Based on the figures below, I cannot understand why Bush and/or Cheney have not been Impeached.
Can it be that we are so blinded by our need for revenge stemming from 9/11 that we are willing to accept our complicity in rushing into War?
Or
Is it that Democrats think it's bad politics. Bush is dying politically and taking the GOP down with him, and impeachment is risky, Congress tends to follow the cost-benefit analysis.What do you think?
November 13, 2007 - Impeachment
A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president.
Of the 64%,
14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment,
33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached,
53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.
A total of 70% of American voters say that Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers as vice president.
Of the 70%,
26% (18% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment,
13% (9% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached,
61% (43% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.
Source: American Research Group, Inc.
Ted said...
Why?
Because our leaders in Congress have no balls and are only concerned about their reelection. Its time for them all to go, we need an entire new Government, Congress and everything.
http://www.pafundi.com/
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 4353
December 28, 2007 9:02 AM
Saboma said...
What I'm seeing with this impeachment gig is that it is simply a grandstanding farce.
Allegedly, we have a Union of Lawyers who have also allegedly hopped on the train for impeachment yet nothing has been done and I'll lay money on it that nothing will be done with this Impeachment thing.
This thing is so huge, that many many others would have to be impeached along with these knuckleheads, Nany Pelosi included.
Everyone of them should be tried and hung for treason but will that happen?
Not in this lifetime.
This has been one huge Monopoly game and if you've learned the technique on how to win at Monopoly, you'd see the blatant techniques being used in it.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but Congressman Conyers saw what was happening in the beginning of the second election term and had been setting Impeachment up at that time then Pelosi, stopped him dead in his tracks.
Pelosi sold out when she first became Speaker of the House. Crap, even Senator Diane Feinstein has had a hand in this.
They want to see aberration continue because they're becoming wealthy because of this major cluster phuck AND they have us by our short hair.
Because of our apathetic attitudes, we've allowed them to have us by our short hairs.
Carol said...
Ted and Saboma,
I think you are both correct, in part.
Impeachment will NOT happen, as you say Saboma - not in the lifetime and I will be quite surprised to see if we even have an Election in '08.
I am of the opinion that there will be some catastorphic event similar to 9/11 that will enable Bush to invoke the COG and keep him in office until hell freezes over!
December 28, 2007 9:16 PM
Dec 28, 2007
Why We Don't Impeach Bush and Cheney
Oct 5, 2007
Why Not Impeachment?
After the new disclosure that the Bush administration misled Congress and the public about its secret torture policies, one question that begs to be asked is: why not impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, finally? For the past year, Democratic leaders have ruled the question "off the table," but their strategy of seeking bipartisanship to end the Iraq War obviously has failed. So, the hard choice may be either to start impeachment proceedings or accept that the United States is no longer a Republic governed by the rule of law.
Read More...Why Not Impeachment?
Sep 28, 2007
No doubt Bush will get his extra $190 billion for the war
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US government triggered a bruising new battle with Congress Wednesday by demanding the mammoth sum of nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The administration's largest funding request yet for the six-year-old "war on terror" came as Democrats battled to pursue a thus-far futile drive to curtail the bloody Iraq mission
Read More...Bush in new Congress battle over huge war funding demand
Sep 19, 2007
Webb: “We do have an amendment on Iran”
Call your Senators today and tomorrow and ask them to support the Webb amendment. This, simply stated, requires the president to get Congressional authorization before attacking Iran, in keeping with the United States Constitution.
The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121.
To see if your Senator is supporting the amendment and report the result at: Provision against war with Iran
View the Video here: Support the Troops, Support the Webb Amendment
Jeff Herz - My View of the World said...
unfortunately one of my senators the honorable lying Joe Lieberman has already decided to bomb the shit out of Iran and my other Senator is too busy running for president (and being way behind in the polls) than to pay attention or listen to his constituents in CT.
Sep 6, 2007
Can Democrats End the Iraq War?
Congress does not need Bush's approval to end the war. Democrats may not have wanted to pay the supposed political costs of such a strategy, but news coverage should have made clear that this was a choice, not something forced on them by the lack of a veto-proof majority.
It is a matter of constitutional fact, which is that the Democrats could stop the war if they chose. They choose not to."
The questions are not just: Can Congress stop the surge? Can Congress stop a war-mongering president in his tracks? The better question is what are the things Congress can accomplish just by trying to stop the escalation, boldly, and without apology?
The answer to that is: an enormous amount -- and that the only thing that can guarantee Democratic political weakness in 2008 is if they abandon a strong withdrawal (or, if you prefer, "redeployment") position.
According to The constitution the Congress shall have power:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Why are they not using this power to end the War?
Aug 10, 2007
Inherent Contempt - Congressman Waxman puhleeeeese!
Why hasn't Congressman Waxman Chair of the House Oversight Committee, used Congress’s Contempt Power which has generally been used by Congress to compel witnesses who have refused to appear before committees and answer questions. The source of contempt power, early case law, and the procedures with each type of contempt proceedings (inherent contempt, civil contempt, and criminal contempt) are analyzed.
Why hasn't any other Congressman used this to force Bush and Cheney, as well as others to answer questions about a variety of issues?
Waxman said he was unaware of the "inherent contempt" power. Can it be that the whole of Congess is unaware of this power too?
Aug 9, 2007
How Bush Gained the Power To Spy on You Without Security Justifications
By Aziz Huq,
TheNation.com
The Bush Administration has successfully forced on Congress a law that largely authorizes open-ended surveillance of Americans' overseas phone calls and e-mails. How did they do it? Read more »
Aug 2, 2007
The White House and Justice Department on Executive Privilege for Rove
The White House, as expected, claimed executive privilege with regard to testimony by Karl Rove and Rove's aide Scott Jennings about the U.S. attorney firings. You can see that letter here.
See Also: Bush to claim executive privilege on Rove subpoena
In my view of it the only way we are ever going to get to the bottom of this fiasco is if Congress starts imprisoning witnesses who refuse subpoenas in the Capitol basement. This constant stonewalling is getting pretty old Mt. President - what are you hiding?
Jul 12, 2007
No-one is above the Law of The United States of America
As they say in civics class, America is a country of laws, not of men. It's time for Congress to stand up and use those laws to rid our country of the men who are systematically dismantling our constitution and ignoring the checks and balances that have always protected our democracy.
Bush and Cheney think their administration is above the law. That's un-American, and this July 4th it's time for Congress to re-assert its constitutional authority and stop the administration's obstruction of justice.
Congress can start by demanding answers from the Bush administration about the Iraq war and their illegal spying program, and not backing down until they get them. Cheney won't testify? Subpoena him. He won't come? Hold him in contempt of Congress and send over the police. And if that doesn't work, impeach the guy.
We just can't let President Bush and his administration continue to wipe their feet on our Constitution.Let's celebrate Independence Day by reaffirming the basic, founding idea of our government: No one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law.
Sign this petition to urge Congress to act NOW!
If enough of us make enough noise, and for long enough, and from all corners of our country, then perhaps this Congress will stiffen it's spine and move to remedy the poison that has seeped into our land for far too long now.
After you've signed the petition and pestered your own Congress critter, join me by copying this post to your own blog, and adding your blog to the list below.
Let's take this message of unity and support to every corner of America, and show just how many of us are ready to take back America!
Instructions:
1.- Copy and paste this message as a new post on your own blog.
2. - Replace one of the “Impeach NOW” tags in the matrix below with your anchor text (Blog name) of choice with your blog’s URL (Don't hesitate to e-mail me if you have questions about this!). Please keep anchor text to a max of 3 words to keep the matrix size manageable.
3. - Encourage and invite your readers to do the same and soon this can grow virally.
4.- The above steps will not only add your voice to the chorus for impeachment, but will also increase your Technorati stats as an added bonus.
We, the undersigned bloggers of America, agreeing that dissent is the truest form of patriotism, hereby publicly voice our unanimous discontent with the Bush administration and beseech the Congress of the United States of America to provide redress by immediately initiating impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Left in Aboite Fort Wayne Left Left of Centrist Monticello America Weeps Get Your Own Der Parson's Rant The Katrinacrat Let's Talk About It Carol for Peace Divided States bu$hmeriKa Dizzy Dayz Anti-bush pro-usa States-a-Mind Life’s Journey A Poetic Justice The Peace Tree Poets For Peace The Anti-War Theatre APJ Photomontage LeftwingNutJob The Sirens Chronicles Sumo Merriment People in the Sun Moondanzerdelivers My View of "It" ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW ImpeachNOW
Posted by MoonDanzer at Moondanzer Delivers
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Jul 11, 2007
Pentagon Says Full Iraq Assessment Will Come in September
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
10 July 2007
Pessin report (mp3) - Download 493k Listen to Pessin report (mp3)
The U.S. Defense Department says it would be premature to judge the new Iraq strategy now, as some members of Congress have done, and a spokesman is appealing for more time for the military operation implementing that strategy to work. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
Spokesman Bryan Whitman says the interim report President Bush must make to the Congress this week was not designed to be a full assessment of the new strategy the president outlined in January. Whitman says that assessment will come by September 15, the date Congress set for a report by the top U.S. commander in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador.
"September is not a political strategy," he said. "September is the course that we charted out, the plan, the deal, the manner in which we devised a way forward."
The document due this week is to report mainly on the performance of the Iraqi government in meeting political benchmarks toward reconciliation. There has been little progress toward reaching those benchmarks, and Whitman and other U.S. government spokesman have said no one expected the Iraqis to fully meet the benchmarks by now.
Whitman says the report due this week has taken on what he called "some prominence that wasn't anticipated."
US troops during a mission in Baquba, 04 Jul 2007 But Whitman stressed that all the extra troops President Bush ordered to Iraq in January have only been in place and pursuing their new offensive for a little more than three weeks.
"One should be very careful about making any sort of premature conclusions or judgments about where we are at at this point in time," he said.
Field commanders have reported good progress from the offensive, called Operation Phantom Thunder. But they say their successes are only first steps and there is much work to be done. Whitman says the defense department is focused on implementing the president's new strategy, and its best assessment of the effort will come later.
"It should be of no surprise to anybody that we believe that the first opportunity to really make an initial assessment as to how well the surge is working is September," he said.
Whitman says Defense Secretary Robert Gates is personally reviewing the Pentagon's part of this week's report, and will be meeting with members of Congress to discuss it.
Jul 9, 2007
Can you name that dance?
Bush uses privilege to deny ex-aides’ testimony
White House-Congress showdown escalates over attorney firing subpoenas
WASHINGTON - President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.
The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.
In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.
I don't know about you but this just reeks of cover-up! This is his latest dance step in the waltz to cover his ass and protect himself and his sidekicks from a contempt of Congress citation. He is willing however, to allow former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.
Now you tell me when is someone who has nothing to hide only going to allow off the record interviews?
May 24, 2007
Take This Job and Shove It!
Congress finally decided to raise the minimum wage to a whopping $7.25 an hour but not all at one time. Yet they give themselves raises of thousands of dollars at a time. Doesn't that just piss you off?
Congress votes to increase minimum wage
President Bush was expected to sign the bill quickly, and workers who now make $5.15 an hour will see their paychecks go up by 70 cents per hour before the end of the summer. Another 70 cents will be added next year, and by summer 2009, all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.
Congress Gives Itself Another Pay Hike While Refusing To Increase Minimum Wage
By MARC McDONALD
For the past 10 years, Congress has stubbornly refused to raise the minimum wage, which is $5.15/hour. During this same period, Congress has voted to give itself one fat pay raise after another. This week, the GOP-led Congress awarded itself another generous raise----this time for $3,300 (which brings lawmakers' annual salaries to $168,500/year).
Previous Post Here:
vice said...
They had to raise the minimum wage. How else could the illegals in the country afford to pay the $5000.00 fine to 'become legal?'
May 3, 2007
Turn back the hands of time to before the Iraq war
Mar 22, 2007
Tell Karl Rove: Testify Under Oath
What's Karl Hiding?
Karl Rove must testify under oath about his role in the U.S. Attorney scandal. Sign this petition -- we'll deliver your message directly to Karl Rove's house in Washington, DC.
The Bush Administration is still struggling to explain why eight U.S. Attorneys were abruptly dismissed last December. Recently released documents, however, show that heavy partisan pressure was being applied to replace these independent prosecutors -- including at least one who was pursuing a Republican congressman on high-level corruption charges -- with "Bushies" loyal to the administration.
Those documents also show a very high level of White House involvement in the decision to fire these attorneys -- most notably by Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. Indeed, the candidate who has now replaced a U.S. Attorney fired in Arkansas was a aide to, and protege of, Mr. Rove -- with relatively little prosecutorial experience, but lots of experience suppressing minority voters in the 2004 election.
Click here to tell Karl Rove: Tell the truth about your role in the purging of U.S. Attorneys.
The Bush administration's shifting explanations just don't hold water anymore, and Congress is now determined to get to the bottom of the matter. If, as it currently appears, the administration sought to obstruct justice in this affair, this would represent an unprecedented and dangerous politicization of our Federal judiciary system.
There's only one way to get to the bottom of this affair, and that's for Congress to exercise its oversight role -- including hearings with sworn testimony from White House officials such as Rove. So far, the White House -- under the flimsy excuse of 'executive privilege' -- is resisting Congressional demands for testimony under oath. But if they have nothing to hide, why not let Rove testify under oath? Anything less would be a clear cover-up of wrongdoing.
Click here to tell Karl Rove: Testify, under oath, before Congress.
We're gathering petition signatures and will deliver the petition to Mr. Rove at his home near Washington at the end of next week. So don't delay -- sign the petition today!
Feb 7, 2007
Wall St. braces for ‘headline risk’
By Jessica Holzer
How much can an ambitious Congress and a bunch of journalists shake Wall Street?
On Jan. 25, stock prices of several credit card companies took a beating.
The reports that hit the financial wires surely made the credit card executives wince. “Senate targets credit card practices,” one teaser on Yahoo! Finance read. “Critics seek clampdown on credit firms,” Reuters wrote.
But more importantly, those headlines rattled the market.
The episode illustrates the phenomenon of “headline risk,” or the damage a negative news story causes to a share price in the absence of any fundamental change to the company’s prospects or the business environment.
Oh no! Not the Credit Cards! Wonder why negative news stories don't seem to be having any impact on Bush and others on the Hill?
Jan 18, 2007
CONGRESS: POLITICAL BLOGGERS MUST REGISTER OR FACE JAIL
Congress to Send Critics to Jail, Says Richard ViguerieCongress Wants to Blame the Grassroots for Its Own Corruption
Manassas, VA. The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, regarding legislation currently being considered by Congress to regulate grassroots communications:
“In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, but isn’t, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress.
“Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
“The bill would require reporting of ‘paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,’ but defines ‘paid’ merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.
“On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone ‘knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.’
“That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. Unless Amendment 20 succeeds, the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment rights. We’d be living under totalitarianism, not democracy.
“I started GrassrootsFreedom.com to fight efforts to silence the grassroots. The website provides updates in the legislation and has a petition to sign opposing Section 220.
“Thousands of nonprofit leaders, bloggers, and other citizens have hammered the Senate with calls in opposition to Section 220, which seeks to silence the grassroots. The criminal provisions will scare citizens into silence.
“The legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report.
“Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington’s internal corruption problems.”
an aside: (19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm’ means a person or entity that–
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.’.
If I am reading this right this actually applies to Bloggers who are receives an income from their efforts. However, this issue bears watching as it may just be the "tip of the iceberg" as far as Blogger's Rights are concerned.
Jan 5, 2007
No more free lunch for House --
Ethics rules changed on first day or Pelosi's first success in House -- forceful changes in ethics rules
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi racked up her first legislative victory of the 110th Congress on Thursday, passing ethics reforms that will ban gifts and meals paid for by lobbyists and strictly limit travel for lawmakers funded by outside groups.
Jan 2, 2007
Democrats Set To Renew Attack On Free Speech
Paul Joseph Watson A new piece of legislation set to be re-introduced in Congress by the Democrats under the guise of anti-bullying would reprimand schoolchildren for verbal criticism of their peers in any context, including sexual orientation, religion or simply expression of an opposing idea. The bill echoes federal hate crime legislation about to be debated as Congress enters its first session tomorrow.
The Antibullying Campaign Act of 2005 was rendered obsolete after the recent expiration of Congress but Fox News radio reports that its most ardent champion, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, is set to initiate its reintroduction.
The bill outlines a $300 million dollar federal program to target bullies who harass other kids about their sexual orientation, gender identity or religion.
However, the language of the legislation is so loosely defined that it could punish kids for simply verbally disagreeing with another student about so-called "alternative lifestyles."
The bill defines harassment as, "conduct, including verbal conduct, that creates, or would create, a hostile environment by substantially interfering with a student's educational benefits, opportunities, or performance, or with a student's physical or psychological well-being."
Dec 23, 2006
Congress, the Voters & a Peace Plan
By Brent Budowsky December 23, 2006
Editor's Note: When American voters overturned the Republican majorities in the House and Senate on Nov. 7, one of the key messages was pretty clear -- the people wanted the war in Iraq wound down and the 140,000 American occupation troops brought home.
A month later, the voters' consensus was largely reflected in the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group proposed a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces, direct talks with Iran and Syria, and a serious bid to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Now, more than two weeks later, President George W. Bush has mostly ignored the voters' message, spurned the advice of the Iraq Study Group and appears headed toward an escalation -- or "surge" -- in U.S. troop levels in Iraq. In this guest essay, political analyst Brent Budowsky says Bush's apparent course has laid down a challenge to Democrats and Republicans who want peace:
Memo to Democratic Leaders In Congress, Democratic Presidential Candidates, and Statesmanlike Republicans:
In December of 2006 the United States stands on the brink of a historic miscalculation that could translate a catastrophe in Iraq into a region-wide conflagration, even more deadly than the status quo.As President Bush prepares to announce the policies that will define the final two years of his presidency, what I propose privately and now publicly is this:First, that the President initiate -- and Congress require as a condition for support -- a credible and legitimate attempt to broker a broader and comprehensive Middle East peace.Specifically I suggest that the President state -- and Congressional leaders urge him to state -- that he is sending former Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton on a Middle East peace listening tour. They would meet with Israelis and governments throughout the region, to determine how they define their security needs, consider creative policies to bridge differences, and report back to the President and Congress their findings and suggestions about the possibilities to escalate the search for peace.We should be escalating the search for peace, not stirring the winds of war. A grateful Nation, a generation of young people, and our allies everywhere would applaud the honorable beginning of an American President naming two former Presidents to initiate this effort and explore the opportunities.It is time to end this dialectic of death and offer a better way. Second, regarding Iraq, I suggest Democratic Leaders in Congress and senior Republicans such as Senators John Warner and Chuck Hagel publicly state that the policies announced in the President's plan should be a clear, direct de-escalation of the conflict, not yet another escalation.If the President announces what he appears to be poised to announce, which would be a new escalation in Iraqi without any credible policy for peace in the Middle East, or regional talks including Iraq and her neighbors, it would be a disaster for the United States and for both political parties.The reason the overwhelming majority of our American commanders in truth oppose the escalation, by advising against the troop surge in Iraq, is this:Bluntly, those advocating the troop surge, do so for one of three reasons, all of them militarily mistaken. Some favor the surge to give open support to the Shi'ites against the Sunnis in the civil war they state does not exist. Others favor the surge to support one group of Shi'ites against another group of Shi'ites to make the United States a partisan warrior in sectarian murder between Iraqi Shi'ites. Another group that favors the surge wants our Army and Marine Corps to become the new Iraqi police. This would not only be disastrous military policy but it would be Orwellian politics at home, with contempt for what American voters expressed in the last election, guaranteed to create major divisions within both parties, and create even more disgust by the American people against business as usual in Washington.In the hours before the Congressional election virtually every candidate in both political parties was promising to give general support to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, whose basic policy direction was known months before the election.How many candidates in either political party promised this on election day: "If you vote for me I will support escalating the war in Iraq. I will support overruling the strong majority of our commanders who oppose such an escalation, I will oppose any serious regional diplomacy, I will oppose any significant search for broader Middle East peace, I will support using our troops to do the job of the Iraqi police, intervening to support sides in an Iraqi civil war, and I will show contempt for all Republicans and Democrats on Baker Hamilton?
It is Kafkaesque and Orwellian, as though the American election did not happen, as though the will of the voters does not matter, as though the commitments of candidates in both parties the day before the election mean nothing the day after the election.There have been signs from some Democratic Leaders and some senior Republicans that they want a better way, though they have let the President decide the terms of debate that are now exclusively focused on an escalation that the voters did not want, that the candidates promised not to do, that our commanders now oppose, that our NATO allies warn against.To Democratic Leaders in Congress: the best position in advance of the President's speech is to state that they will support a policy that seeks a genuine prospect for diplomacy and political solutions throughout the Middle East and in Iraq.And: that they will support de-escalation, and oppose any escalation, that prolongs and expands the catastrophe in Iraq. Otherwise Democrats surrender the high and proper ground won in the election in a manner that will divide the Democratic Party and be disastrous for the Nation.To Republican Senators such as John Warner and Chuck Hagel: you have both expressed support for dramatic changes in policy and the time to make your stand, publicly, is now in advance of the President's speech. Otherwise Republicans will continue the politics of acceptance that is not only bad for the Nation but will be disastrous for your party, which will be known in 2008 and for a generation as the Party of the disastrous Iraq war, as Herbert Hoover was known for generations as leading the Party of the Depression.To Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Tom Vilsak, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Chris Dodd, Al Gore and any potential candidates for the Presidency, now is the time to draw a line in the sand, in clear and decisive terms.For six full years the United States of America has abandoned the role that every previous President, from both parties, conservative to liberal, has advanced since 1948. It is not enough to draw shades of distinction from a policy rooted in disaster. It is not enough to engage a debate between those who favor a major escalation, those who favor a minor escalation, and those maneuvering around which terms will make acceptable whatever escalation they might reluctantly support.Again: we must end this dialectic of death, this choice between competing versions of failure. This is not what every previous American President has stood for; this is not what the Democratic Party stands for; this is not what the voters spoke in favor of, loudly and clearly, in the 2006 elections.In the Democratic Congress and the campaign of 2008, we should begin battle of ideas at home, with a new dialectic of democracy that honors what voters have called for, and offers change and hope, to lift our vision and our leadership.It is time for those who aspire to be the next President, commander in chief and leader of the free world to issue a clarion call to a new and better way that the advances American power to serve our higher interests, sustain our higher values, and inspire the young generation which deserves to inherit nota permanent war, but a better world.It is time for someone to step forward and lead the charge to seek a true Middle East peace, to call for the first serious steps in the hard but vital mission of ending the cycle of war, poverty, anguish, despair and death.If the United States sends Presidents Bush 41 and Clinton on a listening tour, in search of a new path to peace, they would be met with a resounding call for change and hope from people throughout the region and the world.It is a hard and tough road, indeed, but a road we must urgently begin to travel.This must not be a debate between one way of war versus another; between which terms of escalating bloodshed we will choose; or between a policy of no hope, versus a policy of timidity continuing the carnage.The American people have just voted for a whole new and better way. The American people are right, and await a leader with the courage to lead.
Brent Budowsky was an aide to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen on intelligence issues, and served as Legislative Director to Rep. Bill Alexander when he was Chief Deputy Whip of the House Democratic Leadership. Budowsky can be reached at brentbbi@webtv.net.
Dec 12, 2006
The One Campain To Make Poverty History!
Dear ONE Member,
This Saturday at 1:27 AM, we scored a crucial victory against poverty as Congress passed important trade legislation.
The final votes for the bill were:
Yea
Nay
House of Representatives
212
184
Senate
79
9
When ONE Members first took action to protect the “third-country fabric” provision of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in September, it was little more than an obscure clause in a massive trade bill. Thanks in part to the hundreds of thousands of letters ONE Members sent to Congress, we were able to help get this important provision on the radar.
