It’s Time to Remove Bush and Cheney
They have lied us into war for the benefit of Israel and Iran (and have since lied
about and plotted against the latter), killing who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people, turned the two-bit rapist nobody, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, into a new bin Laden, tortured and murdered with impunity [.pdf] at “ghost
prisons” (some the actual gulags of the former Soviet Eastern Bloc), asserted the authority to nullify the Bill of Rights due to an undeclared war, kidnapped Americans and turned them over to the DoD, used the military to tap and keep
records of our phone calls, used Total Information Awareness and Talon to create extensive files on us all, conspired to “out” Valerie Plame, sent suicidal troops
into combat in Iraq, and continued to pick a fight with the Russians. (Sorry, I’m sure there’s more I’ve forgotten.)The President’s poll numbers are far lower now than when Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1998. But, of course, the Republicans won’t do it, and who wants the 3rd in line for the presidency, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, to be the President anyway? Not me.
The vile House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, is adamant that she will not
let John Conyers issue articles of impeachment from the judiciary committee - which is a sort of prerequisite for asking Americans for a Democratic majority this
fall. She’s running for re-election to the House, not President.The solution is a simple one: Pelosi should announce, for all to see and hear, that she would very much like to see both the President and vice-president impeached and removed from office, and that as House Speaker she would be more than happy to remove herself from the line of succession to the presidency, which would leave it to the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, a seat now held by Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska. (Smart folks I’ve talked to expect that the Republicans, who now hold the Senate 55-45, will continue to hold a majority next year, as only 1/3 of the seats are up for re-election to a six year term every two years, and they seem to be pretty safe seats).
That way we are all rid of the disastrous Bush/Cheney term early next year, and the Republicans won’t be able to call it self-interested partisanship by the House Democrats.Now, does anyone believe that Nancy Pelosi would ever be big enough to sacrifice her own glory for the good of this country and the world?
if you are paying really close attention, you'll notice that scott points to Disclose, Denny. Thanks scott. this is a really important story - and i've dropped the ball on it. my bad. and thanks to scott for bringing it up again.
Scott also mentioned it recently here
Yes, Hastert. Reread An Inconveinient Patriot, and check Lukery’s blog Disclose Denny http://disclosedenny.blogspot.com/
(Luke is an incredible researcher.)
(i'm an 'incredible researcher' the way that timmeh is an incredible interviewer - all you have to do is turn up... but thnx for the shoutout)
for the record, here's larisa:
"But if you really want to understand why Sibel is gagged, you need to focus on
what happened with Hastert - not Hastert himself, but what happened with Hastert - because THAT is the holy grail to understanding why she is gagged - and also to some extent understanding Brewster Jennings. Not Plame - but Brewster
Jennings - and that's the best I can do on the record (and off really)."
5 comments:
""But if you really want to understand why Sibel is gagged, you need to focus on
what happened with Hastert - not Hastert himself, but what happened with Hastert - because THAT is the holy grail to understanding why she is gagged "
Not quite sure what Larisa is referring to here. If I had to guess, I would say she is pointing to the fact that the investigation into Hastert and other members of Congress was quashed by State/Justice is more embarassing to the Executive Branch than the mere fact that Hastert and others were bribed by Turkish interests.
In other words, State Secrets is not being used so much to protect Hastert himself, but to protect the Justice Dept.'s coverup of the Hastert/Turkey scandal (Sibel says Bush and Co. began the coverup shortly after taking office).
Does that make sense or am I totally off base?
miguel, i'm not sure either. it isn't clear whether "what happened with Hastert" refers to the DoJ cover-up, or the actual fact that Hastert was being bribed in the first place.
given sibel's recent statement that the giraldi article is spot-on, larisa might simply be referring to that whole ATC cabal, and how/why hastert got sucked into it - including the bribes/arms/drugs merry-go-round.
The Giraldi article points to feith/ perle/ grossman/ edelman/ wolfowitz / solarz - but no mention of hastert - (ftr i'd never heard wolfowitz named amongst this crew) - perhaps hastert is just one of many enablers for the crimes of the core bunch.
But I cannot emphasize enough that Hastert is not alone in this or even his “faction” as it were, rather, this is rampant abuse should these allegations be true. Link
Seems like a good idea to emphasize this again. :)
It sounds like she is referring to the cycle of corruption. Turkish officials, targets of the bribes and US officials who have the power to tell the FBI to back off or tell the Justice Department to "let it go." Why would politicians cover up this kind of corruption? Perhaps the military contractors would be very upset if the government put a stop to this. The theme of "Why We Fight" (Jarecki's new film) comes to mind. And Chalmers Johnson has pretty much said the same thing...ie...US policy is controlled by the MIC. So weapons go from Turkey or Israel to whatever country the MIC wants to invade next.
It seems Hastert is Speaker of the House because he is on board with the warmongering agenda (through bribes).
It's very confusing. I went back through the interview Luke did w/Alexandrova. Yes, Iran was the winner but IMO it doesn't seem like chess was being played between the neocons and whoever wanted Iran to emerge as the winner. I base that on the fact that the Bush administration damn well knew an occupation of Iraq wasn't going to be a cakewalk. They sold that garbage to the public. I don't know who the factions are but IMO the Bush administration acts like a 5th column. Meaning, the occupation of Iraq has been so FUBAR that it may lead to the downfall of the US. Was the goal for Iran to win or for the US public to lose their standard of living?
Just to expound on my thoughts a bit.
Bush administration=5th column at work.
9/11. False flag designed to jack up appeals to nationalism/patrotism.
Globalization. Not in the Friedman sense but the actual implementation...ie...exploitation, low wages, no workers rights and no environmental standards. Global class war.
Iraq=sinister plan to fool the American public into doing the bidding of the fascists. Oil companies win. MIC wins. Government wins. The public loses.
WoT=war on the American public and justification for resource wars for corporate America.
thnx noise - good comments as usual. and thnx for that quote!
from what i understand, my guess isnt that bribes arent the specific reason, per se, that people like hastert are committed to war - but rather that there is a cycle of bribes & blackmail - and it spirals out of control.
(ive front-paged some of yuor comments)
Post a Comment