Skip to content

Another call for impeachment

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so it shouldn’t really be surprising that a former Reagan official and former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal Editorial page would be so right about impeachment. Via the “>Seminal, Paul Craig Roberts writes in CounterPunch:

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of “executive orders” that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, “terrorist” events in the near future.

…

William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is “praying for a terrorist strike” to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.
Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.

…

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives’ Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel’s complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type “security failure” were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has “a gut feeling” that America will soon be hit hard?

Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that “between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s (sic) going to have a very different view of this war.”

…

Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging “terrorist” attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?

Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.

Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders.

The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming “terrorist” events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy?

In any other time, I would tend to dismiss this sort of talk as conspiracy theorist paranoia. But the man is only saying that we are going to get more of the same from Bush and Cheney. There’s nothing particularly paranoid about that. After all, sometimes they really are out to get you.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

Art Show, History Lesson and Frog

Saturday, July 21, 2007

No politics today. It’s not because Cheney is acting president. Situation Normal there.

My wife and I went to Art on the Groton Bank, a fledgling Art Show held on the grounds of the Bill Library on Groton Bank. Our friend (and good Democrat) Audrey Heard, seen here with her paintings, is one of the organizers.

We got there early, so there wasn’t much of a crowd. We did pick up a painting, being held here by the artist, Adam Peiffer, a recent graduate of the Lyme Academy College of Fine Arts.

For those of you unfamiliar with Groton Bank, it is the site of, perhaps, the only Revolutionary War battle in Connecticut. Benedict Arnold burned New London, and then the British turned on Groton, where Colonel Ledyard and his militia held the Heights in Fort Griswold. The British eventually took the fort, and if you believe the American account, which appears most credible, proceeded to massacre the men who surrendered, including Colonel Ledyard while he was handing over his sword.

Like so many battles before and after, it was a meaningless waste of life. It took place as Washington was drawing the noose around Cornwallis at Yorktown, and had no strategic significance whatsoever. If you drive by Groton you might notice the monument, which stands right next to the library where the art show was held. Here it is, taken from the inside of the fort, which still stands:

You are allowed to climb to the top of the Monument. The stairs to the top surely violate every building code known to man. I made the trek in service to my faithful readers. These pictures are not as sharp as they could be, because, perhaps in a nod to those very building codes, the openings at the top are covered with Plexiglass. I suppose it prevents suicides, but it also degrades picture quality.

Here’s the fort from on high

And here’s New London

Finally, apropos of absolutely nothing, except that it’s a fun picture, here is a frog basking in the sun next to our little mini-pond. You couldn’t ask for a better pose.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (1)

Another Friday Night Concert

Friday, July 20, 2007

Well, I started by looking for Donovan doing “Catch the Wind” (maybe some other week) which linked me to Donovan doing “Universal Soldier” where I found this video of Buffy Sainte-Marie doing that very same song. I decided on this one because I loved the intro, illustrating once again the great way in which music cross pollinated in the 60s. I don’t even remember “Music Scene”, but there it is with David Steinberg as host, and Bo Diddly, Lee Michaels, John Sebastian and Buffy Sainte-Marie as guests with Special Guest Host Groucho Marx. You couldn’t make that up.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpqfnIyV-yQ[/youtube]

Some of the commenters on the youtube site think Buffy was singing a Donovan song, but the fact is that Donovan made a hit out of a Buffy Sainte-Marie song.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (1)

Bush assumes dictatorial powers-nation yawns

Friday, July 20, 2007

Years from now, we may look back at this day as a watershed day. Today, George Bush all but officially declared war on our Constitutional system of government. The question now is whether this increasingly creaky system, based on the absurd 18th century idea that we could successfully govern ourselves through a mix of reason and self interest, can respond to the challenge. Bush has undermined the Constitution in a multitude of ways, but this particular attack may be the most serious:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

In plain English, Bush has declared that he can immunize anything he or his minions do in secrecy and there is absolutely nothing that Congress or the courts can do about it. I disagree with one scholar quoted in this article:

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration’s stance “is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president’s view. . . . It’s allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers.”

The fact is, that in retrospect, Nixon was almost Bushian in his claims of executive privilege. Even Nixon never had the gall to claim the powers that Bush has claimed. He asserts, essentially, that no other branch of government can check him, nor is there any power that balances his. The irony, for those of us who will miss the Constitution, is that he is the least popular president in American history, and yet it seems likely that he will pull this off. The founders assumed that each branch of government would have an interest in protecting its turf, if nothing else. That isn’t happening. The Democrats are too timid, and the Republicans have abandoned any commitment they had to the constitutional system. To them, it’s the party, not the country, to which they owe their loyalty.

There is a way for Congress to strike back, and it takes no Republicans to help, nor can it be filibustered. Congress does not have to rely on a U.S. Attorney to enforce its contempt powers. As the article points out, and as John Conyers has mentioned , Congress has the Supreme Court sanctioned right to find someone in contempt by a majority vote of one house, and have that person imprisoned until the end of the session. More than likely, a person found in contempt could not be pardoned nor could their sentence be commuted. So Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton might just have to pack their toothbrushes soon.

But really, at this point there is only one way to save the Constitution. The precedent will have been set for future Republican presidents (the Republican courts will curb Democratic presidents for the foreseeable future) if Bush is not impeached. Can there be any doubt but that a President Giuliani would follow in George’s dictatorial footsteps. The only thing that would stop him was the knowledge that those footsteps led off a cliff or into a cell.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (2)

Ignorance of the law-the Republican excuse

Thursday, July 19, 2007

I’m really puzzled. I found my way to this article from the New Orleans Times-Picayune about the Senator from Louisiana. It seems the normally law and order Republicans have an awfully forgiving attitude about criminal behavior, providing it’s one of their own that is committing the crimes. Then again, that’s been standard operating procedure since they stole the 2000 election. Talk about soft on crime though:

Vitter made a brief statement to his Republican colleagues at the luncheon, reportedly reiterating the comments he made in Louisiana. Applause could be heard inside the room. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who like most members wouldn’t disclose what Vitter said, reported that his comments went over well.

“People were very supportive,” Thune said. “People realize he has worked through this this past week. I think everybody is ready to move forward.”

…

Vitter’s Republican Senate colleagues generally praised him for taking responsibility and making amends with his wife. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said he was “really impressed” with Wendy Vitter, who at Monday’s press conference said her husband was her best friend.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, exemplified the forgive-and-forget view voiced by Senate Republicans.

“My attitude is he’s doing everything he can to rectify the mistake he made and should be allowed to do so,” Hatch said. “I’m a great believer in redemption.”

For the rest of us, redemption involves time in the pokey, or at least time on probation, but for Vitter all it takes is for him to announce that God has forgiven him. These Republicans sure do a lot of talking with God, who always seems to tell them what they want to hear. Apparently once you can report to your fellow Republicans that God has forgiven you, they feel duty bound to go along. After all, how can you argue with the big guy?

Lest anyone think the Republicans are hypocrites, think again. These LAWmakers are simply ignorant and have no idea if procuring a prostitute is a crime. It’s way beyond their expertise. Just ask them:

The senators turned skittish, however, when asked by reporters if they were concerned that Vitter may have broken the law. Solicitation for prostitution is a misdemeanor although it’s probably too late to prosecute a 2001 offense. The statute of limitations in Washington, D.C., is three years and two years in Louisiana.

“That is not my area,” said Hatch, who served for years as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he was responsible for confirming judges and writing criminal laws.

“I don’t know what the law is,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a former federal prosecutor, said tersely before walking away.

“I’m not an expert in prostitution law, I’m pleased to say,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said.

Do I detect a bit of snark on the part of the reporter? I don’t practice criminal law, but I wouldn’t need to bone up to give the ignorant Senators a seminar on the basics of prostitution law. Here’s the course outline: it’s illegal to sell sex. It’s also illegal to buy sex. It’s really not complicated.

On a somewhat related matter, Larry Flynt has promised more names, including one Senator, whose identity would come as a surprise. My wife and I were thinking-wouldn’t it be great if it were Saint Joe? Vain hope? Probably. Still, one can dream.

Filed in Hypocrisy | | Comments (0)

Hypocrites in training

Thursday, July 19, 2007

College Republicans, brought to you be Max Blumental.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs[/youtube]

(This post dedicated to one of my commenters, who exhibits a similar mindset.)

Filed in Hypocrisy | | Comments (0)

Here we go again

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

I have a TV receiver attached to my computer, and just finished watching the Red Sox go down to another defeat. I think we can take it as read that the 2007 swoon has started. I would say their lead in the East should disappear by early August.

There is a myth going around that the Red Sox won the pennant and World Series in 2004, but it is my firm belief that it never really happened.

Here’s hoping that it’s not the Yankees that take first place when the crash is complete.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (2)

Filibuster-take three

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

My first few years as a lawyer were spent defending evictions, a fast moving process. In those days the trick was to delay cases until the client could move, because the Circuit Court judges were almost uniformly hostile to tenants. They would uphold an argument centered on some arcane procedural point, but when it came time for trial-forget it. So I quickly learned how to manipulate court procedures.

All this is by way of admitting that I don’t have a similar mastery of the procedures in the Senate, and it’s quite possible that I’m missing something here. I can’t help but think that Harry Reid has now painted himself into a corner. He has withdrawn the defense bill from consideration, until the Republicans mend their ways, except that he hasn’t:

“Because Republicans continue to block votes on important amendments to the Defense Authorization bill, we can make no further progress on Iraq and this bill at this time.

For these reasons, I have temporarily laid aside the Defense Authorization bill and have entered a motion to reconsider.

But let me be clear to my Republican colleagues — I emphasize the word “temporarily”. We will do everything in our power to change course in Iraq. We will do everything in our power to complete consideration of a Defense Authorization bill. We must do both.

What happens if the Republicans wait him out, and as October nears start accusing the Democrats of failing to support the troops? Will Harry have the cojones to keep the bill bottled up until they cave? It seems pretty clear to me that he’ll end up caving and they’ll end up winning.

The more I think about this, the more I think they decided to take their stand on the wrong bill. The bill is too important, so they will, at some point, feel duty bound to get something passed. It’s not simple enough, and therefore not easy to defend in a soundbite.

It would have been far better to make the Republicans actually debate the Webb Amendment, by putting it on the agenda and saying that we will get to the Defense Bill, and all the other important bills, as soon as we have finished protecting the troops. It shouldn’t be hard to soundbite that. Then, let the Republicans talk as long as they want, and just keep repeating that they’re punishing the troops to protect the president, and that they can have a vote on the Defense Bill anytime they want, as soon as they end the filibuster.

Then, when they cave (assuming they do), you blithely announce that you’ll make them do it again on the Defense Bill until there are up and down votes on the amendments. By that time, unless the Democrats are more incompetent than even I suspect, the American people will understand what the Republicans are doing, making it all the less likely that the Republicans will do it.

It seems that Reid has just punted this to October, at which point we’ll be hearing the same crap we heard in the Spring, with, most likely, the same results.

I devoutly hope that Reid has looked down the road, and has reason to think that things will play out differently than I suspect they will. No doubt he knows the rules better than me. I’d be ecstatic if I turn out to be wrong on this one.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Filibuster-take two

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Okay, I’m beginning to see less and less point to the Reid filibuster, which truly does seem to put the onus on the Democrats to keep talking, for thirty hours, after which they stop and presumably move on to other business. Is there some way during that time period that they can move the matter to a vote? It looks like all the Republicans have to do is wait them out, which they will undoubtedly do.

Since the Republicans have basically announced that they will filibuster everything of substance, Reid should make them go the distance, which means, apparently, picking one issue and leaving it on the agenda until they cave:

A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else to the agenda. Strom Thurmond’s attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

Make them do it again and again. The alternative is surrender to the formerly filibuster hating Mitch McConnell, who has suggested this in response to Reid’s demands for up or down votes:

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell responded to Reid with a counteroffer: an automatic 60-vote threshold for all key Iraq amendments, eliminating the time-consuming process of clearing procedural hurdles. … [A]ll the controversial war-related votes held since Democrats took control of the Senate in January have required 60 “yeas” to pass.

McConnell has essentially proposed a Republican veto on all Iraq legislation, which he can convert to a veto on all legislation as soon as Reid caves. If and when they recover the majority, they won’t miss a beat in threatening the nuclear option. Tonight’s debate is just theatre, unless Reid follows up.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (1)

Rudy heading for a fall

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Via Talking Points Memo, we learn that Giuliani’s trend lines look eerily like McCain’s, indicating that Rudy may be riding for a fall reminiscent of Mr. Straight Talk.

Since early March, Giuliani’s support has fallen by an estimated 8 percentage points. McCain’s fell by 10 points since January. And the rate of decline has been a bit steeper for Giuliani than for McCain. The saving grace for Giuliani has been that he started his decline from a higher point, around 33%, while McCain’s slump started down from 25%

As the frontrunners go down, we can expect other to go up, which is sort of what has happened. Thompson and Romney are both rising, but they’re apparently not sopping up all the folks abandoning McCain and Giuliani, as “None of the Above” has now taken a lead among Republicans.

It’s quite likely that as Thompson and/or Romney rises to the top, the increased attention to the reality behind the media masks each presents will lead to similar declines in their support. It just may be that even Republicans are not interested in nominating hollow men, and that’s all they’ve got. One of them has to end up on top, if only be default, since the party can’t nominate None, despite his/her superior qualifications. There’s a decent chance that the choice will be so uninspiring that his (no hers in the field) support in the party will be tepid at best. Imagine what that will mean for the candidate’s prospects of drawing support from the not undead.

The Democrats can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, particularly if the candidate runs a cautious, trying not to lose campaign. Whoever it is has to realize that people are looking for someone with a can do type of attitude, with the can-do geared toward doing things people want. First and most important rule: Ignore the beltway press, except when you’re attacking them.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (3)