Impeachment - pros and cons

Coming from Keith's blog on zaadz:    Bill Moyers Journal: Impeachment ( video interviews) 


I haven't found the time to watch much of it yet, but this PBS series is making people jump off the couch, apparently.

Anybody else here thinking about these things and how it looks like it's all coming to a head, right about… uhm, now?


M

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Hi Mascha,

This video looks interesting. The link provided on Keith's blog to youtube no longer works (“This video is no longer available”) but I found another one here to what I assume is the same video. I'm going to go watch it now.

“Anybody else here thinking about these things and how it looks like it's all coming to a head, right about… uhm, now?”

Yup.

Yours,
Lauren

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Update:
It looks like Keith's links (Mascha's link above) work for all but Part 1 of the special.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

My wife was at a conference in DC with Barack last month. One of the attendees asked him if we should impeach Bush. He said, 'no it would be bad for the country'. I 100% agree. The best thing that can come out of all of this is to shame those (in a friendly way, thus not polarizing them) that voted for Bush the second time around after seeing his performance the fist time around. Hopefully all of us can then support the next President that is not so right leaning and nationalistic and get the country back on track.

love


e

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

That impeachment of Bush and Cheney would be bad for the country in some ways I don't dispute, but I sense that it would be far worse to allow the powers that have been claimed during the reign of this administration by our president and vice president to become established precedent. Can we afford to permit such defilement of the Constitution, in effect sanctioning the acts of blatant disregard of the most basic principles upon which our system of governance is built (checks and balances anyone?)? There are no checks and balances when the executive branch places itself above the law. This administration has done so over and over again. Can we afford to set the precedent that a president and his administration will be allowed to place themselves above the law?

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

I don't personally want to get deeply into this discussion, but I read what's been posted so far.  Since we're supposedly all about integral here, anybody want to offer an integral analysis of it?  There's a fair amount of integral political stuff over on the 'plex.  The current issue of Holons is on integral politics, and well, um, I was going to link to the chapter of the Many Faces of Terrorism that has all the Integral Politics stuff, but the Kendalini's blog doesn't seem to go back that far and I can't find it elsewhere.  Oh well.  <shrug>

spiraling back to work,
arthur

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

You just ahve to go to the Archives section Arthur.  The Many faces blog is here.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

I don't see how empeaching Bush or Cheney could be a bad thing in any way. If they aren't impeached, then we are sending a message to future Presidents that they can act and do certain things, that they can't.
It is expected that the Executive try to take as much power as it can, but that is why the Founders made such a big deal about empeachment.
They didn't empeach Nixon after he resigned, and that may be why the Executive thinks it can do what it wants and not suffer any consequences.
They have hurt us as a people, and killed thousands needlessly. I can't leave the country without getting a lecture about this stuff. They need to go. If we just sit around on our asses and wait for him to get voted out, then we are saying that a President can do whatever they want for a period of 4 years and suffer no consequences.
He's not a King, and he is bound by the rule of law. He shows contempt for all of us dailly in his behavior, and he's supposed to be working for us. His ass needs to go.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Rick,
You are such a peach! I wish I could pinch your little cheeks.
Not those cheeks.

Everyone,
The Bill Moyers video is compelling. If you only have a little time I suggest watching Part 5. Rick's point that our system of governance suffered damage in not impeaching Nixon after he resigned is echoed in the video when both Bruce Fein and John Nichols agree that in not insisting on repentance – an admission of guilt from Nixon, a recognition that his actions quite literally damaged the republic – a precedent was set that has contributed substantially to the deterioration in governance that is in horrific evidence today. In granting leniency where accountability should have been demanded, the door was left open to escalating failures of presidential integrity and leadership, the executive branch is violating the Constitution in unprecedented ways, and we are letting it happen. Not only did pardoning Nixon open the door to astounding failures of presidential integrity, but it seems also to have contributed to the creation of a congressional culture that is pervasively hostile to real leadership, courage, and passionate commitment to the Constitution. Politicians are a joke. No one even believes they should have integrity or conviction anymore. We have established a presidency that does not respect the rule of Law, and a legislative and judicial leadership that alllow it, or worse, gleefully collude.

We could actually make some headway towards a redemption of our national character and the rebuilding of good diplomatic relations if we demonstrated to the world through the unequivocal sanctioning of our president and vice president that we hold them accountable for their corrupt and tyrannical actions here and abroad.

One comment from the video that I loved, John Nichols of The Nation saying to Bill Moyers:
(I'm paraphrasing) “You are making a common mistake, Bill. You are mistaking impeachment for a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a constitutional crisis.”

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Lauren & Rick,

We need to keep the eye on the prize i.e. the Presidency.
BushCo has the lowest ratings to date and that is reflected in the losses
in the most recent elections in the congress and the dwindling support for
the war from within their own party. So, it seems like it will be a
cakewalk to get a Democratic president in 08. Unless, the Democrats
do something that causes a swing back towards the right. Is the call
to impeach the president such a potential swing? If we get the presidency,
the only thing left is the Supreme Court. So bide your time and maybe just
maybe these 8 years will be a bump in the road where we will all say,
remember those 8 years when the country lost it's mind briefly, etc.

Also, I am not a lawyer nor a judge but the Patriot Act was passed by
the congress with over 2/3 majority vote!!. So, you may not agree
with how the President interprets that Act but I personally do not
have the legal wherewithal to tell whether he is in fact acting “against
the law”. And more likely then not, the legal lines in the sand will be
along party lines. So, again, we don't need more division at this
point in time!! Please go out and make friends with your republican
neighbors. Make them eat humble pie and tell them to give the
other side a chance to make it all good! They know deep in their
hearts that you are right! :-)

Does he have to go? YES!!!!!!!!!!! And he will. But let us in our zest
for justice (at best) or revenge (at worst), lose what is being handed
back to us i.e. our country.

Lastly, do you serious believe that impeaching Nixon would have
changed BushCo's actions one iota? The only thing it would have
done is make them act more covertly. So, in a way, I am glad their
actions are all out in public view seeing the light of day.

peace & love,

e

PS It will be an enormous cost to impeach the President to find out t
that…he is a liar? Don't we know that already?! And he knows we
know that! Does he give a hoot?! Read The Price of Loyalty: George
W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill for a
behind the scenes account of BushCo's early Presidency.

PPS I am really not a Democrat (nor a Republican) but the exit door
to 2^nd tier is painted Green!

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

e, I don't think your right here. With the president's numbers so low, there isn't going to be a swing of support for him if he's impeached. They tried to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob and lying about it, and it didn't rock the nation or get Gore the electoral vote.
I don't think you understand the political realities of the precedences that are being sent. If we sit on our asses for another 16 months, then we are literally saying that a President is a King for 4 years and that they can do anything during that time. We just have to wait till it's over.
This is not how our representative democracy works, and this is why the Founders believe a lot in impeachment.
Watch the film.
In a new book about the diaries and secret papers of Nixon and Kissinger, it is noted that the President was told and fully understood that Vietnam was an unwinable war in I think 1970. Not just support wise, but actual military victory wise. He was told by Kissinger to stay in a while longer so he wouldn't look bad and would have a better chance of winning the next election. We are finding this out over 30 years later! What are we gonna find out 30 years from now! They aren't gonna leave an evidence behind!
People are dying! This isn't trivial shit.
You may being thinking, “it's only 16 more months, that's only a year and a half,” but how long is 16 months when you've spent 7 years in prison without a trial, or your on your 3rd tour in Iraq, or your praying daily that the rest of your family isn't killed in the next 16 months, while those fat and happy Americans are waiting to these little farce of an election.
Congress didn't vote for this, and now that it's barely a Democratic congress, the Whitehouse is basically telling them to “fuck off,” and getting away with it. The term “Executive Privilege” isn't in the constitution, but Impeachment is in there about 3 different times.

e: “PS It will be an enormous cost to impeach the President to find out t
that…he is a liar? Don't we know that already?! And he knows we
know that! Does he give a hoot?! Read The Price of Loyalty: George
W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill for a
behind the scenes account of BushCo's early Presidency.”

Are you kidding! Is this a joke! That's like saying it would be a waste of time to convict a guy that rapped his neice since the rest of the family already knew Uncle Johnny had issues.
We don't need to impeach him to find out he's a lier, we need to impeach him because he's a lier!

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Rick,

You are preaching to the choir.
The point I am making is that Rove et al had a brillant plan that
worked before. Polarize the country and get the ultra-right
on your side and they were able to squeak by the first time. I was
shocked when Bush was elected the first go round and dumb-
founded the second. So, all I am saying is let's not put ourselves
in that position again. It is serious shit and the last thing we need
is to divide the country along party lines. Now their magic seems
to be wearing off as they lost in the last elections, agreed. But will
we hand them an easy ticket back into the White House with
impeachment? The folks that will be for impeachment will be
democrats and those against will be republicans and war supporters.
Would this be enough to make it such an issue that in the next elections
the republicans will be able to galvanize their base around and squeak
by with another win? You willing to risk it? My feeling is, get them out of
power and change the laws.


peace

e

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Ok e, take it from someone who lives in a Texas town with 3 large military bases. They won't be able to spin an impeachment to their advantage, the harm will be if we do nothing. A Democratic President isn't just gonna give up all that extra power that Bush took voluntarily. That just isn't the nature of people in power. If you think that all that he's done will be undone by the next guy or gal, then that is just… …not representative of any kind of politics that I've ever seen.

“You can fool some of the people some of the time…”

It's been months since I've talked to anyone here that hasn't wanted to put Bush's head on a pike, and Texas isn't San Fransico if you know what I mean.
The Army called me up because of my Cultural and Linguistic backgound and graduated top of my class, to see if I'd be interested in taking 40,000 dolls. to go to the prestigous Defense Language Institute in California and serve in the reserves as an Intell. or Psych ops officer for 4 years part time. I walked into the place and it was empty. The recruiters looked like someone had just beaten them and the board where they put up the pictures of new recruits was almost empty.
If it's like that here, then the rest of the country isn't much different.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Hi e,

I appreciate your perspective on this, but I disagree. I think you're right that what's most important is what in the long run is best for the country and the world, and that is why I think it is essential that we stop in its tracks the defilement of our defining document of law. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of this country. It is a statement of our essential guiding principles. Many of those principles have been abandoned, flouted, violated, and corrupted by this administration. It has happened bit by bit, over the course of many years, this erosion of our foundational liberties and desecration of our most significant laws. That too is part of the “brilliant plan” of Rove and co.

We have never come close to fully achieving the functioning reality of a true democracy that the founding fathers articulated through their visionary genius. The system of governance which they envisioned and then designed was historically unprecedented. They understood, I believe, that they were merely creating a foundation upon which a true democracy would have a fighting chance of developing and evolving. To achieve true democracy requires an active and vigilant citizenry. To sustain the conditions in which the evolutionary emergence of true democracy is even possible, the Constitution must not lose its meaning. If the president and his administration are allowed to get away with putting themselves above the law, to get away with blatant disregard of the doctrine of liberties and inalienable rights that they profess to champion… if they get away with this, then the Constitution becomes mere pageantry, an empty document. And that is bankruptcy. We are as a nation becoming an entity without structural integrity and, sooner or later, we will collapse.

You say,
”…all I am saying is let's not put ourselves
in that position again. It is serious shit and the last thing we need
is to divide the country along party lines.”
I think we put ourselves in that position by accepting the incremental (decades-long) degradation of our most essential doctrines, not by allowing ourselves to be polarized. We are already a deeply polarized country. There is a great divide between those citizens who genuinely value democratic principles and those who would prefer to not know, and not have to be responsible. (Democracy is a reflection of orange/green values.) We are already divided. I propose that to condone the actions of the Bush administration by failing to hold them to account is far more damaging than to take action that will further expose not only the already existing partisan divide but also who among the congressional brigade possesses the courage, intelligence, and integrity to defend the Constitution as they swore to do upon taking office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

e:
“But let us in our zest for justice (at best) or revenge (at worst), lose what is being handed
back to us i.e. our country.”

Hi e,
Why assume that these are the only motivations? From my perspective, seeking to impeach Bush and Cheney would not be motivated by the desire for justice (and certainly not for revenge). It is about defending the Constitution and protecting and preserving our liberties and rights.

What country will be handed back to “us” if we condone this desecration of our most essential principles?

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Warms my heart to see some people responding to the growing threat of losing what's left of our civil liberties.

Did you see this related discussion on I-Naked?  911 Was An Inside Job,


This post in response to Mary spells out some of what I've been thinking with growing urgency.

Innerline:  “I personally am not focused on 9/11 anymore. It is just one of the ways to wake people up to what is happening to our society. The Federal Reserve Bank is private (meaning illegal) is another one. Hows, personal income tax is voluntary and has been illegally collected. Hows about the accounting regulations when looked at by a mathematition looks like a fancy way of playing hide and seek( like listing debts as assets). Hows about the derivatives market has under its playing field 450 TRILLION dollar (which obviosly does not REALLY exsist), all ready to come crashing down right now. Hows about the electronic voting systems are made for fraud. Hows about by the time we have RFID chips on our drivers license (May 2008) that you will not have a chance to make any difference in the world you really didn't know till it was too late, That you do not live in a Democracy, not in a Republic, but in a oligarchy. We have lived in a oligarchy for a long time. How can you help someone wake up and be free when they already think they are.

 

My fear is that by the time people get it, it would already be way too late. We need one more event for BUSH to declare a National Emergency and all the NAZI laws he has already signed will be totally active and functioning. Do you know the laws that have been passed since 9/11? They are down right scary.”


What will we tell the world when the people ask, What did you do while BushCo was hijacking YOUR country?

As a kid, I asked the same question of my German grandparents and elder family members about the rise of Hitler's Nazi party. Again and again I asked these people, sometimes forcefully, because I could not believe that they really did… nothing.


M

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

OK Rick,

If there is impeachment, I hope I am wrong,
If there is not impeachment, I hope you are wrong.

love

e

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

e, yes, let's hope.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Mascha, back when I was an anarchist there was an expression that some radicals had, “The worse the better.”

The fact that we have become aware of all of the illegal and unethical things going on is proof that the system isn't broken just yet, and there are still a lot of honest people out there.
The amazing contempt, dishonestly and incompetence of the Whitehouse is probably better than if they were actually smart about these things and less arrogant. This way the water boils faster and we feel the need to jump out, rather than the water getting warmer ever so slightly, causing us to get used to warmer and warmer water until it is too late.
In the end though, these will only be adjustments that will need to be adjusted in the future. That is why I feel violent or actual revolution is useless and dangerous. In the end the educational and AQAL models are really the only options we have for a longer term solution, and this is actually what got me into AQAL as I became disillusioned with anarchism when I was younger.
Now I just try to do as little harm and as much good as I can day to day.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Friends, the more I look into these matters, the deeper the hole in our conventionally accepted idea of a commonly shared “social fabric” looks.

I just read this article by Elliot D. Cohen: Impeach Bush and Cheney Now, Before They Declare Martial Law  on BuzzFlash.org

Excerpt:

“The Bush administration has shown an ever-increasing and blatant disregard for the rule of law. This is a White House that has recently used “executive privilege” to thwart investigations into impeachable offenses (from the firing of federal prosecutors for political reasons to the illegal spying on American citizens). It has turned the Department of Justice, under the direction of Alberto Gonzales, into a rubber stamp for its own illegal activities. It has canceled habeas corpus and engaged in serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions (in the torturing of prisoners of war). It has engaged in fraudulent “caging” of minority votes in order to install itself in the White House. To expect that this regime will voluntarily follow the rule of law in relinquishing the power it has steadfastly amassed by ransacking the United States Constitution is wishful thinking. This flies in the face of the evidence of the last seven years.

So as the Democrats look to 2008, they neglect the serious possibility that there will not even be a free election. To ensure a constitutionally valid transfer of power in 2008, it is necessary that Bush and Cheney be impeached now. However, John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, refuses to pursue impeachment proceedings because “Fox News would go after him and accuse him of being partisan.” He is afraid of jeopardizing his legacy. The irony is that his legacy may already be dead in the water. The patriotism and magnanimity of a public servant is not measured in the self-serving sacrifice of the public welfare, but instead in the courage of personal sacrifice for the greater good.”

____________________________________________________________________

Any thoughts?

Thanks for even considering these things.

M

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Mascha,

I had not ever considered such possibilities.

“To expect that this regime will voluntarily follow the rule of law in relinquishing the power it has steadfastly amassed by ransacking the United States Constitution is wishful thinking. This flies in the face of the evidence of the last seven years.”

It is to me almost unimaginable that any U.S. president would not relinquish his power and step down at the end of his term. It seems like such an unlikelihood. I'm willing to consider that this is wishful thinking, but I do still have enough faith in the remaining integrity of our system of government and in our populace to believe that such an attempt on the part of this administration would create an uproar. Should another “catastrophic emergency” occur, should martial law be declared, this would prevent elections and a transfer of power? Bush has a 25% approval rating now. Would a populace that unsatisfied with their president allow a declaration of martial law and a refusal to step down? Historically there are precedents that imply it is quite within the realm of possibility that such a thing could happen. But I am doubtful. I pray I am not proven a fool.

On another note:
Why do you think this thread arouses little interest? It seems so vitally important to me. I feel discouraged.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Mascha said: “However, John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, refuses to pursue impeachment proceedings because “Fox News would go after him and accuse him of being partisan.”

That's the trouble with the Democrats. They don't know how to fight. They feel that by fighting they will somehow be compromising their principals, and so they become doormats. That was one of the things that Ralph Nader got right, that the Democrats needed to learn how to fight. The Republicans will stoop to just about any level to get elected and to get their plans through–the Democrats need to be able to counter that. It would probably take a teal Democrat to do that. It might have been Clinton's tealness (I don't know if he could be called “teal,” but there was probably a little from the beginning) that enabled him to win.

From nearly the beginning I have had the same fear of the Bush/Cheney adminstration, that they would not want to relinquish power. I have never taken that fear too seriously, but it has always been there. I think we are intuiting some real depravity there. I don't think it could happen, though. There's too long a tradition of democracy in this country. The military would not stand for it, or parts of it anyway, and the well-armed population wouldn't stand for it either. It would really be a mess if they tried. I don't think they will try or even have it on their agenda to try, but it wouldn't surprise me if Cheney lay awake dreaming about it some nights. Bush wants to retire to his ranch, I imagine. I think he's wanted to do that since his first week.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Hey Lauren,

Lauren:
I appreciate your perspective on this, but I disagree. I think you're right that what's most important is what in the long run is best for the country and the world, and that is why I think it is essential that we stop in its tracks the defilement of our defining document of law.

Yes but like I said before, the Patriot Act was enacted by OUR congress by over 2/3 majority!!! I see it as they were basically scared shitless after 9/11. And so they and most everyone here overreacted. I was surprised it took 1 year to invade Afghanistan. I thought that showed restraint, I thought they would have went in a lot sooner. But maybe it just took that long to mobolize.


The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of this country. It is a statement of our essential guiding principles. Many of those principles have been abandoned, flouted, violated, and corrupted by this administration. It has happened bit by bit, over the course of many years, this erosion of our foundational liberties and desecration of our most significant laws. That too is part of the “brilliant plan” of Rove and co.

The job of the legislative branch is to legislate. So the Constitution is forever going to be “augmented”. This document is also “interpreted”, hence the Supreme Court. I dont think the current Republican's in the White House are 'evil', I just think they are in over their heads. Bush would make a fine head of Homeland Security. He is after all a patriot. They are all just stuck in an Amber/Orange worldview. Their view is God/Country/family and they play the political game to win at all costs (hence the treatment of the Clinton's). Maybe appropriate for a WWII world but not any longer. We need at least Green/Yellow in the Big House moving forward.


We have never come close to fully achieving the functioning reality of a true democracy that the founding fathers articulated through their visionary genius. The system of governance which they envisioned and then designed was historically unprecedented. They understood, I believe, that they were merely creating a foundation upon which a true democracy would have a fighting chance of developing and evolving.

Yes, American democracy is a grand experiment. To see if people who usually want and do kill each other can live under one flag. It is/was a hope for the world. All you out there complaining about it and hoping for it's downfall, I can't wait to see what you say when China runs the show!!! You will be praying (probably in Mandarin) that the “imperialistic” Americans were still king of the hill. lol


To achieve true democracy requires an active and vigilant citizenry. To sustain the conditions in which the evolutionary emergence of true democracy is even possible, the Constitution must not lose its meaning. If the president and his administration are allowed to get away with putting themselves above the law, to get away with blatant disregard of the doctrine of liberties and inalienable rights that they profess to champion… if they get away with this, then the Constitution becomes mere pageantry, an empty document. And that is bankruptcy. We are as a nation becoming an entity without structural integrity and, sooner or later, we will collapse.


That which begins, ends. But like I said to Rick, get them out and change the laws so what they are currently doing 'wrong' is not as possible. That would be the best in my eyes.


—

e said,
”…all I am saying is let's not put ourselves
in that position again. It is serious shit and the last thing we need
is to divide the country along party lines.”

Lauren:
I think we put ourselves in that position by accepting the incremental (decades-long) degradation of our most essential doctrines, not by allowing ourselves to be polarized. We are already a deeply polarized country. There is a great divide between those citizens who genuinely value democratic principles and those who would prefer to not know, and not have to be responsible. (Democracy is a reflection of orange/green values.) We are already divided. I propose that to condone the actions of the Bush administration by failing to hold them to account is far more damaging than to take action that will further expose not only the already existing partisan divide but also who among the congressional brigade possesses the courage, intelligence, and integrity to defend the Constitution as they swore to do upon taking office.


Again, I think impeachment would further divide our country and so I side with Barack on this one. I feel it will do more harm then good.

—

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Mascha, not only that, but the BBC has been following a story that isn't being covered here. It is about the Republican party using various mailing tricks to get thousands of poor, minority and military voters off of the ballets. The funny thing is that it isn't illegal to do what they are doing in principle, but it is illegal to single out entire groups of people, which is what they are doing.

If however Bush, et al., didn't step down after an impeachment or the next election, I don't think the military would stand for it. People don't understand that the military has a culture of its own, and a lot of people with very high ideals. They raise their hands and promise to protect and defend the constitution of the U.S.  While most of the grunts don't fully understand that, the officer core does.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

e,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do think that the worst case scenario is a long shot, and agree with you, David, and Rick that the military would not stand for it. My concern is more for consequences of allowing the quiet erosion of the fundamental character of the Constitution. I feel that we are standing by while its very essence is being rendered meaningless, and that is what frightens me.

I agree with you that the Constitution was designed to be augmented, to be an organic doctrine that can evolve as we do, but augmentation and invalidation of its core principles are two very different things. As for it being a symbolic document which may be interpreted from multiple perspectives with a significant degree of possible, differing conclusions: true. But it was a doctrine created through a value system higher and more inclusive than amber, and amber interpretations and amendments weaken and distort its core values. I believe it is our responsibility to fight for those values that transcend and include amber, and not stand by while an amber crusade destroys the protections of the law that were instituted to explicitly keep less inclusive perspectives from becoming dominant and empowered.
I would like to see the “augmentations” of the Constitution representative of an evolution in national consciousness, not of a devolution.

Thomas Jefferson said:

”I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

I feel that allowing the parties that advocate and pursue the agenda of devolution to succeed without asserting our best efforts to disarm and subdue them is to potentially weaken ourselves to the point that we will not then be able to survive the killing blow when and if it comes. Yes, that which begins, ends. But this would be a premature and unecessary death. We might at least give it our best shot.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Thanks, Rick. Now I'll have to dig into the ballot issues you've mentioned as well!

In response to your  last post and Lauren's earlier question - I wrote a little bit about it last Monday on the Deep Economy pod here.

Grant Walker said: The liberty of the United States is about to be severly tested. As tempting as it is to put a date on an attack either at home or abroad of around September 2007, i’m sticking to my original feeling that there will simply be no election in 2008.


Me: Wow, Grant, you just gave me an opening here. Until about… um, today, July 30, there was a growing sense of high alarm + doom in parts of the atmosphere I was attuned to in the USA.

Then, a shift. Slight – but palpable.

Just intuition speaking here, or whatever you want to call it. Nonetheless, I sense that consciousness has reached critical mass, and by now, enough of it has pervaded even the ranks of the military and bureaucracy to deepen the antiwar groove we have not been laying down hard enough, persistently enough, in this country due to cowardice and apathy (spiritual numbness is another word for it). But I wager that there will be a mass uprising if BushCo does go one more critical step too far – and the armed forces will side with the people.

Hopefully,


M

P.S. Like a weathervane, my readings of global currents tend to fluctuate, LoL. More about that later, love.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Oh and e, I also don't think its a good idea to use the China defense. The US is the only country in the world that is based upon a set of higher principles, even while these principles have never actually been realized. This is where I think Noam Chomsky goes wrong when he compares the culture of the US to other European countries, because the conditions are too different in a sense.
Because of this, to say “at least the US is better than China,” for human rights and such, would be like me treating my wife like shit and telling her, “at least I don't beat you.”

And the reason why the armed forces will side with the constitution is in the way military structures work. The act of following orders aren't as straight forward as you might think or imagined by those that have never served. While there are 11 general orders for watch standers like the 5th one, “I will not leave my post until properly relieved,” all the other orders get murky. The only real rule is that one is to follow the last order given by the highest ranking person that gave you an order. So if a captain gives an order to you and a Sergent or other NCO give you another order right after, you follow the captain, unless the NCO tells you that the new order is from the captain, or unless either of these contradict the 11 general orders above which can't be reversed. At the end of the day the meta-rule for military behavior is CYA (cover your ass).
So if a soldier is given two orders there is a lot of internal interpretation that goes on, let alone one order.
A good example of this is the movie with Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington, where they are officers on a nuclear submarine and there is a mutiny, forget the name.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Rick, is your wife a country? jk

In samsara there is better and worse. All I am saying is that those wishing for the downfall of the best of the current worst need to think twice. It can get a whole lot worse!!


love

e

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Of course, but I wouldn't say the US is the best of the current worse. I've been to too many other places to say something like that. There are other countries that seem to be having a better time achieving the goals that the country was founded upon.
They don't face nearly as many problems as we do though, as the US is not a historic geography, language or people, but really just an idea. It is because of this that we must strive to live up to that idea, and not just be better than other dictatorial states.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Just for fun, Rick, what do you think would happen if Cheney decided to become President? As soon as I start thinking about it I see it doesn't even work as a hypothetical game. Cheney would have to have the armed services lined up ahead of time to make it work, and he would never be able to do that. The country would have to be in imminent danger for the military to even entertain the idea. But let's just say he somehow convinced the joint chiefs that he should be the unelected President. What then?

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

From a recent blog post by John Nichols:

Bernstein says that Bush's presidency has produced far more “disastrous consequences” for the country than did Nixon's.

Unlike the often crude and conniving but unquestionably intelligent and highly-engaged 37th president, Bernstein says of Bush: “He's lazy, arrogant and has little curiosity. He's a catastrophe…”

But that is not the worst part of the Bush era as compared to the Nixon era, explains Bernstein.

What has made this time dramatically more troubling, the 63-year-old journalist explains, is that “there is no oversight.”

“The system worked in Watergate,” Bernstein told the Denver Post.

Even after Nixon was reelected in a 49-state landslide in 1972, Bernstein said, the president was checked and balanced in the manner intended by the founders of the American experiment.

The news media investigated Nixon, and editorialized boldly when the president's lawless behaviors were exposed.

The Congress responded to those revelations with hearings and demands for White House tapes and documents. When the materials were not forthcoming, Congress went to court to force Nixon and his aides to meet those demands.

The courts responded by aggressively and consistently upholding the authority of Congress to call the president to account.

And when it became clear that Nixon was governing in contradiction to the Constitution, the U.S. House took appropriate action, with Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voting for three articles of impeachment. Congressional Republicans, led by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, then went to the White House to inform their party's president that he stood little chance of thwarting an impeachment vote by the full House or surviving a trial in the Senate.

Nixon resigned and so ended a constitutional crisis created by a president's disregard for the rule of law – a crisis that was cured by an impeachment move by House members who respected their oaths of office.

Today, says Bernstein, the system that worked in the 1970s is failing as the country witnesses presidential and vice presidential misdeeds that former White House counsel John Dean has correctly characterized as “worse than Watergate.”

Referring to the media, congressional and judicial oversight that is essential to maintaining a republic, Bernstein says, “That hasn't happened here.”

The entire blog post is here.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

There is going to be another Bill Moyers show on impeachment, a continuation of the conversation between Moyers, Bruce Fein, and John Nichols. It should air on your local PBS station soon (in the Boston area it airs tomorrow). You can go here to find out when you can watch it in your area, or to watch it digitally if you can't watch it on tv.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

“Just for fun, Rick, what do you think would happen if Cheney decided to become President?”

I don't understand the question. Do you mean if he just came out and said, “I'm President,” without an election? Nothing would happen. He'd be ignored and it would become tabloid fodder, or be arrested if he actually meant it for treason.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Oh, I decided it was too unrealistic to work as a game as well, as you indicate.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

But the sort of things Cheney does are enough to get some people worrying about a police state. The Cheney Branch of Government. He's refusing to hand over documents to the National Archives, arguing that the Vice President's office is not a part of the Executive Branch of government. As Maria Cox of Time said, “Perhaps next he will say he is not subject to the laws of gravity either. He will just float away to some undisclosed location.”

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

This, The Dark Side, is a fantastic documentary about Dick Cheney and how he consolidated power.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Hi again… the saga continues.

Spiritual leader Marianne Williamson posted an article that amounts to an urgent call for everyone to watch the new movie “No End in Sight” with a link to the trailer yesterday, Aug, 16, 2007, in The Huffington Post ~

Quote M. W.:

“Whatever anger or frustration you might already feel about this [the Iraq] war, it's nothing compared to the heartsickness you'll feel after seeing this movie. It's not just that the invasion occured … it's the complete and total bush league (well, what did we expect?) level of post-invasion planning – or lack of planning – that goes so far beyond a dereliction of duty, to a level of ineptitude that borders on the criminal, if not the insane.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After doing a lot of research myself connecting the dots (first professionally for a movie, then privately because I couldn't stop unraveling the various threads all leading to the massive fix we're in now, globally), I have to say that Williamson's assessment of the situation is too cautious and sounds rather lame. The following quote from a comment to M.W.'s blog sums it up more succinctly:

lynn1219:
 
“…..In 6 years, this regime has trashed our Constitution, done away with the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Accords, Habeas Corpus, and now wants to speed up death row inmates' executions. This all sounds like it's happening in some Banana Republic but, wake up America, it's happening here. If they could wreak this havoc in such a short time, imagine what a group of desperate, power-crazed egomaniacs will do until January 20, 2009. We need impeachment, and we need it now. No more subpoenas, hearings before Congress or polite requests from [sic] Bush to cooperate. The only remedy is to get the neocons out of Washington! ”


Light, love and healthy outrage while there's still time,

M

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Con (there is only one; and even that isn't real):  No White House wedding for the blonde Bush twin.

Seriously, did anyone see the taped interview Cheney did April 15, 1994 on why we should NOT invade/go to war with Iraq?  I saw it on The Daily Show the other night. Stewart also interviewed the guy who wrote Cheney's biography.  Unbelievable stuff.  I still have a hard time believing Bush made it to the presidency in the first place.  Why he hasn't been impeached or otherwise vanished just doesn't comprehend in my world.
Peace,
Chris

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

A recent poll done by a school of journalism showed that viewers of the Daily Show were much more informed about the facts of recent events than viewers of Fox news. It’s crazy when people that watch fake news are better informed than those that watch a cable news channel.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Hi Chris. One word: Yeah.


Rick, as an ex-military man, you must have serious concerns about the private army of mercenaries that has been quietly empowered by BushCo, I imagine. Has anybody else here looked into Blackwater yet?



A short video introduction:

Blackwater: A Shadow Army


I've read 2 serious papers on this Blackwater Private Security outfit so far, but the comments below are more fun… especially the guy calling himself Tenzing Gyatso, which is the Dalai Lama's name if I'm not mistaken.

Question:
“Why is there a need for Blackwater? Isn't there enough money to pay our own armed forces the same amount that Blackwater is paid? Perhaps if Bush quit giving no-bid contracts to Haliburton for billions of dollars.”


Reply  by tenzingyatso:
“The “need” as you ask is for a covert army to be paid to do “work” anywhere in the world without any accountability. Because this is a private army, paid with your tax dollars covertly, they don't have to explain their actions or who they are working for or what they are doing to anyone,not you, not the American people, not the media, NO ONE!”


Heh, another piece of the puzzle… Are you getting it yet? The picture?

Last Sunday, I got so sick reading this stuff and following various leads, I hung over the toilet, heaving. Then I had to lie down - escape, go deep inside myself, where none of this even exists.

Look at our collective shadow. Massive… painful, revolting.  Bit by bit it is emerging into many more people's consciousness. From what I know about personal shadow-work, resistance is futile. Our unwitting participation in way too many government-authorized and officially perpetuated myths is what we should fear the most, methinks, not the true but painful revelations that are waiting in the wings.

It's easier if we face it together, no?

M

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Mascha wrote: Our unwitting participation in way too many government-authorized and officially perpetuated myths is what we should fear the most, methinks, not the true but painful revelations that are waiting in the wings.

There really are so many ways we become unwitting accomplices in myths or in exploitation of some form or another. There are components in the cell phones and computers we use, for example, that require materials from mines in Africa – involving men doing backbreaking and dangerous work that separates them from their families for weeks at a time. These components also create a lot of pollution … yet without them, there are no online forums; there is no noosphere. Our comfort and conveniences are often entwined with someone else's exploitation and pain. Since this pain is usually tucked away out of our sight, it's quite easy to remain complacent – or to say, “It wasn't my choice for things to be this way” … and to keep on doing what we're doing.

That was off the subject somewhat – but it leads to the question: what can and should we do about these horrors? What do we do when we live in a country with a criminal administration that we are apparently unable to call into account? I mull this impeachment notion over and find myself thinking yes, that's what needs to happen – it would be a tiny step toward making amends with the rest of the world if we could actually go through with it. And yet Congress shows no real movement in that direction, at least not at the moment. It actually feels quite surreal and cognitively dissonant to me, that so much has happened over these past 6 years and no one has been seriously called into account.

My husband has been deeply involved with the local peace & justive movement over these past years … (I have been less directly involved) – going to protests, setting up and serving long hours at information booths at rallies, participating in candlelight vigils, making phone calls, canvassing for political candidates, signing petitions, writing letters to the local newspaper, and simply learning, keeping informed. But many of the people who have been engaged in this way are feeling so dog-tired and worn out now – they have put in all this energy, and so little seems to have changed. There is an encroaching cynicism and a heartbreaking sense of futility. Increasingly, there are petty political battles and scuffles in the p & j movement, leading to fractures and fragmentation, and more wasting of time and energy. It is a kind of collective dark night. And while we might remind ourselves to keep on with the good struggle and let go of attachment to outcome, I think this is enormously difficult for many folks. The air of apathy, complacency and seeming indifference that surrounds us now is just what's at the surface – underneath that there is depression, and further underneath that there is heartbreak and anger. And we have many addictions available to us here to keep that anger numbly tucked away: food, drugs, entertainment, work …

And it is also becomes easy to forget our genuine needs for beauty and love in the midst of all of this … so this is what I have been focusing on during this dark night (although not always successfully, I must admit): loving the people who populate my life. Touching. Listening. Breaking bread. Holding. Laughing. Crying. Praying. Looking at the mountains that rise up on the eastern horizon here and musing that they will be here long after George and Dick and you and I have returned to dust.

Impeachment will not likely come to pass, and who knows how many more horrors will be unearthed, and what the upcoming years could bring. Love remains a choice we can make with each passing moment, whether we are voting, facing our shadows, protesting, feeling futile, learning something new, sharing almonds with a panhandler …

This passage from Joan Chittister comes to mind:

…I know that life is a gift, a responsibility, a venture into human accountability for which there is no excuse acceptable, no justification adequate enough to explain why I did nothing to complete a world given to me for safekeeping. We may, of course, fail because failure is also a mark of creaturehood, the beginning of a growth learned over and over again, from generation to generation, until the end of time. Success is, therefore, not required. We are frail, uncertain. But the outpouring through us of the Breath of God, the spirit that brought each of us into being and sustains us there, is of the essence of God's work on earth. The massacres may go on, the injustices may be legalized, the oppressions may be theologized, the barbarisms may be taken for granted everywhere, but I am expected to meet inhumanity with humanity, human darkness with the gleam of the divine eye …. I am expected to draw from the Being that is the source of my being so that all of us together may someday, somehow grow to full stature, become that from which we were made, be everything that creaturehood demands.

Geez, guess my head is in the clouds tonight!

Mary

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Here's a Frontline documentary about private military contractors.

A big part of this has to do with the Bush administration's favored economic theory, what Ken calls “free-right” (see A Theory of Everything). It's the opposite of socialism. They want to privatize absolutely everything under the sun. Apparently some of them will draw the line somewhere, but basically they want to privatize everything. Why? Because socialism is evil and capitalism is good. The free-market forces, they believe, are perfect, god-like. Really, it's like another kind of fundamentalism, another kind of religion almost. Ken's talked about 2 kinds of Orange, here I believe. Perhaps the choice depends on your pocket book or where you grew up, but sometimes I've wondered if the extreme free-right position is like a different kind of Amber. They make a God out of the free-market forces, believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution sometimes.

So privatizing a little of the war in Iraq and relief efforts on the Gulf is just the beginning for these people, just a start. It does bring up all sorts of issues of accountability and ethical standards. Would privatized law enforcement have incentives to arrest more or less? I would not want privatized law enforcement anywhere in the U.S., and I'm sure the Iraqi people don't like it much either. A big part of the whole thing also has to do with an all-volunteer army. There aren't enough troops to go around now. Of course we might have skipped the Iraq War altogether, though there were teal reasons for doing something about Sadaam Hussein.

There is shadow as well. I don't know how much of that comes into play with private military contractors. It might. But I think shadow shows up more in renditions, excessive use of force, devaluing the lives of people of other races, skirting the law, etc. But some of this stuff is better characterized as Amber than evil. It's just the sorts of things people do at Amber, though some of it might be pathological. Are the neocons healthy Orange or pathological? If Thomas Friedman is Orange, as Ken has said, and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are also Orange, then perhaps there is pathology. Or perhaps we're just talking about different lines, different ethical development.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Hi everyone –

This AFP report just in (on Sept. 7) from ImpeachBush.org on some organizers who were arrested while organizing for a Sept 15 Impeach Bush rally:

———————————————————————————————————————-

Police break up anti-war meeting in Washington

“The police suppressed the press conference. In the middle of the speeches, they grabbed the podium” erected in a park in front of the White House for the small gathering, Brian Becker, national organizer of the ANSWER anti-war coalition, told AFP.

“Then, mounted police charged the media present to disperse them,” Becker said.

The charge caused a peaceful crowd of some 20 journalists and four or five protestors to scatter in terror, an AFP correspondent at the event in Lafayette Square said. No one appeared to have been hurt.

Three people – Tina Richards, the mother of a marine who did two tours of duty in Iraq; Adam Kokesh, a leader of the Iraq Veterans Against the War group; and lawyer Ian Thompson, who is an organizer for ANSWER in Los Angeles – were arrested, Becker said.

Last month, the movement was threatened with a fine of at least 10,000 dollars unless it removed posters in the city announcing the September 15 march.

Washington city authorities have said the posters had to come down because they were stuck on with adhesive that did not meet city regulations.

“At our demonstration today we were showing the media that the paste we use conforms to the rules,” Becker said.

“One of our activists was making a speech when the police barged in and grabbed the podium. At that point, Tina Richards started to put up a poster, so they arrested her and two others.”

“This strategy of suppression has not worked. We expect many tens of thousands of people” in Washington for the September 15 anti-war demonstration, he said.

The march has been timed to coincide with the release of a report by the US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and will be part of a week of protests led by veterans of the Iraq war.

A petition calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, allegedly carrying one million signatures and endorsed by former US attorney general Ramsey Clark, will also be submitted to officials during the week's activities, ANSWER has told AFP. 

Here's the related YouTube video

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Dear Ones,

The million reasons to impeach are more of a problem from a legislative/legal standpoint than an asset.  How do you even begin?  Its too late from a logistical perspective to institute the process.  One approach for the present would be to inquire of all presidential and other candidates what their opinions are on impeachment vs. prosecution once their term in office is over.

I say screw impeachment and let the bastards be turned out after the election then sue them for theft, dereliction, and terrorism as private citizens.  That will send a message to any others contemplating such activities.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

I'd like to see this discussion continue.

My attempt to awaken deeper consideration of the issues at hand:
please read this.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Hi Lauren,


as you can see, there isn't much interest here. But I have found other sites where spirited discussions take place about the forces that are shaping our reality today and certainly into the coming years. CommonDreams.org – Huffington Post – Democratic Underground and many more feature relevant articles from all over the world and comments by writers who frequently are better informed than the original authors.

Thanks for the link you gave, btw. Every day, I try to incorporate another piece of the puzzle to gain an overview of the crises (plural) we're in, and it's not fun, it isn't a barrel of laughs, but it sure beats the alternative, which is either willful or dumbstruck denial.

Now, I'm not an expert on the legalities of impeachment proceedings. My Senator, Dianne Feinstein, has e-mailed me a form letter reply, stating there aren't enough votes to push impeachment through, and I'm still trying to get a clear answer from all of our legal scholars out there to determine that there is, in fact, no way to get these sociopaths in the White House removed from office and tried at the International Court for war crimes, treason, mass murder, illegal invasion/occupation of a foreign country, torture, lying to Congress… the list goes on.

Here's a thread that discusses the legalities: Impeachment is the only viable opinion to stop these madmen



For a bigger picture understanding of what is coming down the pike as the US is slip-sliding into an overtly totalitarian regime, Naomi Klein's new book  The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism has become a center piece for international debates of late.

You might want to start by watching this 7 min. film by Alfonso Cuaron and Naomi Klein as an introduction. A must-see, if you ask me. Then there is a 3 part interview with the courageous Ms Klein at The Guardian UK…


If anyone wants to talk about how frightening, how crazy-making this regression to fascistic corporatism really is for those who've opened their eyes, I'm game, I'm here, I'll speak my piece. I also would like some MAJOR HANDHOLDING through this phase where I can see the writings on the wall but still have some hope that it's not too late to derail that perpetual war train we've been loaded on without even noticing much of a change.

M


P.S.

Comments to “The Shock Doctrine” on Comment Is Free: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/naomi_klein/index.html

There were over 700 replies last time I looked.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Mascha wrote: I also would like some MAJOR HANDHOLDING through this phase where I can see the writings on the wall but still have some hope that it's not too late to derail that perpetual war train we've been loaded on without even noticing much of a change.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

What's been happening so far in this shiny new millenium is heartbreaking and horrifying, and may get a lot worse.  It's like a train wreck unfolding.  Most people who are against what's been going on probably feel that nothing they do is going to change the course of events.  I don't know what to say about it anymore, let alone do.

Here's an entry from David Brin's blog which may be of interest:

~~~

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Gloomy ruminations on an anniversary…

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Hi fellow travelers, warmth to all of you out there.

To put it in a nutshell: There are times when I'm terrified of the Evil Empire and what Darth Vader and his first monkee will do to hold onto their rapidly waning stranglehold over USAll. I haven't read Arthur's post above yet beyond the first paragraph because I'd like to feel good for a few hours more, have some hope that the worst can still be averted if we only collectively wake up just a little bit more, just enough to find our strength in the face of these assaults by our own collective shadow material, made flesh in the figures of the BushCo cabal.

For a boost to our immune system, I'll submit this article posted by Jimtzu on the Heartmind forum way back in July. Steve Bhaerman says it so well, I can only take a bow for now. Yes, it is a long article, but it is making such a good point… :-)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Call For Political Climate Change
Time to Fire the Nitty-Gritty Grid
July 20, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Steve Bhaerman

Well, we fired up the grid last Tuesday, or maybe the grid fired us up. Now that we proved that invisibly or visibly (as with the Live Earth events of two weekends ago), the loving heart of humanity can be activated, it's time to move our feet. It's time for the upwising of awareness and upwelling of love to burst into action. It's time to address the political climate crisis.

The Political Climate Crisis is Real!

Earlier this year, I wrote a piece called “The Self-Impeaching President.” My point was that because the Bush-Cheney Administration had so violated the letter and spirit of not just our Constitution, but international and commonly-held moral law, they would necessarily stonewall any attempt to investigate. Consequently, they would end up making the case for impeachment by their own actions.

Eventually, it would come down to George Bush's challenge of several years ago: “You're either with me or against me.” And now it has. It's George Bush (and his cheney of command) against the Constitution, against the Bill of Rights, against the Declaration of Independence, against the American people, not to mention the people of the world. The inconvenient confrontation that most peace-loving people generally try to avoid is finally at hand: Standing up to the bully.

Here's why it's happening now, and here is how it is happening. The Bush Administration has already played the fear card and nobody is listening anymore to the little boy who cried wolfowitz. Bush and Company only have two cards left – force, and the fear of force. This is a hand they cannot afford to lose, because when the cards fall it will bring down not just this Administration but the entire philosophy that supports absolutely corrupt power taken in the name of “national security” – the protection racket disguised as “protection.”

So if you're wondering why this absurdist rationalization called “executive privilege,” that's why. He's an executive who wants to hold on to his privilege. Meanwhile, here is another inconvenient truth that is making itself manifest, and if we don't face it we're in even bigger trouble: The mechanisms for fascism are already in place.
 

Can We Use the F-Word?
OK, you eye-rollers – put your eyes back front and center so you can see what I mean. The very simple definition of fascism is this: Fascism is interlocking political, military, industrial force run more like a criminal gang than a government. Does that sound familiar? Because the government is involved, it conveniently has the force of “law” behind it. Consider that everything that Hitler did after he took office was “legal.”

Similarly, George Bush is proceeding under the cover of law to enact executive order after executive order as arbitrary, irrational and unjust as any policy a dictator might dictate. And, as we are finding out, his legal shills in judicial positions of power are acting solely on his behalf. So, yes … he has the cover of law. Just as the original coup, the “election” of 2000, was absurdified by five partisan Supreme Court jesters who wouldn't allow a recount to take place in Florida.

The 97-pound weakling of a body politic allowed the bully to kick sand in its face in 2000, and that just invited further abuse. Now the abuse is becoming more intense, more over the line – and we find that the dictator-in-chief has conveniently covered his bases with judges.

So what do we do? First of all, we face this inconvenient truth and at the same time, keep our eye on the prize. Because the “prize” – a world where we use our resources to heal instead of hurt, where the GNP can be truly measured in “goods” and not “bads,” where we live by the Golden Rule not the rule of gold – is where we are going. What we have now is the challenge that will make us strong enough to stop doing what we've been doing and try something new for a change.

 

We're Becoming Stronger – Whether We Like It Or Not
Several years ago, I spent a year in a ch'i kung practice that involved strengthening the ch'i by banging ourselves in the solar plexus first with our fist, then with a wooden block, finally with a brick. Next came the two person practice where we would hit each other full force in solar plexus to “light up the ch'i.” While this might sound like a rationalization for sadomasochism, we came to realize that each blow made the ch'i stronger. In fact, we no longer even felt the punch. All we could feel was our shield “rising” to absorb the blow.

George Bush is bringing up the ch'i of the body politic, and it's up to us to recognize and use that power. Each blow to the spirit of the law, to our Founding Fathers, to decency is strengthening us for our true evolutionary destiny – to overgrow the false dichotomies of left and right and stand for what the vast, vast majority hold in common. In other words, we must turn the demoralized majority into a New Moral Majority that holds honesty, justice, integrity and transparency above ideology or short term financial self-interest.

 

We Are the New Moral Majority
Here's more good news, something I call The Law of 75. You may have read it here before, but it is worth mentioning again. It's based on something that happened to spiritual psychologist Patricia Sun a number of years ago. She was set to speak at a “new age” bookstore, and noticed there were four fundamentalist Christian pickets outside. “I'm going to talk with them,” Patricia said.

The store owner was skeptical. “You can't reason with those people,” she said, but Patricia did it anyway. A short while later, three of the four picketers had put down their signs and were hugging Patricia: “You're saying just what Jesus said!” they told her. The fourth picket refused to be swayed and continued protesting.

So why is this important? I devised the totally made-up Law of 75 to describe this phenomenon where three out of four people are susceptible to loving communication that calls forth what we hold in common – the desire to live in peace and happiness, and the willingness to grant others who play by those rules the same freedom / responsibility. 75% of us – or more – want the same things, and those same things are far, far more important than the differences that are used to keep us divided and conquered.

I'm willing to bet that 75% of Americans don't want to live in a corrupt fascist system where George Bush's word is law, and where our greatest fear is our own government. I could be wrong. Maybe it's 95% and not 75%.

And what does this mean? It means that Democrats AND Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Independents – most Americans – given a choice (and hey, I say we give it to them) will just say NO to fascism. That 75% of Americans by the way includes rich people and poor people, rural conservatives, urban progressives and even – and maybe especially – members of the military, who are experiencing some of the system's abuse firsthand.

On the eve of last November's election – where, by the way, the body politic finally showed some muscle – the four military publications representing each branch of service called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Now sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but I read it differently. I read it as a signal from the military that if George Bush tried any funny stuff, he couldn't count on their support.

My strong sense is that those people in all echelons of power who have not been “ethically-cleansed” will stand up for justice – if we will. And – to quote the football coach George Allen, “the future is now.” Right now, the Bush Administration has the momentum as it illegally uses the law to hide from scrutiny, and sends out kingly decrees equating protest with treason. Bush can't help it, folks. He has to do it to survive.

 

Time to Bring Left and Right Front and Center
At the same time we realize he will not and cannot back down, we must remember that 75% of us (a conservative estimate, again, of those who don't want fascism) – nearly 200 million people – are standing on the other side. Now all we have to do is understand our numbers and our bottom line – fascism in any form must be taken off the table now.

To paraphrase the old saying, those who fail to learn from history flunk it and have to take it over. What was it that allowed Hitler to come to power, to use questionable legal leverage in an illegal way until the disease had so metastasized that it could no longer be cured by the German body politic's immune system? It was the failure of the parties on the left, the parties on the right and the parties in the middle to unite to face the common danger.

There's a scene in the documentary, Bringing Down a Dictator – the story of the fall of Slobodon Milosovic – where all the leaders of the opposing parties realize they must form a coalition if the dictator is to be stopped. As you look at the expressions on the faces of these leaders, you see how distasteful a task this is for them. And yet they do it. They unite around one alternative candidate, and they are ultimately successful. The pivotal moment, by the way, is when the soldiers realize they will be firing on their brothers and sisters and ultimately put down their guns, and the palace falls.

So, again, what do we do? As part of the “up-wising” there is a growing field of awareness among Americans of all stars and stripes that “we're not in Kansas, anymore Toto.” There is a groundswell swelling on the ground, but no significant leadership has yet emerged at the top. We can only guess that there is an epidemic of cowardice and denial, and most importantly a “misunderestimation” of the American people, and our own legacy and destiny.

We don't need a revolution in this country. We already had one. But we are at an evolutionary tipping point, and we the people can't wait for some big scorer to come lumbering down the court. We have to tip it in ourselves. In other words, we have to face the truth with courage, and we must communicate with others to strengthen the field of truth and weaken the field of lies. The time is now ripe for a national organization that stands up and uses the F-Word to Just Say NO To Fascism. Maybe it can be called the New Moral Majority or Patriots Against the Patriot Act (PAPA) or the Jefferson's Witnesses or the American Citizens Union.

As an individual I'm not in a position to make this organization happen. But each of us as individuals can put the idea out and call on those who we know are leaders to speak directly to this issue, and some already are. It's very important IN FACT ESSENTIAL that this be a bipartisan or transpartisan group. In addition to calling on people like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and elders like Bill Moyers, Elizabeth Holtzman and Jimmy Carter, we must include those on the right who have called for impeachment or who are concerned about America's loss of liberties, including Bruce Fein, John Dean, Paul Craig Roberts and Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas).

In addition, now is the time for prominent folks to use their bully pulpit to help oust the bully-in-chief from his – whether it's a spot on Leno or Letterman, or like Michael Moore it's on CNN. In fact, watch this and be inspired as we finally have someone break through the media soundless barrier and speak to the betrayal of the American people by the media. Take heart too that Richard Mellon Scaife, one of the most vicious attackers of Bill Clinton and loyal supporters of Bush has now has begun to question the President's mental stability.

 

It's Up to Us to Put the Decider Through the Decider Mill
No matter who we are, no matter how much or little influence we think we have, we all (75% to 95% of us, anyway) share the same mission: To awaken all 200 million adult Americans to draw the line and tell the “Decider” that we the people are the Deciders, thank you. And we have decided he will do no more deciding on our behalf. Impeachment notwithstanding, we need a long, long, long piece of paper with 50 million or more adult American signatures calling on the President and Vice President to step down. We can call it Total Recall, but I like the idea of a physical scroll of signatures. As Benjamin Franklin (“we must all hang together or else we will surely hang separately”) understood, the more of us who sign it, the safer we all will be.

As with that other King George some ten score and eleven years ago, this bloodless evolution, this firing of a few Big Shots will be seen and heard around the world. One morning, possibly very soon, we will wake up and realize the tides have shifted. The headlines will reveal it, and we will see it in the faces of our fellow Americans – people no longer afraid of their own government, people ready to face the real challenges ahead of us as a people and a world without the vicious diversions of problems generated to keep us apart.

If we don't do it, no one will. And if we do, not just America but the world will change course for the better.

May God bless America, and may Good bless us all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Here's another nugget to throw into the stew from David Brin's blog.  Brin is realistic about what's happening, yet overall he's very optimistic - in the long run, he believes civilization will prevail.

~~~

It has all gone too far. Hell, even if we win the next dozen battles, loosen the monsters’ grip on the Republic and make it through elections that turn the bastards out in droves, that will do some good, but it will still leave us mired in “culture war,” with one third of our countrymen nursing grudges that would make the post-Watergate GOP look like Pollyanna.

Moreover, that one-third will be poised to use every trick to win back the one-sixth they’ll need for “another round”. Even marginalized, they can make life hell for all of us. Remember Monica. They don’t need a meaningful pretext. Only hate.

The real challenge for us is not to win the next round of Culture War, but to end it.

And we have only one real hope for that to happen. The entire neocon movement must be stripped so bare, revealing so many horrors, that 80% of Americans see how horrible this has been and that the remaining Culture Warriors are genuine, certifiable loons.

So that a decent American conservatism can begin rebuilding with Barry Goldwater as its model, and not Savanarola.

There is only one way that any of this can happen. It will not be a miracle wrought by politicians. It will not be a revolution led by the People - though they will rise up when it all comes out.

This is a matter that requires action by the tens of thousands of skilled men and women who we have hired to protect us. It is time for the pros to stand up, to listen to their hearts and obey the oaths that they have sworn.


I have long forecast that our nation-saving breakthrough may only come from a rebellion in favor of the law and Constitution, on the part of the skilled professionals in the horrifically abused civil service, intelligence community and US Officer Corps.

In this particular case, an appointed US Attorney – or even a civil servant, non-appointed DEPUTY US Attorney – might gather the courage to defy his or her screeching/tyrant boss and make the test case, by serving enforcement papers upon Harriet Meiers and others who have been subpoenaed, in obedience to the legal and constitutional powers of Congress.

Ponder it.

The spectre that the Bushites have most to fear is such a rebellion in favor of law, in even one small part of the professional caste, spreading to other parts. Already the biggest victim of the monsters – the military Officer Corps – is roiling with so much anger that they may refuse, when the inevitable order comes down, to create political distractions by attacking Iran. If the CIA likewise were to report to Congress (as it is legally obliged to do) that the pretexts are bogus…

…well, that’s just one example of a situation in which sworn protectors might show the guts and brains that we hired them for.

Indeed, helping the professionals feel ready to take such steps should be seen as the number one goal and objective of Democratic endeavors and rhetoric. Because if such a dam were ever to burst, encouraging other professionals to tattle, the cleansing tsunami that followed might sweep all the monsters away.

Clearly, the Bushites know this, or they would not have bent almost all of their efforts, across a decade, to harrying, bullying, browbeating , suborning and destroying the professional caste.

It is their most consistent behavior set…

…just as the most consistent pattern of the Democrats has been to stupidly ignore this issue. The one totally non-political and no-brainer, killer issue that crosses all party lines and should appeal as much to honest conservatives as it does to liberals!

The one issue that might instantly unify the nation.

The issue that could crush the monsters, as if they were made of spun sugar.

If any major Dem were to speak out about the War Against Professionalism, offering our public servants protection and shelter from the freaks and inquisitors who have oppressed them for a decade, the levee might, indeed burst.

Bigtime.

Their failure to do so speaks volumes about how poorly the opposition is led.

- from the July 23rd entry of David Brin's blog.

~~~

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

One more Brin Blog for y'all.  I recommend following the link to his blackmail article toward the end of this piece (or, just follow it now):

~~~

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Scary Stories for a Saturday Night (with the p-lamp lit)

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Great find, Arthur. I had not come across David Brin as a resource yet. His call for professionals to step forward with inside knowledge may have been answered recently by at least one individual. 

Anthrax Coverup: A Government Insider Speaks Out   


“Francis A. Boyle, an international law expert who worked under the first Bush Administration as a bioweapons advisor in the 1980s, has said that he is convinced the October 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government. The motive: to foment a police state by killing off and intimidating opposition to post-9/11 legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the later Military Commissions Act.”
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now we need just a few more high-profile whistleblowers. AND get the corporate media to report their revelations. Should be doable.

Colin Powell, how about it, hon? You know you don't sleep so well. Come on, save the country you swore to defend, if not the whole world, and save your own sweet Christian ass from burning in hell. You want to, don't you. Yes, there's a conscience in there.


Lauren, it looks like BushCo have selected this guy   for Attorney General.

.

Re: Impeachment - pros and cons

Mascha, glad you like the Brin contributions. He's a science fiction writer who loves to play with various scenarios, while keeping an open mind; he also has a lot of insightful observations and musings on trends and events in this wonderful, strange, complex world we're living in. I particularly like some of what I've read of his stuff along the lines of ending the culture wars in America - that's getting into a more integral space than most of the political commentary that's out there (and yet, without using impenetrable jargon). I'm also fascinated by his musings on secrecy vs. the free-flow of information.

The conspiratorial stuff, it's tricky territory - people have been known to go down that rabbit hole and never come back. Brin seems to have a level-enough head to go spelunking there on occasion, and he takes the prudent precautions (such as talking about scenarios as such, rather than as The Truth). His scenarios for the Bush gang having something up their sleeves to keep the powerful state machinery they've built up under their own control sound plausible to me; if people are in positions to stop such plans, I hope they do so. Particularly if an attack on Iran is really in the works. His article on blackmail is interesting as well; I wonder if that partly explains why America doesn't have an opposition party?

I'm not that interested in anthrax, 9/11 etc., although occasionally I can get into such conversations for a while. Even if the government was behind such events - which I personally do not believe - what's important is what happened after the neocons got their hoped-for Pearl Harbor, how they used it. Not to mention what happened just before that - in the 2000 election - what's happened since then (Iraq, New Orleans, the Patriot Acts, etc.) - lots of stuff that is much more out in the open. Anthrax, 9/11 etc. look like red herrings to me, and in any case, are unlikely to be decided on websites and discussion forums, which is why I seldom participate for very long in such discussions.

Again, glad you like the Brin stuff. I've already linked to his blog; check out his webpage as well, which is chock-full of stimulating and interesting stuff, e.g. his recent project ”The Ostrich Papers” (which I've only mildly skimmed so far). Here's a recent blurb from his webpage, on his efforts to help end the “culture wars”:

~~~

In a time of increasing political polarization, I have urged (in my most recent essay, ”The Ostrich Papers”) that we look past the simplistic and outdated “left-right political axis.” Yes, there is madness going on. But I suggest that the cure is not bitter “culture war.” Rather, moderate and decent citizens of the Enlightenment need to reach out to other decent people – even those who have swallowed nonsense. At stake is preserving a nation of modern confidence from a looming dark age.

~~~

spiral out,

arthur