hands of one man effectively promotes a that man to the status of a King. This is the very reason why we have separate, distinct and co-equal branches of government -to prevent abuses of the public trust, the Constitution and the citizenry by anyone one branch. No where in the Constitution does it say that the President shall be exempt from whatever law he should choose during times of war.

Until the point where the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees of the US Government still have habeas corpus right it was at the sole discretion of the Executive that any on person be jailed under the Global War on Terror as an –unlawful enemy combatant’. Whether or not you were a citizen of the US isn’t relevant because if the executive branch has already decided that your rights don’t matter then how is informing them that you are an American citizen going to change their minds when you are strapped to the waterboard. If they do not accept your 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights even though legally mandated to do so I doubt very much the fact that you are an American citizen will matter in the slightest. Even with the Supreme Court ruling, anyone can still be jailed as such, but in theory they have the right to contest their confinement as legal or illegal, assuming the administration allows them access to a lawyer that is.

George W. Bush under the rhetoric of the war has decided on his own merit, using no constitutional basis at all that the laws of our nation do not apply to him. One can see this from his signing statements alone but it is more apparent in his actions. Whatever, Jose Padilla may or may not have done, he was an American citizen and as such had the rights and protections of an American citizen. Not only did his conviction prove that there was no need for his indefinate incarceration and physical and mental torture to provide a conviction but it also proved that under Bush’s regime any one of us. You, me, Bill Gates, could find ourselves in the same exact predicament.

A second editorial on the Sun-Sentinel on June 16th, 2008 states:

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel rightly upbraided partisan Democrats like Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler for promoting impeachment of President Bush. It failed to note that impeachment is for actual violation of law, not opposition to policies.


I have read the Articles put forth by Congressman Kucinich and while there are some parts I believe should be removed, ultimately it is the criminal behavior of the Bush administration that is finally being addressed. The bottom line is that impeachment is the solemn duty of the Congress, and like the rest of the Constitution, they do not get to pick and choose the parts that they wish to abide by and which they will ignore. The FISA law states with exclusivity that FISA shall be the sole method by which the government will collect intelligence from domestic sources even during war time. George W. Bush’s warrant-less wiretapping scheme violated that law on an untold number of occasions. Each count is a felony with a penalty of up to five years in prison and/or ten thousand dollars in fines.

Another count of the indictment is the fact that George W. Bush admitted that he knew and approved of the use of torture on US Detainees. You can call it –enhanced interrogation’, if it will make you sleep better at night. Referring to these actions as the antics of a –fraternity hazing’ is not only disingenuous but is outright dangerous to American civilians and soldiers abroad. Whether or not you agree with the terms used to justify the torture of other human beings, if the United States is known to use these techniques against other human beings then Americans caught by other organizations will have no qualms using the very same techniques against us. If you were subject to these techniques under the claws of Iran or North Korea or China you would know what it was when it was happening to you and you would call it torture. Just because the same exact technique is applied by an employee of the United States government does not make it right or just or good. Torture and its use against anyone is wrong and torture against anyone in our custody is a violation not only of US law but our treaty obligations and international law as well.

Lastly, if the Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence is to be believed and the President or his cabinet knowingly falsified evidence or used evidence they knew was false then they are also guilty of defrauding the United States government. This is yet another felony violation and one that has led to over four thousand American deaths, untold Iraqi death,s and a total cost for the war that may measure in the trillions of dollars.

On these facts alone, he should be impeached. We are not discussing lying to Congress about extramarital relations with a twenty-one year old intern. We’re discussing the commission of an untold number of felonies that have resulted in the deaths and torture of thousands of people. If it were you or your loved ones who had been treated in such a fashion, I would like to think you would not be so quick to dismiss the attempt to bring an admitted criminal to justice.

Whether the author of the original editorial likes it or not George W. Bush has violated the law, and the President, more than anyone because of the power he wields, must be beholden to the law. Otherwise the law has no meaning. We do not allow the bank robber to walk out of the bank without consequences just because he said “I’ll never do it again”. Allowing these actions to go unpunished is tantamount to endorsement and some future President who may well be even more malfeasant than George W. Bush could use that endorsement as legal precedent for even more heinous acts against our nation.

I, for one, would rather see this President in prison for his actions than to see my children suffer at the hands of some future President who also sees himself as the right hand of God.

We are not a nation of men. We are a nation of laws. A man or woman who makes the choice to ignore a law deserves to be punished whether they be a bank robber, a rapist, a murderer, or a torturer. Even when the person ignoring the law happens to be the President of the United States and it is the sworn duty of Congress to act. Every other year each member of Congress who is elected or re-elected must swear the following oath ( From Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution ):

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God]*.


To claim that impeachment is somehow not a duty because this President happens to be unpopular is either shear ignorance of our form of government or the ravings of a partisan divided heart that believes the Constitution is no more than a piece of paper full of guidelines.

* The actual wording of the oath for members of Congress was not codified in the Constitution as it was for the President. It specifies only that Congressmen “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.”. However US Code Title 5, Part III, Subpart B, Chapter 33, Subsection 3331 did codify the above oath into Law.

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008 by E in MD |

Scott McClellan: What If It’s All a Ruse?

Could Scott McClellan ‘™s book, and the apparent outrage from his former colleagues, be an elaborate GOP ruse, staged in order to bolster McCain’™s (and the GOP’™s) message of bipartisanship? The repetition of some curious phrases from McClellan makes one wonder. McClellan was a true believer. True believers don’™t turn on the cult. Think about it’¦

/wp/

Watching Scott McClellan on Countdown last night, a frightening thought struck me. What if his book, and the kerfluffle around the book, is simply more psyops from the GOP? Here’™s an example of what I mean:

In the interview with Olbermann, former Minister of Propaganda McClellan invoked the term ‘œpermanent campaign’ about 10 times to describe how he ostensibly feels about the hyper-partisan mindset in Washington, D.C., and how the bunker mentality of the Bush administration has evolved over the past 8 years.

It occurred to me that one of the selling points of the McCain campaign has been (and will continue to be) John McCain’™s ‘œmaverickness’ and willingness to reach across the political divide to get things done.

Let’™s be honest, there are few revelations in McClellan’™s book that appear to be new, at least to anyone who’™s been paying the least bit of attention during the course of the Bush regime’™s dismantlement of the American dream (more on that in a future post). Mostly, what McClellan relates is no more than insider confirmation of incidents and hubris that for the most part is already in the public domain.

So, could McClellan’™s book, and all of the apparent outrage from McClellan’™s former colleagues, be an elaborate GOP ruse, staged in order to bolster McCain’™s (and the GOP’™s) message of bipartisanship? As I listened to Olbermann’™s interview, it was almost like McClellan was utilizing the time tested GOP strategy of repeating focus-grouped phrases (such as ‘œpermanent campaign’). As the interview progressed, the words he was using started sounding like he was reading from a Frank Luntz talking points script.

Are McClellan’™s words (and indeed, the book itself) a well-calculated psyops move by the GOP to put further distance between the party and George Bush? Let’™s not forget that Scott McClellan was a true believer in the Bush deity. He didn’™t just drink the Texas koolaid, he power chugged it from a firehose. True believers do strange things for their godheads ‘” such as creating the illusion of throwing themselves under the proverbial bus ‘” for the greater good of the cult. Just think about Scooter Libby for a moment. Or Joseph Goebbels.

As we’™ve discovered over the past 8 years, in the Bush house of mirrors, any illusion is possible. Don’™t believe a thing that you read or hear right now. As I noted before, anyone who harbors a present (or past) association with this criminal regime is at great personal legal risk going forward, so nearly anything is possible.

It’™s all very strange’¦and something just isn’™t quite adding up. There’™s no need to put on a tinfoil hat when it comes to analyzing any move by the GOP and Bush administration. However, there is the continuing necessity to think outside the box, look beyond the obvious, and consider alternate realities, because the Bush administration has specialized in creating false illusions.

I’™m not the only one who’™s thinking there is something amiss in how all of this is playing out.

Friday, May 30th, 2008 by Richard Blair |

So, Is Dana Perino “Gruntled”, Then?

You knew it was coming. The current Minister of Propaganda, Dana Perino, went after her former boss today. She says that Scott McClellan was “disgruntled”. I guess that means she’s still gruntled.

Commentary By: Richard Blair

Ok, so, the White House smear campaign against former Minister of Propaganda Scott McClellan is raging in full force now. According to current MP Dana Perino:

White House aides seemed stunned by the scathing tone of the book, and Bush press secretary Dana Perino issued a statement that was highly critical of their former colleague.

Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House,” she said. “For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad – this is not the Scott we knew.” …

The implications of Perino’s statement are pretty clear: Scottie has jumped the shark. We don’t know if he’s had a brain injury, or what. But clearly, he’s not in his right mind. As opposed to me. I’m merely gruntled. Next question, please.

Listen, I don’t even want to waste a byte of internet bandwidth in dissecting Ms. Perino. I’ve said before that I don’t know how she can wake up in the morning and look at herself in the mirror. Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, Tony Snow, all of them – each of the Bush propaganda ministers – have revealed themselves as little more than a pack of lying, snide, smug, sycophantic shills. They knew their roles. (In Perino’s case, still do.)

Perino said the reports on the book had been described to Bush, and that she did not expect him to comment. “He has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers,” she said…

Yeah. He always has.

John Feehery (Dennis Hastert’s former press secretary) writes blithely at Politico:

It is hard to know what Scott McClellan’s motives are for writing this book. He is not the only one to jump ship and turn on his former client. Doug Feith, Jerry Bremer and a host of others have tried to shift the blame to others for failed policies in the Bush administration…

No, John, it’s not hard to understand the motivations. In fact, it’s incredibly easy. Start with war crimes and the International Court of Justice (The Hague), then work your way down the laundry list of complaints to common criminal investigations. They’re all in it up to their hips, and they know it. They’re scared. They’ve all lived a charmed media life for the past 8 years, and it’s about over.

I’ll return to blogging full time when every single one of the enablers of this criminal regime (including la Perino and McClellan) have been shackled and frog marched in a conga line through the front gates of the White House, and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been empaneled by congress.

Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 by Richard Blair |

Nancy Peolosi, Contempt of Congress, and a Stupid Question

How is it that miscreants from the Bush administration can ignore legally issued congressional subpoenas, be cited for contempt of congress, yet still walk the streets with apparent immunity from prosecution (or arrest or detention) by the U.S. Justice Department?

/wp/

I am quite floored by this. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demanded that the Justice Department (gasp!) enforce the law:

Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent the following letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, informing him of the referral letter sent to U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor on contempt citations of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Taylor is required by law to bring the matter before a grand jury. However, Mukasey has indicated that the Justice Department intends to prevent Taylor from complying with the law’¦

In essence, Miers and Bolten refused to comply with congressional subpoenas to appear.

Let me ask a stupid question. Supposing that I was subpoenaed to appear in a local or county court for either a criminal or civil matter, however minor. And, let’™s suppose that I refused to appear. What would happen?

A local magistrate could (and would) issue a bench warrant for my arrest. My name would be entered into a police database such that if I were driving down the road, with a bench warrant on my head, if I were driving a car registered in my name an pulled over by the local Hooterville constabulary, I’™d be cuffed and taken to the local lockup until I made an appearance before the judge.

So how is it that miscreants from the Bush administration can ignore legally issued congressional subpoenas, be cited for contempt of congress, yet still walk the streets with apparent immunity from prosecution (or arrest or detention) by the U.S. Justice Department?

Isn’™t that kind of making a mockery of the law for the rest of us? I’™m just saying’¦

Thursday, February 28th, 2008 by Richard Blair |

Mullah Omar – The Boys are Back in Town

As George Bush’™s days in office (hopefully) wind down, negotiating with terrorists is becoming a cottage industry. Today, Afghan president Kabul mayor Hamid Karzai offered to meet with Mullah Omar (remember him?), and potentially give the Taliban a role in government. At this point, I’™m not sure that Karzai has much of a choice.

/wp/

As Atrios notes today, it’™s almost amazing how everything that happened in (or to) America between Sept. 11, 2001 and March, 2003, seems to have fallen down the legacy media memory hole.

When I read the following AP story, I nearly choked:

KABUL, Afghanistan – President Hamid Karzai offered Saturday to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.

Reiterating a call for negotiations he has made with increasing frequency over the last several weeks, Karzai also said he was willing to meet with factional warlord leader and former Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’¦

Now, wait a second. Isn’™t Mullah Omar the guy who was harboring Osama bin-Laden prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan?

Why yes, yes he was.

And hasn’™t the Taliban (according to press reports, anyway) been the organization behind acts such as blowing up a bus today in Kabul, killing around 30 people?

Why yes, yes it has been.

And haven’™t the NATO forces [read: U.S. military] in Afghanistan been slaughtering Taliban supporters and fighters at a pretty healthy clip?

Why yes, yes they have been.

For a couple of years now, I’™ve been saying that the Taliban and warlords control the country. Karzi is, in effect, little more than the mayor of Kabul. His government controls a few square blocks of Kabul, and the NATO / U.S. military forces control 50 feet to either side of any road that an armed convoy happens to be traveling. The Taliban and warlords pretty much have the run of the rest of the country. And there are no lack of recruits for Mullah Omar’™s special brand of fundamentalism.

Winter is approaching quickly around the Khyber Pass, and with the change of season, any opportunity to mount an offensive on the Afghan front of the Bush regime’™s endless war on whatever. Speaking of which, I’™m wondering how the U.S. government is going to respond to the mayor of Kabul’™s offer.

How is the mess that Bush created ever going to be cleaned up?

Saturday, September 29th, 2007 by Richard Blair |

Murtha: “I” Word Back on the Table?

Over the past couple of years, former war-hawk and 30 year Marine Corps veteran Jack Murtha (D-Pa) has been a pit bull latching onto the legs of the Bush regime’™s ‘œSupport the Troops’ mantra. Murtha has undressed the emperor so many times, it’™s hard to keep count. Whether it’™s regarding lack of up-armoring [...]

/wp/

Over the past couple of years, former war-hawk and 30 year Marine Corps veteran Jack Murtha (D-Pa) has been a pit bull latching onto the legs of the Bush regime’™s ‘œSupport the Troops’ mantra. Murtha has undressed the emperor so many times, it’™s hard to keep count. Whether it’™s regarding lack of up-armoring on Humvees, troops having to buy their own body armor, compressed (and inadequate) training, or the impact of extended deployments on troops and their families, Jack Murtha has been leading the congressional charge to expose the Pentagon and the regime’™s hollow words of support.

In comments yesterday on CBS’™s Face the Nation, he once again lit into the regime for stalling on the Iraq funding bill,and proposed a solution to influence George Bush that, while not unique, is starting to gain some momentum:

‘œWhat I’™m saying, there’™s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’™s impeachment.’

Jack Murtha has never struck me as the kind of guy to use the ‘œI’ word lightly. Given the fact that the Progressive Democrats of America successfully lobbied the California Democratic Party to pass an impeachment resolution at last weekend’™s state convention, in addition to various state legislatures demanding the same, and Murtha’™s words on a national political talk show’¦well, you do the calculus.

Movements take time to build momentum. The Bush regime seems to be doing everything it can to quicken the impeachment momentum.

Update: As noted in this DKos diary, it’™s most probable that Murtha’™s words were cleared with Speaker Pelosi in advance of his Face the Nation appearance. So, would that mean that impeachment is indeed back on the table?

Monday, April 30th, 2007 by Richard Blair |
Next Page »