Weiner Savage: Did Democrats Cause Roberts’ Seizure?

Savage
You know, the wingnuts love to refer to liberals as "paranoid" and dismiss pretty much everything we say as being part of a ‘conspiracy theory.’ But for Chrissakes, folks, it just doesn’t get any loonier than this.

Remember, this asshole has a national radio show, and a legion of wingnut fans. On the one hand, it does keep the loons occupied, and keeps them out of trouble, because they surely can’t listen and do something else at the same time. But  isn’t there something else that could occupy three hours of valuable public airtime?

From: Media Matters – Savage Nation July 30, 2007

SAVAGE: All right, we have a breaking news update. Chief Justice John Roberts has had a seizure in his summer home in Maine, and he fell on a dock. Now, what’s interesting to me, and almost frightening and puzzling, is that on Friday Charles Schumer gave a loud and vociferously nasty speech during which he said he would never support another Bush judge. He would never support a — it was — you know, let me ask you something. All you leftists believe in the conspiracy of Bush and Cheney, the conspiracy of 9-11. Am I to believe that there’s no connection between Charles Schumer on Friday saying that he would never appoint, or never, excuse me, approve another Bush appointment to the court, to any court? And then the chief justice suffers a so-called seizure two days later? You’re telling me there’s no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats to have caused this seizure in some manner? Tell me that it’s not possible. Tell me that the stakes are not so high that the liberals — who’ve finally lost the court after 50 years — that they would stop short of anything like this. Tell me it’s not possible, and I’ll tell you you’re a liar.

[…]

SAVAGE: I find it odd that Bigfoot Schumer — and I call him Bigfoot for a reason — that Bigfoot on Friday would say he’s putting his foot down and they’re never going to approve another Bush appointment because the court’s been moved too far to the right. What he means is it’s no longer a communist socialist court. It’s been moved to the center, make no mistake about it. It’s a centrist court; it’s by no means a right-wing court. A right-wing court would be much different than this one. It’s a centrist court. Even that’s too much for Schumer, [Sen. Barbara] Boxer [D-CA], [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA], [Sen. Richard] Durbin [D-IL], [Sen. Edward] Kennedy [D-CA], et al. They want a left-wing court of lackeys to bring us into the world of socialism, to destroy our Constitution once and for all under the guise of liberalism, to destroy once and for all the dignity of the United States of America by bringing the cesspool to Main Street.

And so, this is pretty amazing to me that he’s had a seizure at age 52. That’s a pretty amazing thing. They say that he had a similar episode in 1993 and that now they’re telling us there’s no cause for concern and you don’t know what to believe. But he will remain in the hospital and will remain overnight. Now why he had a seizure I don’t know. I don’t think he was asked to dine in Manhattan on his way to Maine. I don’t think he was asked to share a sandwich on his way to Maine, do you? They say, "Well it can’t happen here. It’s impossible."

Well, let me ask you something. You remember the Russian who ate some polonium sushi? He was going to give an interview that was embarrassing to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin? He ate a polonium sushi and then he died. Well, they do it over there when there’s a lot of money at stake, don’t they? Power at stake? What’s a human being to power-mad people and power-mad parties? Nothing.

So why can’t we assume for a moment that it’s within the realm of possibility that Roberts was in some way — his health was in some way tampered with by the Democrats because they can’t believe that no matter what they do, no matter what they do — even if they engineer a victory for Hillary Clinton/[Barack] Obama — they’re still not going to be in control because the court’s moved to the center? Just a thought. Just a tiny little thought for you to ponder tonight, all you left-wingers who are so glib in your attacks on the conservative movement.

[…]

SAVAGE: Let me say this again: On Thursday, some hack for the left wing, some hack professor said that we should increase the number of people on the Supreme Court, raising it from nine to another number. And he gave precedent for it. Of course, you have to go back 200 years to come up with this precedent. He then — then on Friday, the shocking statement by Schumer, the obstructionist, whose nightmare — whose dream for America is a nightmare for me. His dream is to see a Hillary presidency and he becomes appointed to the Supreme Court. That’s what Schumer has lived for from the time he was a little boy. That’s all he wants, so he had the nerve to say on Friday he will never, ever, ever permit another Bush appointee to get onto a court, to become a judge. Then today we read that the chief justice has had a seizure and fell on a dock? Something’s wrong with this picture.

You know, anyone who can make Whore Limbaugh look sane is definitely nuts; no doubt about that. It certainly makes you wonder what he and Allen Ginsberg were doing besides swimming naked, back when he was simply Michael Weiner, left-wing radical nutjob.

 

Bancrofts Allow Murdoch to Kill WSJ

This is a tragedy for anyone who values the news media.

Even though their op-ed pages were horrible, The Wall Street Journal could always be counted on to report the news fairly and completely.

Now, Rupert Murdoch will undoubtedly do to the word "Journal" what he did to the word News, when he created the Republican propaganda arm known euphemistically as "Fox News."

From: Reuters.co.uk.

Dow Jones & Co. Inc.’s controlling Bancroft family "has accepted" News Corp.’s  $5 billion offer to buy the publisher of the Wall
Street Journal, an executive of a Dow Jones unit said on
Tuesday.

"The Bancroft family has accepted," John Prestbo, editor
and executive director of Dow Jones Indexes, told reporters on
Tuesday in Chicago. Dow Jones "will be part of News Corp," he
said.

    Prestbo told Reuters the information came from an internal
company memo.

No wonder blogs are so popular…

Seriously, is everything in this country about money? Why would you sell a family business with a great reputation to a guy who turns every news organization he touches to shit?

Shouldn’t We Fine the FCC for “Indecency”?

Want proof that the FCC is completely inept?

For years, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of grown Republicans pretending to be offended by a one-second flash Janet Jackson’s right breast at the Super Bowl, and the "f-word" anywhere, to the point that the wingnuts have hijacked the FCC and turned it into their own little censorship board, increasing fines ten-fold for people who utter one or two choice words, while allowing idiots like Michael Weiner-Savage to utter hate-filled garbage anytime he’d like.

Now, comes a story where the same FCC — the FCC that is scared to death of boobs and bad words — has approved certain call letters that should raise eyebrows, if not tempers…

From: starbulletin.com | Business | /2007/07/26/.

THE call letters KUNT have landed at a yet-unbuilt low-power digital television station in Wailuku, Maui.

Alarmingly similar to a word the dictionary says is obscene, the call letters were among a 15-page list of new call letters issued by the Federal Communications Commission and released this week.

The same station owner also received KWTF for a station in Arizona.

From Skokie, Ill., comes a sincere apology "to anyone that was offended," said Kevin Bae, vice president of KM Communications Inc., who requested and received KUNT and KWTF. It is "extremely embarrassing for me and my company and we will file to change those call letters immediately."

(…)

Broadcasters for generations have joked among themselves about call letters resembling off-color words or acronyms knowing the FCC would never approve their assignment — but that was before computerization.

KCUF-FM near Aspen, Colo. got its F-word-in-reverse call letters in August of 2005 and has been on the air since December, "Keeping Colorado Uniquely Free," its Web site says.

Okay, so who’s fining the FCC???

Another Republican (Alleged) Crook!

Is it a prerequisite to becoming a Republican politician that you have to promise to use whichever office you hold for personal gain?

Seriously, folks; even the technically "not crooked" Republicans are all about funneling your tax money to rich people who don’t need it. Yes, I know… members of both parties become highly paid lobbyists when they leave office. But the sheer volume of Republicans who seem to think the Treasury is their own personal piggy bank is remarkable, isn’t it? The list of confirmed (alleged) crooks is long, and getting longer; Gingrich, Cunningham, Ney, DeLay, Frist, and now Ted Stevens. And those are just the money freaks; I haven’t even gotten to the sex freaks, like Foley, Vitter, et al.

Whatever is in the water over there, I think it’s time we started cleansing, electorally speaking…

Link: Alaska Senator’s Home Is Raided – washingtonpost.com.

Agents from the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service raided the Alaska home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R) yesterday as part of a broad federal investigation of political corruption in the state that has also swept up his son and one of his closest financial backers, officials said.

Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, is under scrutiny from the Justice Department for his ties to an Alaska energy services company, Veco, whose chief executive pleaded guilty in early May to a bribery scheme involving state lawmakers.

Contractors have told a federal grand jury that in 2000, Veco executives oversaw a lavish remodeling of Stevens’s house in Girdwood, an exclusive ski resort area 40 miles from Anchorage, according to statements by the contractors.

Stevens said in a statement that his attorneys were advised of the impending search yesterday morning. He said he would not comment on details of the inquiry to avoid "any appearance that I have attempted to influence its outcome."

Stevens, 83, who joined the Senate in 1968, has been considered one of the most powerful members of Congress for more than a decade, including six years in which he held wide sway over nearly $1 trillion in federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He is now the top Republican on the Commerce Committee, which has oversight of fisheries and other industries critical to his home state.

"I urge Alaskans not to form conclusions based upon incomplete and sometimes incorrect reports in the media," Stevens said. "The legal process should be allowed to proceed so that all the facts can be established and the truth determined." Brendan Sullivan, a prominent white-collar defense attorney representing Stevens, declined to comment.

Nuclear Power Shoved Down Your Throat…

The only thing worse than paying for things you don’t want, is paying for them twice…

From: Energy Bill Aids the Expansion Plans of Atomic Power Plants – New York Times.

A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate’s recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees.

Lobbyists have told lawmakers and administration officials in recent weeks that the nuclear industry needs as much as $50 billion in loan guarantees over the next two years to finance a major expansion.

The biggest champion of the loan guarantees is Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee and one of the nuclear industry’s strongest supporters in Congress.

(…)

But the provision has the potential to considerably expand the nuclear
industry, which plans to build 28 new reactors at an estimated cost of
about $4 billion to $5 billion apiece. And while the nuclear industry
would be the biggest beneficiary, the provision could also set the
stage for billions of dollars in loan guarantees for power plants that
use “clean coal” technology and renewable fuels.

Can we please cut the crap?

There is no future for nuclear power, until someone make nuclear fusion a reality. Nuclear fission is dangerous as hell, and while it’s clean in one respect — there are no immediate emissions from a nuclear plant — there is also the significant problem of waste. Right now, there is little to be done with nuclear waste, and to put 28 more power plants online without a plan for the waste is just stupid and irresponsible.

You see, that’s American business for you. They champion politicians who will whine and cry about single women with three kids who get a few hundred dollars a month to feed and house their kids, but they’ll gladly write a check to a bunch of fat rich guys for $4-5 billion to help them make money. They want all of the money, without any of the risk.

But nuclear power is a bad investment, anyway. I think we have to do something about global warming, as well, but the answer is not creating a heightened risk of a major nuclear meltdown tragedy in order to cut emissions. We should be looking at ways to produce power well into the future — hundreds of years into the future, even — and nuclear power has only proven to be a pain in the ass. If there’s an accident — and face it, with 28 more plants online, owned by people who didn’t even pay for them in the first place, and who can be counted on to cut costs to enhance the bottom line at some point, the odds of an accident will go up exponentially — the effects could possibly be devastating. And then there is the problem of fuel production.

And did I mention, they’re a security risk?

It seems quite odd that a country whose government is so concerned of the "terrorist threat" should be so gung-ho over creating so many new potential targets for them. Imagine the devastation if the terrorists on 9/11 had chosen to fly the planes into nuclear plants instead of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And then there’s the nuclear fuel; we’re concerned about Iran’s nuclear program for a reason; nuclear fuel can create serious problems, and with more of it out there, the potential for disaster will be even greater.  It’s impossible for a terrorist, or anyone else, to cause major problems with the fuel from any other type of power plant. But nuclear fuel can cause major devastation.

Our emphasis on future energy technology must be based on not only renewable resources, but on natural energy resources available to us without burning things. Wind, solar, geothermal and tidal energy are the future. Creating plants which produce energy by creating nuclear fission is a disaster waiting to happen.

And for us to even think of paying a $50 billion subsidy to a bunch of fat cats for it is the height of irresponsibility, especially since the government has only committed $4 billion to research into other alternative energy sources.

Surely for $4-5 billion just to build each plant, this can’t be the cheapest way to reduce our carbon footprint in any case.  Can you imagine your electric bills while the company tries to pay back this money AND attempts to make a profit, as well?

Write your Congresscritter, and let them know they cannot appropriate this money. It’s irresponsible.

Limbaugh the Whore

You know, I would never do an advertisement for Tom DeLay, or Newt Gingrich, and if Rudy Giuliani asked me to do one, I’d laugh in his face. Not that any of them would ask me, of course. But let’s say they did, and offered me millions of dollars to do it. I still wouldn’t do one, because I do have principles. I also wouldn’t do an ad for assault weapons, for the same reason.

Of course, the same goes both ways. They wouldn’t want me to do an ad, because what they pretend to stand for isn’t what I stand for at all, and it simply doesn’t make any sense to compromise your principles for a few bucks, even when you only pretend to have some.

Rush Limbaugh has spent many, many years laughing his ass off at the concepts of global warming and an ozone hole. I remember, when I used to have to listen to his crapfest to write on it for a newsletter I wrote for back in the mid-90s, he would go on and on about it, ad nauseum. One of his most famous "refutations" was his claim that almost all of the excess chlorine in the atmosphere was due to an apparent abundance of volcanic activity at the time. His premise was that the ozone hole was a hoax, although given that most such hoaxes result in the enrichment of someone, it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly who was ever enriched by the ozone hole; Coppertone, perhaps?Limbaugh_oxycontin

But lately, especially since Al Gore has come out and presented the science of global warming as articulately and concisely as anyone has ever presented scientific thought to the masses, Limbaugh has stepped up his "Chicken Little" rhetoric.

Here are a few examples:

August 10, 2005: "I think the modern environmental movement is simply the latest refuge
for communists and socialists who are opposed to capitalism."

December 1, 2005: "I just think these wacko environmentalists take these naturally
occurring climatic cycles and try to blame primarily America and other
civilized industrialized nations for all this, and it’s purely
political. But these things are going to happen, and if this is
happening, there’s nothing we can do to stop it."

And finally, my favorite, and note the date…

June 29, 2007: "Follow
the money and understand what’s really going on.  This is a hoax.  It’s
junk science.  It’s being portrayed as something to make you scared to
death we’re all going to die.  You’re supposed to vote liberal for
this; supposed to make some sacrifices; pay higher taxes; drive a car
you don’t want to drive;
live in a house you don’t want to live; live
where you don’t want to live; detergent you don’t want to use, all this
rotgut stuff, and then at the end of the day even after doing all that
you’re still going to get sued or you’re going to pay a price. Or maybe
you’ll be a turncoat and hire one of these lawyers.  Big rainstorm
comes, floods your house, that’s global warming, who can I sue?  Well,
a lawyer will find somebody to sue for you.  Hello, if big tobacco
thought that they were in the crosshairs — I don’t know who’s in the
crosshairs on this, the US government, but it’s going to be various
industries who are said to be polluting and Big Oil will probably be
the big target here, Big Oil, Big Natural Gas, electricity, utilities,
this sort of thing, it’s coming, you have been warned."

So, Rush thinks global warming is a hoax. He thinks it’s a left wing commie plot to kill capitalism by what — killing oil companies or something? It would be difficult to believe that Rush Limbaugh, just one month after the above (note the passage in bold), would EVER do a commercial for any company that was trying to combat global warming, and hawking alternative fuels, right?

Well, not to Rush Limbaugh the whore…

Listen to this ad

Yes, you heard that right. Rush Limbaugh, the pill-popping, Viagra-needing whore, is hawking General Motors’ line of vehicles, and assuring us that GM is "committed to the environment."

One has to wonder who’s dumber here. Does General Motors think that Rush Limbaugh is the guy to hawk their new "environmental commitment?" Does Limbaugh realize that most of his audience of inbred morons Limbaughenq_2
are probably thinking of him as a sell-out right now?

Next time Rush Limbaugh says anything about any environmental issue being a "hoax," just keep in mind that Limbaugh himself is apparently an environmentalist.

Or are you telling me he was lying when he said that General Motors was committed to the environment?

Which is it?

While you ponder that, go ahead and download an old standard; Rush himself sings about himself…

Another Royal FUBAR Moment, Courtesy of the Bushies

At what point do we finally ask for an accounting of all of the money that Bush has been given for the Iraq occupation?

From: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Corruption ‘mars Iraq rebuilding’.

The US agency overseeing reconstruction in Iraq has told the BBC that economic mismanagement and corruption there is equivalent to "a second insurgency".

The chief auditor assigned by Congress, Stuart Bowen, said the Iraqi government was failing to take responsibility for projects worth billions of dollars.

Mr Bowen also said his agency was investigating more than 50 fraud cases.

Meanwhile, nearly a third of Iraq’s population is in need of emergency aid, a report by Oxfam and Iraqi NGOs says.

So, let’s start with a basic fact. Iraq had a population of 25 million before the war, and now has a population of about 20 million. In addition to the half trillion we’ve spent over there, they are also pumping about 2 million barrels of oil per day; not up to previous levels, but still a significant amount of money.

Yet, they have a humanitarian crisis, and have yet to build even the most basic infrastructure?

It gets more interesting, though…

He added: "We have performed 95 audits that have found
instances of programmatic weakness and waste, and we’ve got 57 ongoing
cases right now, criminal cases, looking at fraud."

Mr Bowen said the transfer of projects to Iraqi
government control was "troubling", and expressed concern about delays
and cost overruns.

The report gave the example of the Doura power station,
rebuilt with tens of millions of US dollars, which fell into disrepair
once it was transferred to Iraqi control.

This is another Bush FUBAR, folks; don’t blame it on the Iraqis.

UIraq once had one of the most advanced economies in the region, and had a very highly educated professional class. Most of them have fled to other countries since the invation and the occupation. Iraq needs them back, but who in their right mind would go back to a civil war?

Mr Bowen also said Iraqi ministries were struggling to administer funds.

Last year, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s government only
spent 22% of its budget on vital rebuilding projects, while spending
99% of the allocation for salaries, he said.

He said "a pathway towards potential prosperity" could
be found only if oil production was brought up to optimal levels, and
security and corruption effectively managed.

So, we have an Iraqi government, hand-picked by Bush (you don’t think they were really chosen democratically, do you?), that is just as corrupt as the Bushies. They get all of their money, and a really long vacation, while the people of Iraq get exactly dick.

More than $500 billion has been spent in Iraq, and for what?

For the money, that’s why. Imagine having $500 billion to throw around, without having to be accountable for it. You could make an awful lot of your rich donors very happy, couldn’t you? Well….

US/EU Plan to be Your Big Brother!

Okay, can we please agree to stop them from doing this crap?

There is nothing about a plan like this that makes any of us safer…

From: The Raw Story | US/E.U. plan to database airline passengers’ personal information raises deep privacy concerns.

While Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff calls it "an essential security measure," worries arise about a looming privacy threat in the new agreement between the United States and the European Union, effective August 1, 2007, that allows the United States to keep extensive profiles of inbound airline passengers.

In addition to data such as name, address, flight itineraries, and credit card information, the United States will now database more intimate details about passengers as provided by airlines, such as race, political opinions, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation.

Personal data received, even on people not under suspicion, is to be kept on file for fifteen years and only used "when lives are at risk," such as during a terror investigation.

"We’re going to be able to connect the dots more quickly," says Russell Knocke of the US Department of Homeland Security, "and we’re going to be able to provide our front line personnel with a powerful tool that really can help to save lives."

This is a complete and utter crock of horseshit.

First, let’s talk about a basic truism about bureaucracy, and that is, the more information they have, that more difficult it is to sort through. The dumbest thing security people do is screen every single passenger or potential passenger, and try to guess what they may or may not do at any given time. That approach has never worked, because the potential criminal/terrorist has a major advantage over the rest of us; he knows what he’s going to do, and he knows we’re looking for him. Therefore, it defies logic to think that, by setting up more and more elaborate databases, the terrorist will be caught. he won’t; he’ll just make sure that nothing he does sticks out in any way.

I don’t know about anyone else out there, but I’m not worrying about flying with a terrorist, as long as said terrorist isn’t carrying a bomb, or the means to harm us. Therefore, isn’t THAT what we should be concentrating on in the first place? Screening for THINGS that could be used to kill people on planes is far more effective than trying to figure out which person might do something. Why aren’t airports populated with bomb-sniffing dogs, and explosive detection equipment, instead of wasting time and resources looking at watch lists and trying to match up names and other information?

I’ll tell you why…

It’s because, for years now, governments have been searching for ways to gather all of this sort of information about people, and now they have a pretext for doing so; a fearful public, scared to death of the terrorist bogeyman. Seriously; there is no reason in the world why knowing someone’s political affiliation or sexual preference would flag them as a terrorist, so what is that information really used for?

Gee, i don’t know… secret prisons, an executive order setting it up so that the president himself can decide that you’re a terrorist and take everything you own, and  a proven penchant for  taking down political enemies, like those CIA agents whose husbands call you out on one of your lies? Why would they want such information?

We have to stop this crap, people. Watch lists can’t work; screening works. And governments with too much information about their citizens are flat dangerous.

 

Impeachment Follow-Up – It’s All About Principles!

Sometimes, you just
have to do the right thing.

 

In the last few days,
since I wrote my first piece detailing the case for impeachment, I have
received a lot of feedback from both sides of the political spectrum, as well
as a lot of people known for hugging the soft gooey middle. Except for the
abusive comments from wingnuts (tell Bill O’Reilly, no one is nastier than a
wingnut, period.), most of them attempted to be useful.

 

Normally, I get at
least a few critical missives that make me think twice about my position. I
pride myself on being very open minded, with a keen ability to listen to
alternate viewpoints and understand where they’re coming from. It really helps
to be able to do that, because it’s necessary to making the distinction between
a conservative with an honest difference of opinion, and a wingnut who just
reacts, without taking the time to rub a couple of brain cells together. And
sometimes, actual conservatives have an interesting take on things.

 

But this time, none of
the arguments made sense, or were in any way relevant. I want to talk about a
few of the reasons people give for not being in favor of impeachment, and
address why they are completely irrelevant.

 

The number one reason
given is "We don’t have the votes."

 

Apparently, these
people didn’t read the piece very closely, because I did address this problem
somewhat.

 

I simply don’t care
that we don’t have the votes to convict now. It really doesn’t matter. No one
ever said that doing the right thing was always going to be easy.

 

I think Democrats
should spend their August recess making the case for drafting articles of
impeachment. Once they vote on them, the Senate must hold a trial. Don’t tell
me there are no grounds for impeachment; if the Founding Fathers had been
confronted with a George Bush, they would have impeached him without a moment’s
hesitation. This Administration doesn’t value the Constitution, they don’t
value the rule of law, they have an exaggerated sense of the power they possess
under our system, and they have no regard for the people. They created the
mechanism of impeachment for two reasons; to remove people who abuse the power
given to them by the people, and to remove incompetents from positions where
they can do serious damage. In other words, in George Bush, we’ve hit the
jackpot.

 

Impeachment is not
supposed to be a political tool, used to get rid of people you don’t like
politically. The Republicans bastardized the process in 1998, when they
impeached Bill Clinton, even though they knew damn well they wouldn’t convict
him. Yes, you read that right; the Republicans went ahead with a sham
impeachment, based on complete bullshit, despite the fact that they didn’t have
enough votes. But Democrats can’t push forward with a real impeachment based on
real reasons?

 

Sometimes all of us,
including politicians, have to actually go outside of their comfort zone to do
the right thing, regardless of whether or not it’s politically popular at the
time. (Although half the country already thinks they should be impeached, and
nearly three-quarters think they’re bad for the country. I don’t think it’s
even necessary to convict and remove
Bush and Cheney in the end; at some point, we must put all of their misdeeds
into the record, and show the people just what these people are doing to our
country. At some point, the American people must be presented with all of the
facts, laid out in one very concise presentation. As of today, much of Middle
America senses that the Bushies are incompetent, but they have no clue as to
what the details are. I mean, 41% of Americans are convinced of a connection
between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda; isn’t that evidence enough that real
information isn’t trickling down enough?

 

And when that
information is presented by way of an impeachment trial, the Republicans in
Congress will be faced with a choice. They will have to choose to stand for the
rule of law and the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold (yes, it was an
oath to the Constitution, not to the GOP or George Bush), or they can choose to
stand beside the lamest of lame duck presidents and his crooked vice president.
If they vote to convict, they uphold the rule of law, and we get to keep at
least some standards for the presidency. If they vote to acquit, in the face of
all of the evidence presented, they effectively kill the right wing and the
current incarnation of the Republican Party for a generation, and we get either
Hillary, Barack or John (or even Dennis?) into office, and we will have a
president and enough seats in Congress that we can demand reform and have a
fighting chance of getting it…

 

Either way, we win. We
win, because this is a democracy, and we’ll have a majority of the American
people behind us, demanding reform of just about every mechanism the right wing
has broken since 1980. An impeachment trial, win or lose, will expose the government
for the crooks they are, and we will have the impetus for a real reform
movement. (If, of course, we progressives play politics better than we have in
the past. But that’s another column for another time…)

 

The second-most
popular complaint (again, among people who didn’t read the whole piece) seemed
to be "there just isn’t enough time."

 

Between the passing of
the Articles of Impeachment and the acquittal of Bill Clinton, less than two
months passed. That means, if we can put forth genuine articles of impeachment,
debate them thoroughly, and pass them by October, we could conceivably be done
with these scumbags by Christmas. But even if we can’t, February or March works
for me. If anyone is worried that a "President Pelosi" might upset
the Democratic nomination process, we could get her to agree to not run for an
additional term if Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed. I don’t get a
sense that she particularly wants to be president, anyway, so she’d probably
agree. (Might make Hillary a little mad, though; she wants to be the first…)

 

Just
as an aside, why don’t many liberals understand that the reason Pelosi took
impeachment "off the table" was so that it didn’t look like she was
working in her own self-interest? She can’t take anything ‘off the table’; if
the Judiciary Committee brings forth articles, she’s not going to kill them.
But if you’re a potential recipient of the benefits of a particular action,
doesn’t it make ethical sense to remove yourself from the process, short of
voting on it?

 

Sometimes, you simply
must stand on principle, regardless of the consequences. If we don’t get rid of
them until January 19, 2009, then so be it; the point is to take back the rule
of law. This is not about political payback, and it’s not about Bush and Cheney,
personally speaking. It’s about restoring justice to the rule of law, starting
with the most obvious breach of it in our lifetime.

 

Now, the third
rationale is the most interesting to me. I actually had a couple of people
write and say something to the effect, "well, what if this turns into a
game; they impeached us, so we impeach them, then they do the same to us, and
it becomes a cycle."

 

Well, what if?

 

First of all, I’m no
conspiracy theorist, but nn my opinion, Republicans were attempting to
inoculate the next Republican president when they impeached Clinton. They
didn’t necessarily know that the next president would be George W. Bush
(although, given the massive election fraud in 2000, maybe they did), but they
did know that the next wingnut they elected would act in extraordinary ways.
So, isn’t it possible that they used that impeachment to make the public more
reticent to engage in another one anytime soon? And if we allow them to get
away with that concept, how gullible are we? We have to go after bad guys who
get into office. If we end up with five impeachments in a row, then we need to
look at our electoral process, and ask ourselves why we keep electing such
assholes. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t get rid of them, just because we
keep impeaching people.

 

Besides, the last
impeachment was political theater, while this one would be a valid impeachment
for valid reasons. This time, the exercise is not an attempt to "get"
a president politically, nor is it an attempt to get rid of someone we don’t like
politically. I couldn’t stand Reagan or Bush 41 at all, but I was ambivalent
about their impeachment. I probably wouldn’t have minded seeing more heads roll
over Iran-Contra, but compared to the current bunch, the Reagan bunch were
pikers. In the Reagan Administration, investigations were conducted, heads did
roll, and there were lots of firings. The current administration sees every
investigation as a major pain in its ass, and no one’s ever been fired for
doing anything wrong, although a few have been forced out for siding with the
Constitution over their "fuehrers" Bush and Cheney.

 

Think about it this
way. If you cared about your job, and your "legacy" to even the
slightest degree — hell, if you cared even one little bit about your promise
to "bring honor and dignity" back to the White House — how tolerant
would you be of the crooks and liars inside of your administration? Ethical
people would find it embarrassing to know that someone under them had betrayed
the trust of the American people. Think about the various important yet
unanswered questions regarding impropriety in the Bush Administration thus far;
why would any ethical person not want to clarify any of these? (There are so
many, I can actually list many that I didn’t list in the first impeachment
column…)

 

o Who in the Bush Administration assisted
Enron in its attempts to escape blame for the largest corporate fraud in
history? When it found out that Enron’s illegal dealings resulted in millions
of people losing billions of dollars in retirement savings, why was there no
serious attempt to recover as much of that money as possible?

o What happened at those top secret
meetings featuring Dick Cheney and top energy industry executives, and by what
authority has Cheney continued to refuse to divulge the details of those
meetings?

o Why did Bush wait seven minutes to
even react after terrorists attacked New York City? Why has there been
so little of the assistance promised in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks actually provided?

o Why does this Administration continue
to hold hundreds of prisoners after nearly five years, without 
   charges, without trial, and in most cases, without counsel? And is
such      disregard for the basic principles of justice out of a
sense of keeping the country secure, or a reflection of their disdain for the
rule of law?

o In the run up to war, why was there
such a massive operation to lie about the rationale for invasion? Why hasn’t
anyone been held accountable for the "faulty    
intelligence" which led to more than 30,000 American casualties, and
     as many as half a million or more Iraqi civilian deaths?

o Who is responsible for the estimated
tens of billions (some would say hundreds of billions) of  dollars in
waste, fraud and abuse by contractors in Iraq? In one very glaring example of
fiscal irresponsibility, $8.8 billion dollars was "lost" several
years ago by several contractors, and there was no accountability for that.
No-bid contracts worth billions have been handed over to campaign donors, and
the Vice President is still being paid by at least one contractor that has seen
billions in profits from its operations in Iraq.

o And, in one of the most shocking
events in American presidential history, who is responsible for  the
coordinated effort to smear a political opponent, by revealing the identity of
his wife, a CIA undercover operative? And why has no one ever been held
accountable for that?

 

So many actions by
this administration rise to the level of "high crimes and
misdemeanors" that it’s difficult to count them all. And we must do
something about it. For six years, a friendly Republican Congress neglected its
oversight responsibilities, and the Democrats are now forced to play catch-up.
This will be a condensed process, it will be an intense process, it will
interfere with the presidential race, and it will cause all sorts of
accusations to be thrown at Democrats; accusations of "partisan political
theater" and trying to ‘get’ Bush and Cheney. But at this point, none of
that matters. Much of what the government is allowed to do is based on
precedent; and we cannot allow these people to set a precedent that allows a future
administration to do the same sorts of things, and get away with it.

 

As I’ll show in my
next piece on impeachment, the drive to impeach these people is no longer the
talk of a bunch of Commie leftist pinko liberals; a fair number of
conservatives have joined us. And why not? This administration’s actions
transcend cheap partisan politics and labels. Every chance they get, these
fools carve out an exception for themselves in every law they see, and they
have issued a series of executive orders that are far more reminiscent of
Saddam’s Iraq than the land of the free and the home of the brave. In fact,
Bush’s last executive order, which is featured on this very blog, was issued
July 17, and essentially asserts that the president (see, that’s the funny
thing about executive orders, they’re not president-specific) has the power to
unilaterally decide that you are undermining the effort in Iraq and,
without hearing, can just seize all of
your assets.

 

Now, I know what many
of you are thinking;

 

"I haven’t done
anything, so I have nothing to fear."

 

Those of you who
believe that should know; the word "gullible" appears in no
dictionary. Anywhere. You can go look; I’ll wait.

 

If you give the
government that kind of power, odds are they will use it. And if they take all
of your assets, how do you plan to fight it? The wingnuts spent the 90s
stalling as many Clinton-nominated judges as possible, and they spent the last
six packing the courts with their own kind. Of course, it won’t get that far,
because you won’t be able to afford a lawyer. You have no assets, remember? And
keep in mind, wingnuts; the executive order doesn’t expire when Bush leaves
office. What if President Hillary decides to make the claim that everyone who
has an assault weapon is aiding and abetting terrorism, because she’s
unilaterally decides that she wants to confiscate them, to make sure terrorists
can’t possibly get hold of them? Something tells me you’d probably want her
impeached, and rightly so. And if President Obama ordered every preacher’s
assets taken, because he was sick of them ragging on gays, you’d be calling for
his ouster, as well.

 

And you know what? We
would be right there with you, because it’s an abuse of power, no matter who’s
doing it. This may come as a shock to many on the right, but there are many
issues that transcend simple politics, and which are simply either right or wrong,
not right or left.

 

And right now, there
is no excuse for not impeaching these people. The Constitution demands it.

Limbaugh Demonstrates Why the GOP is Toast

I used to be outraged by stuff like this. Now, I’m amused by the abject cluelessness of the wingnut leadership.

"Comedian" Rush Limbaugh (Keith Olbermann calls him that because it irritates the right. I don’t think he’s very funny, so I prefer Scumbag Rush Limbaugh) puts a lot of his illogical rants on his web site, and puts links to them on his front page. Well, apparently, on his show today, he ranted about the fact that Democrats noticed that President Bush mentioned al Qaeda 96 times in discussing Iraq, and noted that MOST members of al Qaeda isn’t anywhere near Iraq right now, that 85% or more of the attacks that are killing Amercan soldiers are NOT courtesy of al Qaeda, and that the original war against al Qaeda, in Afghanistan, is being badly neglected, to the point that al Qaeda is regrouping and getting stronger…

See, apparently Limbaugh thinks that, by expressing frustration at the fact that Bush has neglected our actual enemies, the terrorists of al Qaeda, and has exaggerated their effect in Iraq, because he’s trying to continue to rationalize an occupation that makes no sense, it’s the Democrats who are compromising the country’s defense. So, on the front of his web site, the idiot Limbaugh placed this:

Osamalimbaugh_2

Isn’t that funny?

Ya see… cuz the so-called "comedian" called the terrorist a Democrat! Hahahahaha… that’s just a laugh riot, ain’t it?

Wonder if Rush and those incredible kidders on the right ever think about the fact that it’s likely that many of the soldiers in the battlefield, and many of the soldiers who have been killed or maimed fighting  for their country are or were Democrats. I wonder if they or their families think such a thing is "funny."

At what point do even his listeners finally figure out that they’re all seen as ignorant putzes by the vast majority of the public? When does right and wrong even factor into their behavior?