Non-Binding Reality in DeciderLand, Inc
Rusty
Would you allow me, America, grateful as I am for the pride you once instilled in me, to express my concern about the state of the Union, and to point out that your president, whom you once held in such high esteem, is a lunatic?
And what of you, Democrats? You have reclaimed Congress. You are radiant in the electoral glory of renewed voter trust, you have presided over the triumph of your First 100 Hours, an accomplishment that merits acclaim. But what shame this wretched refusal to Impeach casts on your name! A criminal administration mired in filth is being tolerated by you, in defiance of all reason, in betrayal of all honor, a supreme insult to all that is true and just. Will history record that it was during your 110th Congress that this criminal administration was allowed to plunge the world into its final war, while you debated non-binding resolutions and took moral courage off the table?
As other Americans have dared speak truth to power in times past, we are speaking truth to power as we demand Impeachment. We have no choice, we are compelled to tell the truth about this criminal president, on the Internet and in the streets if we have to, since the normal channels of justice in our government are choked with corruption. Our duty is to speak out; we do not wish to be silent witnesses to national suicide. We do not want our restless sleep to be haunted by the specter of a doomed nation, suffering the most horrible of futures because a smirking lunatic was not confronted and removed from office.
It is to you, America, that we are proclaiming the truth, with all the force born of the revulsion of honest citizens, in every way we can. Knowing of your distractions, we believe that you do not know the sickening, awful truth. To whom if not to you, the people of this country, shall we reveal the vile baseness of this president and this administration? Democrats will not Impeach unless you demand it. You will not demand Impeachment unless we light a bonfire under your asses.
At the root of all this suffering is one delusional fugitive from reality. His name is George Walker Bush. For most of his life he was just another shithead in a family of shitheads, but the travesty of Florida 2000 elevated him to Shithead-in-Chief of DeciderLand. He is the cause of the catastrophe in Iraq, he is the betrayer of New Orleans, he is the poison killing American democracy.
He is the shadiest and most treacherous of creatures, a spinner of outlandish intrigues, stooping to the deceits of cheap thriller novels in order to unleash his wars, complete with forged documents, anonymous sources, meetings in foreign capitals, sending his operatives to scurry around the Beltway, peddling slander and smears. He is the one who concocted the scheme of blaming Iraq for 9/11, he is the one who trotted Condi out to warn about mushroom clouds. And he is the one who is torturing human beings in your name, listening to your phone calls, reading your mail, and calling you unpatriotic if you do not bow down and worship the false idols of his war on terror.
Let us do what our self-respect requires of us. Let us seek redemption as a nation, and we shall find redemption as a nation. We are stating that George Walker Bush, as the chief executive charged with the solemn responsibility of preserving and protecting our Constitution, is the most grievous offender against that Constitution. He swore to defend it, but he has burned it. He is the perpetrator of the ghastliest assault on justice in all of American history.
His presidency has been in the hands of PNAC and its scheming neocons, who have plotted to destabilize the Middle East in order to invade and occupy oil producing lands in the name of “spreading democracy.” So 9/11 was allowed to happen, and they exploited that tragedy to pursue their dark agenda of global corporate dominance and endless war.
Their glorious liberation of Iraq, what a nightmare it has been for Americans, what a hellish reality it has been for Iraqis. Dick told Pumpkinhead we must invade, Donald said we go to war with the army we have, Condi wandered around in a PMS twilight zone glaring at anyone who dared point out that Saddam was no threat to anyone. And this is how the rush to war proceeded, like some Kafka novel, shrouded in deceit, swamped in all manner of psychotic motivations and deranged impulses, all stemming from the trumped-up charge that Saddam had WMD and had conspired with Bin Laden to attack us.
This was not only transparently cheap trickery but also the most outrageous fraud imaginable, for every one of BushCo’s notorious accusations against Saddam Hussein has turned out in fact to be worthless. We dwell on this, because this is the germ of it all, it is the source from which the heinous slaughter of Iraqis and the obscene war profiteering of the past three years have emerged, it is the trigger of this horrifying chain reaction of disaster that is leading us to war in Iran.
We must point out how this travesty was made possible, how it sprang out of the machinations of Dick Cheney, how the Pentagon and CIA and Homeland Security and Republicans in Congress became so ensnared in this falsehood that they would later feel compelled to impose it as holy writ and indisputable truth. Having praised the Iraq war because of partisan and career ambition, they are now trapped in the fatal snare of pride or are afraid to take any meaningful action.
So we have seen convoluted justifications and their desperation has intensified. Behind closed doors, threats are being made and deals are being brokered. The Iraq Study Group was told to shut the hell up. Top generals were fired. Lieberman got his thirty pieces of silver, Gates got his promotion, and Cheney got his escalation. The utmost secrecy about attacking Iran has been agreed to. Had a traitor opened our borders to Al Qaeda and driven Bin Laden straight to the White House for his Medal of Freedom, the measures of secrecy and silence about this coming war could not have been more stringent.
Conservatives, naturally, will be taken in again. No punishment for Iran could be too harsh for them. They will clamor for the Islamofascists to be destroyed and demand to see Iran writhing in flames. Can these people, these unspeakable fools, be so deranged that they will burn down the entire Middle East in order to save it?
How transparent BushCo’s warmongering is. The fact that anyone can believe Bush wants democracy in the Middle East is the ultimate iniquity. We defy anyone with a shred of intelligence to believe that. Iran has weapons like we do: what an outrage! Iran wants influence in the Middle East like we do: what an outrage! Iran tests missiles like we do: what an outrage! Iran’s president is a loud-mouthed idiot like our president is: what an outrage! He denies the Holocaust like we deny our genocide against Native Americans: what an outrage! How mindless the rhetoric is, how hypocritical the accusations!
It is madness, all the more odious and cynical because these madmen unleashed death and destruction on Iraq with the same lies. They incited fear, they exploited patriotism, they plotted war and partisan treachery behind closed doors, they expanded their power while breaking our army and perverting our institutions of government. There is no greater crime.
Where are the strong, patriotic congressmen and senators who will put an end to this? The White House is a snake pit of vile intrigues, Machiavellian plots, and despicable corruption. It used to be a sacred place, where men of honor decided America’s future and honored its past. Look at what it has become! A madhouse, an asylum where preposterous fantasies, corrupt police-state surveillance, and inquisitorial, tyrannical policies are decreed in signing statements. How much longer must we endure the oppression of this shithead who tramples the rights of an entire nation under his cowboy boots, and smirks at our cries for truth and justice?
It is a crime to lie to the public, to twist and distort reality in the service of the vilest death-dealing machinations. It is a crime to poison our airwaves with hate speech, to stoke the passions of reactionism and intolerance, by odiously perverting patriotism and religion. This is the ultimate crime, exploiting love in the service of hatred is evil incarnate.
This is the ugly, appalling truth, America. This is the state of our Union, and it is terrifying. Tonight, the most dangerous criminal in American history will speak to you. He will enter the chamber of your House of Representatives, grinning and shaking hands with posturing politicians. If you have the stomach for it, watch this degrading spectacle, watch these politicians applaud a criminal, watch them and judge them and hold them all accountable if they do not Impeach and convict George Walker Bush.
We are not helpless victims, we are American citizens. Our democracy will not die unless we let it die. Bush will not get his next war unless we let him get his next war. Bush and his co-conspirators will not remain in office unless Congress and the American people let them remain in office.
Put your children’s future back on the table.
Put America’s future back on the table.
Put the world’s future back on the table.
Demand Impeachment.
(This commentary on the State of the Union 2007 is based upon Emile Zola’s “J’Accuse!” Zola’s fiery indictment of the corrupt French government during the notorious Dreyfus Affair is hauntingly relevant today, for corruption and lawlessness are threatening the very existence of democracy in America, just as they threatened the very existence of democracy in France a century ago.)
Comment # 1 ~ feline ~ 11/21/2006 05:44 GMT Excellent summation, Rusty! Conyers has been our MVP, so our expectations are high at this point. I appreciate your reminder that Congress is a team, and it will take the combined efforts of several individuals to conduct oversight, investigations, and (I hope!) impeachment.
Thanks for your inspiration.
Comment # 2 ~ Rusty ~ 11/21/2006 08:16 GMT Hi Cathy! It's been great seeing you back in chat room again.
For the last couple years all we had was Patrick Fitzgerald investigating these criminals, and he let us down. But in 2007 we're going to have multiple investigations being conducted in the House and Senate; and Bush, Cheney et al are just not going to be able to survive that. I think RePugs in Congress will turn on them to save their own careers and it's going to be curtains for the Bush-Cheney regime by September.
Comment # 3 ~ unspun ~ 11/21/2006 14:09 GMT Thanks for your post Rusty. I agree with your analysis.
(Disclaimer:) In my opinion, the Dem Leadership is calling the shots & there are conditions being put on appointments to certain Chairmanships. All appointments apparently aren't automatic. House Intelligence Committee Chairmanship, for example--Jane Harman isn't going to be he Chair, though she's the senior dem. Her term technically expires, but that limitation could be waived, but won't be. Obviously, this is all conjecture on my part--but I know that Congressman Conyers worked very hard, putting in long hours and much effort into building a case to limit the excesses of the current administration. I don't think he would throw all that out the window and I don't think he will give up entirely. He just has to work within the boundaries set by the Democratic Leadership. They are the ones that need to be questioned on how they propose to carry out their obligations to support and defend the constitition. I detailed the questions I intend to write to Speaker-elect Pelosi, Senator Reid, and other dem leaders in my latest post on CB.
Comment # 4 ~ Alma ~ 11/21/2006 15:50 GMT I think we are going to need more CSPAN channels to view all the hearings. Going to be some hard choices to make on which ones get shown, with so many in the offering. :)
Comment # 5 ~ keenekarl ~ 11/22/2006 00:19 GMT What proof do you have to back up your statement: "We believe that Congressman Conyers fully intends to investigate, issue subpeonas, and have hearings." After all, Conyers DID say that "impeachment is off the table". I'd like to believe that it's all a ruse, but I'd like some reassurances from the man himself! I don't blame anyone for going after Conyers for his "off the table" statement, and I cannot support fewer attacks on him because he made the statement. The amount of displeasure with his "off the table" remarks has really encouraged me. He had to have expected such a response, and will likely hold it up before his colleagues as proof that impeachment must be pursued! I think "impatient" progressives should keep the heat on! I'm sure that JC can handle the heat - and he understands what is behind it!
Comment # 6 ~ keenekarl ~ 11/22/2006 05:15 GMT Like I said in my earlier post, I am glad that so many responded in outrage to the "off the table" e-mail. It showed me that MANY Americans strongly support impeachment! If this is one of the things JC was shooting at, he definitely succeeded!
I can definitely accept the idea that JC and Pelosi may be trying to deflect Repug and media attention away from the impeachment issue while the newly elected Dems work to pass legislation that will placate and satisfy many who voted Dem for reasons other than defending our laws and constitution by holding Bush & Co responsible. In the meantime, while they work to get this positive legislation passed, investigations can be on-going. The public will definitely be more supportive of the Dems if they can get some positive legislation passed - and if they can drudge up even more evidence of Bush & Co offenses! I truly hope this is the leadership's plan!
But, all said, I see no harm in expressing outrage against the "impeachment is off the table" position! As I said in my post, I'm sure that JC expected such a response, and decided ahead of time that he would be able to handle it! The man's been in congress for how long? He's tough!
So, I'm against trying to tell people to lay off! I say - bring it on! Show everyone that we really do want impeachment! Show everyone that "impeachment is off the table" is not a viable option for truth & justice loving Americans!
Remember "The World Can't Wait" protests? What - now we're supposed to be patient - to express support for a leader who tells us that we might not see impeachment at all?
When JC asked for our comments, I'd like to believe that he wanted us to tell the truth! If we're ticked off about his "off the table" e-mail, I believe he'd want us to say so!
We elected the Dems to control the House because we expect THEM to lead on critical issues - hearings and impeachment being among them. Yes, we the people, have a big role to play in this, but the fate of the issue rests in the hands of elected officials like JC and Pelosi.
I truly hope they do not let us down - and if they appear to be letting us down on these or any other issues, I feel it is the obligation and responsibility of every truth & justice loving American to let their elected officials know!
If the people we elected to do the job are unable - or refuse to do so, dishonoring the faith we have placed in them, about the only thing that will work is revolutionary change (like a new party). I hope it doesn't have to come to that! Peace and love to all!
Comment # 7 ~ Rusty ~ 11/22/2006 05:34 GMT Hi Karl,
The statement: "We believe that Congressman Conyers fully intends to investigate, issue subpeonas, and have hearings," is backed up by his forty years of being a fighting Democrat, and is backed up even more by his aggressive defiance of BushCo throughout 2005, when NO ONE else ANYWHERE dared say a word.
Talk is cheap. Politicians speak in riddles, especially when they cannot take action yet. Neither Conyers nor any othe Democrat has anything to gain right now by saying they plan to Impeach.
So why say so?
Why unite the RePugs when they are busy disintegrating?
With both Houses of Congress in Democratic control, can anyone seriously think there won't be investigations? And can anyone seriously think those investigations won't reveal an Impeachable offense every five minutes?
Bush is toast.
Cheney is toast.
The whole rotten loaf of RePug bread is toast.
Comment # 8 ~ tahoebasha1 ~ 11/22/2006 16:00 GMT Well, Rusty and Karl,
I think there is merit to what both of you say. As I had suggested much earlier (a week ago), it doesn't make much sense to display rancor toward JC, or anyone else for that matter until seating is a fait accomplis. And, I would imagine, they may just have a few tricks up their sleeves -- my hope, of course, and the hopes of all us, I'm sure. But I also see no reason to stifle the outcries for Impeachment -- this is the "heart" of Americans speaking -- it has been refreshing and exhilarating to hear the outrage of Americans, and I kinda' think JC might think so, too!
Comment # 9 ~ keenekarl ~ 11/22/2006 17:53 GMT With both Houses of Congress in Democratic control, can anyone seriously think there won't be investigations? And can anyone seriously think those investigations won't reveal an Impeachable offense every five minutes? Well, we can sure have our doubts when the Speaker of the House and JC say it's off the table! JC didn't have to say anything. Neither did Pelosi. If they felt like they had to say something, they could have said: "In regards to impeachment, we'll just have to see how any investigations might go, until then it's foolish to speculate as to what might happen." But did they day that? No! They said, "Impeachment is off the table!" I have little respect or faith for politicians who lie and mislead. So, if this is all a ruse, they will deserve the disrespect and loss of faith of many. You, one of the leaders of SoapBox4 TRUTH advocate misrepresenting the truth? That's just plain hypocrisy! It is never right to misrepresent the truth (UMM - LIE!) As for not displaying rancor against those who voice positions contrary to what is right and best (whether seated or not), that is asking people to be dishonest with their feelings and positions. That is why I also see no reason to stifle the outcries for Impeachment -- as Tahoe said : "the "heart" of Americans speaking" - "refreshing and exhilarating to hear the outrage of Americans", and as tahoe, I kinda' think JC might think so, too!
Comment # 10 ~ Rusty ~ 11/23/2006 00:06 GMT Karl, I am not advocating "misrepresenting the truth". I am saying that politicians phrase their statements very carefully to leave them flexibility.
"Off the Table" is procedural parliamentary language. An issue or legislation that is off the table can be brought to the table when conditions warrant taking action on that issue or legislation.
I think you and many other people are minsiterpreting what "off the table" means in the context of Congressional language. You are applying YOUR meaning to it and assuming that what you think it means is the same as what Pelosi or Conyers intended it to mean.
Comment # 11 ~ keenekarl ~ 11/23/2006 19:53 GMT Whatever! We all want the same thing - impeachment! The Thanksgiving after Bush & Co are impeached will be one of the best ever! For now, I'm sure this Thanksgiving is better for everyone because of the 2006 Dem victories! And so I wish all here at SoapBox a Happy Thanksgiving!
By the way, I found this explanation of tabling an item and taking an item off the table:
"Category: Handling motions
Pending motion set aside, not stopped
Question: Once a board member makes a motion and it is seconded, but not voted on and another board member makes a motion to table the first motion and it is voted on and passed by a majority, is the first motion stopped.
Answer: The first motion (actually called a pending motion) is not "stopped", it is simply tabled or "set aside for the time being". In fact, motions to table are not meant to be "kill" motions; only motions to delay taking action until a late time.
There is a seldom-used motion to "table indefinitely" which is a "kill" motion. I do not recommend its use in school board meetings although Roberts' Rules of Order does allow it. Typically, however, a pending motion that is tabled is taken "off the table" by a motion that is seconded and voted on by the body prior to adjournment of that same meeting. Remember, only the majority of the board (not an individual) can table a motion, and only a majority vote of the board can take it off the table. Once a vote to take a motion "off the table" is passed, it is taken up immediately and acted upon in a normal manner."
Here's a link to where I found this: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:fpT_GWvlUt8J:www.scsba.org/home_parliamentary_pointers.html+Parliamentary+terms+Off+the+table&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5
Comment # 12 ~ keenekarl ~ 11/23/2006 20:07 GMT Rusty - I must not neglect apologizing for implying that you advocate misrepresenting the truth. I guess we'll all know soon enough just what JC and Pelosi meant by saying "impeachment is off the table". According to Roberts Rules, taking an item "off the table" means bringing it up for discussion after other items have been discussed! If this is what they meant, knowing that it might be construed to mean that they were dropping the issue, I think they have duped the media and many others! If so - EXCELLENT! I can't wait for investigations to begin! Peace and love all!
Comment # 13 ~ feline ~ 11/24/2006 00:00 GMT Good research, keenekarl! When I tried getting more information, I noticed that Robert's Rules actually say taken "from the table", not "off the table". I have looked up "off the table" on several dictionary, thesaurus, and encyclopedia sites, and the phrase does not seem to exist, although "on the table" does. "On the table" can mean "planned" in common usage, but it means "postponed" or "pending" in congressional or parliamentary usage. Also, putting a motion "on the table" is used to kill a motion. I suppose the question is whether Pelosi used the term "off the table" thoughtfully or carelessly, since the term technically doesn't exist, at least not that I can find. Did she mean to express the opposite of the common usage of "on the table", to convey that impeachment is not planned? Or did she mean to express the term "from the table" in Robert's Rules usage, to convey that impeachment is NOT postponed, since "on the table" means that it is?
I hope that members of Congress have spent as much time thinking about this as we have!
Comment # 14 ~ Alma ~ 11/24/2006 01:36 GMT My actual reading of it is, that it hasn't been brought to the table even, and can't be until the Dems are in power, so it's on the counter just waiting to be picked up when testimony can be gotten under oath.
Comment # 15 ~ feline ~ 11/24/2006 04:16 GMT Table
Comment # 16 ~ feline ~ 11/24/2006 04:33 GMT Table
Comment # 17 ~ Kent ~ 11/12/2008 09:12 GMT Isn't it? , biggest nipples and butt, [url="http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/madams-fuck-huge-dicks.html"]biggest nipples and butt[/url], http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/madams-fuck-huge-dicks.html biggest nipples and butt, hugetittiesroundstern, [url="http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/hugest-knockers-and-round-bums.html"]hugetittiesroundstern[/url], http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/hugest-knockers-and-round-bums.html hugetittiesroundstern, females gangbang hugest phalluses, [url="http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/bride-shaging-big-cocks.html"]females gangbang hugest phalluses[/url], http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/bride-shaging-big-cocks.html females gangbang hugest phalluses, bride hump biggest penises, [url="http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/bride-hump-biggest-penises.html"]bride hump biggest penises[/url], http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/bride-hump-biggest-penises.html bride hump biggest penises, lady gangbang biggest phalluses, [url="http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/seniorita-nookie-biggest-phalluses.html"]lady gangbang biggest phalluses[/url], http://youth.yourmoviessex.com/seniorita-nookie-biggest-phalluses.html lady gangbang biggest phalluses,
Register. After registration, there's no need to login to post here.
|
