Why Democrats took impeachment from the table to the closet
Despite overwhelming support from the American people to impeach Dick Cheney, Democrats keep stalling.
On November 6, a bizarre struggle took place over the resolution to impeach Cheney, where Republicans first voted to table it but then turned around and voted to get it to debate in order to "embarass Democrats."
The resolution ended up buried in a judiciary committee, but what on earth happened? Why would Democrats want to avoid debating the resolution?
In the video above, David Swanson argues that 'the Democratic leadership knows that if the conversation starts, the case against [Cheney] is so solid that they will have to impeach him."
But, isn't that the whole point?
Obviously not.
Democrats don't want to impeach Cheney any more than Republicans do.
This whole thing is just another 'made for tv' political drama, meant to give the appearance of accountability when no such thing exists.
Swanson offers two suggestions for why Democrats keep stalling: (1) Democrats are afraid that they will be embarrassed because they too voted for the war; but more importantly (2) Democrats want to 'play it safe' by keeping the occupation of Iraq going and keeping Bush and Cheney in office so that they 'can run against those three things in 2008' (since that 'worked so well in 2006').
I propose a third, far more likely reason why the Democratic shmucks in congress won't impeach Bush and Cheney.
Nancy Pelosi, an ardent zionist, was told that Cheney must remain exactly where he is because Bush simply can't launch another war before he leaves office without him - he's too f*cking stupid.
Conyers and the rest of them "won't cross Pelosi," not because they're afraid of her sorry ass, but because they're afraid of AIPAC, which will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who dares impede their insane plans to launch a war against Iran.
The question isn't just about what to do, because we can do all kinds of things. I suspect that just doing things might satisfy a lot of people. However, the better question is about what effective things can we do.
And then, what is it we really want to do? Do we want to prevent a war between us and the Iranians?
Xymphora argues that the American Establishment is back in charge and a war with Iran is the last thing that they want. So, for Xymph, the war is being prevented by the people who have wrested power away from the zealots.
By wresting power back from the zealots I mean, or at least, I think Xymph means that the hands on the helm have changed no matter who's name might still be on the door or the letterhead.
If this is true, then impeaching anyone is not necessary. That is, even though the Bush and Cheney people head up the greeting committee, they are no longer in charge.
I cannot tell if any of this argument is backed up by real evidence. At least, despite the fact we've been told we're going into Iran for years, we haven't done it yet.
Probably a better goal, than just preventing another criminal war would be to re-establish some kind of democracy in the country. I would suppose that if we were going to war lead by Bush against the will of the people and the rule of law, or not because some "establishment" has secretly taken over the helm, we're no longer talking about a functioning democratic system.
So, we have a couple of goals. We need to find out who's in charge. And, as we suppose the people and their representatives backed by law are not, then we need to figure out how to reverse the coup.
Again, though, just doing things isn't what we want to do. Marching in the streets without some rhyme or reason to it just expends our time and energy without making any accomplishments.
I guess backing a few good candidates could be one thing. I don't know of anyone making sounds close here, in Portland. I am not wanting to support the D's or R's anymore just because of their party affiliations. So, that leaves me with some work to find out things about a few candidates out there.
I'm aware of Rep. Paul, Rep. Kucinich, and Gravel. I said to myself that my default candidate was Pres. Fidel Castro of Cuba until someone showed me they had a better candidate. Fidel has a good record on health care, education, and kept his country out of a shooting war for fifty years. And, he's not just off some boat, fresh out of college, or someone I've otherwise never heard about.
I have another project having to do with "core assumptions," and how our politics has been corrupted by violence, sneakiness, and deceit. But, that's my own hobbyhorse.
So, then, how do we start making up our own minds about things and learn how to respond to people who say we have to do x, y, or z, because God tells us to, or else.
steven andresen
..i'm sure Castro has done some good things, like sending doctors and aid abroad, but DON'T BE FOOLED!
..NOT 50 years, my friend.. DO NOT FORGET ABOUT ANGOLA (1975), 32-soon-33 years since the Angola deployment, a war that left land-mines everywhere.
..DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE IDEALS OF BEASTLY SYSTEMS, WHO'S LIVING IDOLS CALL FOR WAR!
I grant that Cuba has been in foreign adventures. So, maybe he didn't keep his country out of all entanglements. I meant that he kept his country out of a shooting war with us. I take this to be a significant achievemnet.
The reason I picked Castro is that he's defied the U.S. to an extent that is admirable.
The reason I'm willing to vote for him is that I'm not wanting to give my vote to the lesser evils here anymore. So, they have to give me a good reason to vote for their candidate. So far, I consider few of them because they are mostly not addressing my issues.
I don't know if I could recommend everyone to do as I do. But, I think we should hold these guys up to higher standards.
..good idea, let's compare them all to Gandhi..
..and fire them when they can't even hold up a candle to him!