December 31, 2008
December 22, 2008
December 21, 2008
The Dark Harvest
218 million Americans live near toxic polluted water.
part 1
Part 2
Part 3
The Dark Harvest
part 1
Part 2
Part 3
December 20, 2008
December 18, 2008
October 31, 2008
October 30, 2008
Cindy Sheehan VS Pelosi: THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN THE USA
You want REAL CHANGE in Washington DC?!
Forget about the Presidential race!
The President only signs bills that congress writes. The President has zero power to legislate (well at least not according to the US Constitution.) Truth is, your vote for the president will affect policy in the US much less than who you end up electing (or NOT electing) to Congress.
And what seat in congress could be more important than the Speaker of the House?!
Nancy Pelosi seen here scolding the American people
Unfortunately, you don't elect the speaker of the house, they are elected by congress. The Speaker of the House has HUGE power withing the congress-- with the ability to give and take away chairmanships and other positions of power, the Speaker of the House has many tools in their grasp to punish fellow party members that stray from the party line.
Currently, the Democrats hold the Congress, and the Democratic Party line seems to be:
*DON'T Impeach the President
*DON'T End the War in Iraq
*DON'T put an end to the war profiteering by companies like Haliburton
*DON'T protect the Constitution
*DON'T fight back against executive power grabs
*DON'T protect the privacy of the American people against warentless searches and seizure
SO, what is a progressive/constitutionally minded citizen to do?
You can't vote against Nancy Pelosi unless you live in California's 8th district.
But you can DONATE against Nancy Pelosi. But, it just so happens that there is an amazing candidate running against Nancy Pelosi.
Cindy Sheehan is a Peace Activist, founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, defender of Liberty, and an all around testament to the Human Spirit. If you live outside the 8th district, and you support Cindy Sheehan's efforts to bring accountability to government, to end US Imperialism, and so much more, DONATE TODAY!
But you can't help her win on your own.
There are people out there that don't know that Cindy Sheehan is running against Nancy Pelsoi, or they know about it, but don't know how they can help out.
There are people all acrossed America who support Cindy Sheehan:
Get your copy of the poster here:
Thumbnail! Click the image to get an 8x11 photo. Print it off, and make copies!
If you have access to a video camera, get a friend to help you put up posters, film yourselves, and put the video up on YouTube!
Don't like the poster? Make your own! Get creative, but most importantly, GET THE WORD OUT!
Money is the only language that the Corporate MEDIA and the Corporate CANDIDATES speak.
AMERICA! let's pull together and use our money to send a message LOUD AND CLEAR to Speaker Pelosi and the Corporate Media:
"WE ARE SICK OF PEACE, LIBERTY, AND THE CONSTITUTION BEING 'OFF THE TABLE!'"
If you are reposting this, please link back to this article here:
http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com/2008/08/cindy-sheehan-vs-pelosi-most-important.html
Forget about the Presidential race!
The President only signs bills that congress writes. The President has zero power to legislate (well at least not according to the US Constitution.) Truth is, your vote for the president will affect policy in the US much less than who you end up electing (or NOT electing) to Congress.
And what seat in congress could be more important than the Speaker of the House?!
Nancy Pelosi seen here scolding the American people
for wanting accountability in government.
Unfortunately, you don't elect the speaker of the house, they are elected by congress. The Speaker of the House has HUGE power withing the congress-- with the ability to give and take away chairmanships and other positions of power, the Speaker of the House has many tools in their grasp to punish fellow party members that stray from the party line.
Currently, the Democrats hold the Congress, and the Democratic Party line seems to be:
*DON'T Impeach the President
*DON'T End the War in Iraq
*DON'T put an end to the war profiteering by companies like Haliburton
*DON'T protect the Constitution
*DON'T fight back against executive power grabs
*DON'T protect the privacy of the American people against warentless searches and seizure
SO, what is a progressive/constitutionally minded citizen to do?
You can't vote against Nancy Pelosi unless you live in California's 8th district.
But you can DONATE against Nancy Pelosi. But, it just so happens that there is an amazing candidate running against Nancy Pelosi.
Cindy Sheehan, seen here speaking Truth to Power
Cindy Sheehan is a Peace Activist, founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, defender of Liberty, and an all around testament to the Human Spirit. If you live outside the 8th district, and you support Cindy Sheehan's efforts to bring accountability to government, to end US Imperialism, and so much more, DONATE TODAY!
But you can't help her win on your own.
There are people out there that don't know that Cindy Sheehan is running against Nancy Pelsoi, or they know about it, but don't know how they can help out.
There are people all acrossed America who support Cindy Sheehan:
Get your copy of the poster here:
Thumbnail! Click the image to get an 8x11 photo. Print it off, and make copies!
If you have access to a video camera, get a friend to help you put up posters, film yourselves, and put the video up on YouTube!
Don't like the poster? Make your own! Get creative, but most importantly, GET THE WORD OUT!
Money is the only language that the Corporate MEDIA and the Corporate CANDIDATES speak.
AMERICA! let's pull together and use our money to send a message LOUD AND CLEAR to Speaker Pelosi and the Corporate Media:
"WE ARE SICK OF PEACE, LIBERTY, AND THE CONSTITUTION BEING 'OFF THE TABLE!'"
If you are reposting this, please link back to this article here:
http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com/2008/08/cindy-sheehan-vs-pelosi-most-important.html
October 18, 2008
Barack Obama's team is briefed by Bush staff on after warnings about a terrorist attack
I smell a false flag operation.
Original Story at Telegraph.co.uk
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 9:26PM BST 18 Oct 2008
Officials from both campaigns have been asked to briefings after warnings from US intelligence that terrorists and rogue states will seek to exploit the power vacuum following November's presidential election.
For the first time in American history the FBI has begun vetting likely officials of the next administration before the election, to ensure they have security clearance to deal with crises on day one.
Intelligence chiefs expect an attempt to emulate the terrorist strikes on Britain when Gordon Brown took power and are concerned that Russia or Iran could use the 77 days of paralysis between the election and the inauguration on January 20 for acts of international brinkmanship, like the invasion of Georgia.
An official involved in the transition discussions told The Sunday Telegraph: "There has been no specific threat but the assessment is that someone will try something.
"It could be a terrorist attack on US assets overseas. It could be the leader of a rogue state chancing his arm. Putin and Ahmadinejad have form."
The transition of power in the US is a chaotic process. More than 1,100 political appointees in senior posts have to be approved by the Senate, a process that can take months.
On Wednesday the current White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, chaired a meeting of senior White House staff and representatives of both Mr Obama and his Republican rival John McCain.
President Bush's creation of this Presidential Transition Coordinating Council, the earliest ever, is designed to avoid a repeat of the situation on September 11 2001, when only one third of his national security appointees had been approved by the Senate, nine months into his presidency.
Martha Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project, an independent group that advises the transition teams of both campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The times of changing of power are soft times, times of vulnerability. Just look at what has happened around the world, including in Great Britain.
"You had the failed bombings in London and then the attack at Glasgow airport three days after Gordon Brown took office. In Spain the Madrid bombings were three days before the presidential election."
There have been particularly intensive efforts to make sure Mr Obama has his national security team in place, not just because he is widely expected to win the election on November 4, but because intelligence analysts believe America's enemies are more likely to try to take advantage of Mr Obama's international inexperience than they would of Mr McCain.
A senior official in the Obama camp, whose name has been submitted for FBI vetting, said: "We will be ready and we will be seen to be ready."
He said that Mr Obama is close to finalising plans for his first 100 days in power - which will include major moves on the economy, healthcare and Iraq in his first week, designed to make his priorities clear to Americans.
He is planning a series of early interventions to stamp his authority on the economic crisis. This will include legislation proposing a $300bn stimulus package which would be published before President Bush has even left the White House, so that it can be passed as soon as he takes power.
Mr Obama is also planning executive orders that do not require legislation on his first day in office, which could include plans to promote renewable energy resources and create jobs.
His transition team, which is reportedly much more extensive and active than Mr McCain's, features 10 working groups in different policy areas to convert campaign promises into concrete legislation. It is chaired by John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff who runs the Centre for American Progress, a think tank long seen as a Democratic administration in exile.
Mr Podesta is working closely with Michael Signer, a former foreign policy aide to John Edwards in charge of homeland security affairs. Mr Podesta and Jason Furman, one of Mr Obama's two most influential economic advisers, have already held talks with sceptical conservative Democrats to line up the votes to pass a stimulus package.
Mr Obama has also worked to cultivate a close relationship with the Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, and personally asked him to help out during the transition, sparking speculation that he might keep Mr Paulson in post for the first year of his presidency.
Ms Kumar said: "There are things that a president can do immediately that establish his brand of leadership and help establish with the public what the priorities are.
"Reagan issued executive orders at the luncheon following the inauguration. He didn't even wait to get to the White House. He wanted to show how seriously he took the issue of the economy."
FBI vetting is also under way on 100 people from both campaigns, including Susan Rice, expected to be made the second successive black woman national security adviser after Condoleezza Rice; Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer tipped to become Mr Obama's chief White House counsel and his likely White House chief of staff; and the former senator and campaign chairman Tom Daschle. If Daschle prefers to become Health Secretary, Obama's current chief of staff Pete Rouse, nicknamed the 101st Senator for his connections on Capitol Hill, would take the job.
Other key national security officials will include Denis McDonough, chief foreign affairs adviser to the campaign and Richard Danzig, a secretary of the Navy under Clinton.
John Kerry, the Democratic candidate four years ago, and his fellow senator Chris Dodd, a failed candidate this year, are vying to become Secretary of State.
Mr Kerry, an Army veteran, is also a contender to take control of the Pentagon, but many expect that post to go to a Republican, perhaps the maverick senator Chuck Hagel. Colin Powell, a former secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs could return to government if he endorses Obama, as many expect. The veteran Democratic Senator Sam Nunn's name is also in the frame.
Original Story at Telegraph.co.uk
Senior aides to Barack Obama have been meeting George W.Bush's staff to begin planning a smooth transfer of power.
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 9:26PM BST 18 Oct 2008
Officials from both campaigns have been asked to briefings after warnings from US intelligence that terrorists and rogue states will seek to exploit the power vacuum following November's presidential election.
For the first time in American history the FBI has begun vetting likely officials of the next administration before the election, to ensure they have security clearance to deal with crises on day one.
Intelligence chiefs expect an attempt to emulate the terrorist strikes on Britain when Gordon Brown took power and are concerned that Russia or Iran could use the 77 days of paralysis between the election and the inauguration on January 20 for acts of international brinkmanship, like the invasion of Georgia.
An official involved in the transition discussions told The Sunday Telegraph: "There has been no specific threat but the assessment is that someone will try something.
"It could be a terrorist attack on US assets overseas. It could be the leader of a rogue state chancing his arm. Putin and Ahmadinejad have form."
The transition of power in the US is a chaotic process. More than 1,100 political appointees in senior posts have to be approved by the Senate, a process that can take months.
On Wednesday the current White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, chaired a meeting of senior White House staff and representatives of both Mr Obama and his Republican rival John McCain.
President Bush's creation of this Presidential Transition Coordinating Council, the earliest ever, is designed to avoid a repeat of the situation on September 11 2001, when only one third of his national security appointees had been approved by the Senate, nine months into his presidency.
Martha Kumar, director of the White House Transition Project, an independent group that advises the transition teams of both campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: "The times of changing of power are soft times, times of vulnerability. Just look at what has happened around the world, including in Great Britain.
"You had the failed bombings in London and then the attack at Glasgow airport three days after Gordon Brown took office. In Spain the Madrid bombings were three days before the presidential election."
There have been particularly intensive efforts to make sure Mr Obama has his national security team in place, not just because he is widely expected to win the election on November 4, but because intelligence analysts believe America's enemies are more likely to try to take advantage of Mr Obama's international inexperience than they would of Mr McCain.
A senior official in the Obama camp, whose name has been submitted for FBI vetting, said: "We will be ready and we will be seen to be ready."
He said that Mr Obama is close to finalising plans for his first 100 days in power - which will include major moves on the economy, healthcare and Iraq in his first week, designed to make his priorities clear to Americans.
He is planning a series of early interventions to stamp his authority on the economic crisis. This will include legislation proposing a $300bn stimulus package which would be published before President Bush has even left the White House, so that it can be passed as soon as he takes power.
Mr Obama is also planning executive orders that do not require legislation on his first day in office, which could include plans to promote renewable energy resources and create jobs.
His transition team, which is reportedly much more extensive and active than Mr McCain's, features 10 working groups in different policy areas to convert campaign promises into concrete legislation. It is chaired by John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff who runs the Centre for American Progress, a think tank long seen as a Democratic administration in exile.
Mr Podesta is working closely with Michael Signer, a former foreign policy aide to John Edwards in charge of homeland security affairs. Mr Podesta and Jason Furman, one of Mr Obama's two most influential economic advisers, have already held talks with sceptical conservative Democrats to line up the votes to pass a stimulus package.
Mr Obama has also worked to cultivate a close relationship with the Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, and personally asked him to help out during the transition, sparking speculation that he might keep Mr Paulson in post for the first year of his presidency.
Ms Kumar said: "There are things that a president can do immediately that establish his brand of leadership and help establish with the public what the priorities are.
"Reagan issued executive orders at the luncheon following the inauguration. He didn't even wait to get to the White House. He wanted to show how seriously he took the issue of the economy."
FBI vetting is also under way on 100 people from both campaigns, including Susan Rice, expected to be made the second successive black woman national security adviser after Condoleezza Rice; Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer tipped to become Mr Obama's chief White House counsel and his likely White House chief of staff; and the former senator and campaign chairman Tom Daschle. If Daschle prefers to become Health Secretary, Obama's current chief of staff Pete Rouse, nicknamed the 101st Senator for his connections on Capitol Hill, would take the job.
Other key national security officials will include Denis McDonough, chief foreign affairs adviser to the campaign and Richard Danzig, a secretary of the Navy under Clinton.
John Kerry, the Democratic candidate four years ago, and his fellow senator Chris Dodd, a failed candidate this year, are vying to become Secretary of State.
Mr Kerry, an Army veteran, is also a contender to take control of the Pentagon, but many expect that post to go to a Republican, perhaps the maverick senator Chuck Hagel. Colin Powell, a former secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs could return to government if he endorses Obama, as many expect. The veteran Democratic Senator Sam Nunn's name is also in the frame.
October 13, 2008
October 12, 2008
October 1, 2008
Help Kick PELOSI OUT! Phonebank for Cindy Sheehan!
From: Action Jackson
Date: 01 Oct 2008, 04:13
The time for peace and freedom in America is now.
We have established a national phone bank for Cindy Sheehan's Congressional Campaign in which anyone, anywhere can participate.
If you feel you owe it to yourself, your family, your friends and
their children to act now, then send us an email immediately:
(Jackson@cindyforcongress.org) and tell us you want to help. Or call 415-621-5027 and say "I want
to help fix this country!"
The campaign to elect peace mom Cindy Sheehan to the United States
Congress and unseat corporate warmonger Nancy Pelosi is going strong
and the rush to the finish is on.
We'll give you a list by email of a select group of voters and their
phone numbers. You call them during the free hours of your cell or
home phone service.
People all over the United States feel that Cindy Sheehan represents
their own beliefs better than candidates on the hometown ballot. Many
have elected to help the person who actually represents them.
If you feel you owe it to yourself, your family, your friends and
their children to act now, then send us an email immediately:
(Jackson@cindyforcongress.org) and tell us you want to help. Or call 415-621-5027 and say "I want
to help fix this country!"
We will provide you with a list to call, a helpful script and will
help you in any way we can.
Thank you,
Cindy for Sheehan Phone Banking Team
Date: 01 Oct 2008, 04:13
The time for peace and freedom in America is now.
We have established a national phone bank for Cindy Sheehan's Congressional Campaign in which anyone, anywhere can participate.
If you feel you owe it to yourself, your family, your friends and
their children to act now, then send us an email immediately:
(Jackson@cindyforcongress.org) and tell us you want to help. Or call 415-621-5027 and say "I want
to help fix this country!"
The campaign to elect peace mom Cindy Sheehan to the United States
Congress and unseat corporate warmonger Nancy Pelosi is going strong
and the rush to the finish is on.
We'll give you a list by email of a select group of voters and their
phone numbers. You call them during the free hours of your cell or
home phone service.
People all over the United States feel that Cindy Sheehan represents
their own beliefs better than candidates on the hometown ballot. Many
have elected to help the person who actually represents them.
If you feel you owe it to yourself, your family, your friends and
their children to act now, then send us an email immediately:
(Jackson@cindyforcongress.org) and tell us you want to help. Or call 415-621-5027 and say "I want
to help fix this country!"
We will provide you with a list to call, a helpful script and will
help you in any way we can.
Thank you,
Cindy for Sheehan Phone Banking Team
September 19, 2008
September 8, 2008
US Troops Are Protesting-- Where are you?
From: DJ LENA (IntegrityNow.org)
Date: 08 Sep 2008, 11:47
THIS FELLOW AMERICANS IS THE REAL NEWS AND HOW THE VETS REALLY FEEL!
Democracy Now! is an alternative media that airs on most cable companies lineups (check for your local listings on their site)...
http://www. democracynow. org/
PART 1: Iraq Veterans Protest at the Democratic National Convention
PART 2: Iraq Veterans Protest at the Democratic National Convention
Date: 08 Sep 2008, 11:47
THIS FELLOW AMERICANS IS THE REAL NEWS AND HOW THE VETS REALLY FEEL!
Democracy Now! is an alternative media that airs on most cable companies lineups (check for your local listings on their site)...
http://www. democracynow. org/
PART 1: Iraq Veterans Protest at the Democratic National Convention
PART 2: Iraq Veterans Protest at the Democratic National Convention
September 1, 2008
August 17, 2008
What good are Pundits, anyways?
Hi there pundits. I want you to look at yourself in the mirror.
Take a good, long, hard look. I want you to ask yourself this question, and really think about it-- What good does your column do for voters? And let's be intellectually honest about it.
The horse race style "coverage" is handled well enough by the corporate media already. Do you really think that your stats and pontifications-- which seem to be nothing more than a redux of 24 hour news network coverage-- adds anything of any value to the mix?
Does it benefit the voters, most of whom don't even understand what Single Payer Healthcare is, and have never even heard of HR 676, yet know the very real pain and frustration of being denied vital life-saving coverage by their health insurance corporation?
Does your "insight" help us to understand the platforms of the candidates? Does it help us to understand the root causes of the issues that we face in our daily lives?
Do you help us to stop the killing by allowing the voting populace to know the details of the exit strategies of all candidates? (Obama and McCain both want to leave troops in Iraq permanently, for instance.)
Telling us which demographics the Big Two politicians are polling well with-- does this give us the tools we need to make an informed decision about which candidate matches our own personal platforms?
Rehashing polls done by corporate-owned news media, with margins of error large enough that they are statistically insignificant, does not aid the average voter who is struggling to pay the bills and is looking for real solutions to the problems they face in their life. Most Americans really don't care that you've decided who is going to win.
So, I'll ask again, and I hope you do as well: What PURPOSE do you serve?
Your contributions are nothing more than an empty hall of mirrors. You, telling us, what we are supposedly telling you, that we're thinking. Why not give us something to think ABOUT?
The inane fluff you publish as a pundit distracts from the fact that there's a WAR going on-- with over a million innocent Iraqi's and over 4,000 US soldiers dead, that the US Gov't is trillions of dollars in debt, that we have a growing trade deficit with just about everybody, that the Federal Reserve is destroying the power of the US dollar, and that in America NINE TIMES the number of people who died on 9-11 die EVERY YEAR simply because they lack access to adequate health care, or were denied coverage by their insurance provider.
What are the candidates going to do about any of this? Regarding health care, both McCain and Obama both want to put your tax dollars directly in the pocket of health insurance corporations-- who play a middle man between you and your doctor, telling you what treatments your doctor can give you, not for your own health, but for the health of their shareholder's stock returns. But of course, you're not going to let us know about that. You're just going to tell us what we think about gaffes, petty branding disputes (Change? Hope? Puppies? Apple Pie?) and other such drama more appropriate to high school lunchrooms. Actually, I take that back. Your average high school student probably cares more about the platforms of the candidates than your average pundit.
You pundits chase after us, wondering what we are thinking and who we
are going to vote for so that you can make accurate predictions about
how we're going to vote, and you have nothing to offer but intellectual
cotton candy-- light, fluffy, no substance, no nutritious value, and
likely to cause tooth decay.
Only it's our society that is decaying.
Thank you for your contribution to the downfall of Democracy.
Or inversely, your total lack of any contribution whatsoever to a well informed voting population.
Take a good, long, hard look. I want you to ask yourself this question, and really think about it-- What good does your column do for voters? And let's be intellectually honest about it.
The horse race style "coverage" is handled well enough by the corporate media already. Do you really think that your stats and pontifications-- which seem to be nothing more than a redux of 24 hour news network coverage-- adds anything of any value to the mix?
Does it benefit the voters, most of whom don't even understand what Single Payer Healthcare is, and have never even heard of HR 676, yet know the very real pain and frustration of being denied vital life-saving coverage by their health insurance corporation?
Does your "insight" help us to understand the platforms of the candidates? Does it help us to understand the root causes of the issues that we face in our daily lives?
Do you help us to stop the killing by allowing the voting populace to know the details of the exit strategies of all candidates? (Obama and McCain both want to leave troops in Iraq permanently, for instance.)
Telling us which demographics the Big Two politicians are polling well with-- does this give us the tools we need to make an informed decision about which candidate matches our own personal platforms?
Rehashing polls done by corporate-owned news media, with margins of error large enough that they are statistically insignificant, does not aid the average voter who is struggling to pay the bills and is looking for real solutions to the problems they face in their life. Most Americans really don't care that you've decided who is going to win.
So, I'll ask again, and I hope you do as well: What PURPOSE do you serve?
Your contributions are nothing more than an empty hall of mirrors. You, telling us, what we are supposedly telling you, that we're thinking. Why not give us something to think ABOUT?
The inane fluff you publish as a pundit distracts from the fact that there's a WAR going on-- with over a million innocent Iraqi's and over 4,000 US soldiers dead, that the US Gov't is trillions of dollars in debt, that we have a growing trade deficit with just about everybody, that the Federal Reserve is destroying the power of the US dollar, and that in America NINE TIMES the number of people who died on 9-11 die EVERY YEAR simply because they lack access to adequate health care, or were denied coverage by their insurance provider.
What are the candidates going to do about any of this? Regarding health care, both McCain and Obama both want to put your tax dollars directly in the pocket of health insurance corporations-- who play a middle man between you and your doctor, telling you what treatments your doctor can give you, not for your own health, but for the health of their shareholder's stock returns. But of course, you're not going to let us know about that. You're just going to tell us what we think about gaffes, petty branding disputes (Change? Hope? Puppies? Apple Pie?) and other such drama more appropriate to high school lunchrooms. Actually, I take that back. Your average high school student probably cares more about the platforms of the candidates than your average pundit.
You pundits chase after us, wondering what we are thinking and who we
are going to vote for so that you can make accurate predictions about
how we're going to vote, and you have nothing to offer but intellectual
cotton candy-- light, fluffy, no substance, no nutritious value, and
likely to cause tooth decay.
Only it's our society that is decaying.
Thank you for your contribution to the downfall of Democracy.
Or inversely, your total lack of any contribution whatsoever to a well informed voting population.
August 15, 2008
Pelosi Book Tour becomes, "WHY HAVEN'T YOU IMPEACHED?!" tour
New York Times
Vote this up on Current.com
WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.
As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.
In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.
Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.
Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”
That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.
“There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!
Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.
While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.
At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.
And they do not.
Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.
And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
“He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”
Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.
Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.
The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.
The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.
While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.
These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.
Vote this up on Current.com
WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.
As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.
In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.
Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.
Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”
That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.
“There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!
Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.
While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.
At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.
And they do not.
Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.
And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
“He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”
Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.
Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.
The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.
The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.
While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.
These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.
July 29, 2008
THE TOOLS YOU NEED FOR IMPEACHMENT!
Place these posters on telephone poles, restaurant bulletin boards, etc
Make copies of these, cut them up into fours, and hand them out in public!
Make copies of these, cut them up into fours, and hand them out in public!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I like your ideas, can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Posts
All Comments