Is Russ Feingold Kidding?
Breaking news! Heard it just this morning on NBC's Meet the Press, Senator Russ Feingold decided to really take the gloves off and call for a censure resolution against Bush. A censure resolution - ooh - I'm sure Bush and Cheney are shaking in their boots. Does anyobody out there feel like taking bets on how much more pathetic and weak kneed can the Democratic Party get?
Somebody ought to tell Senator Feingold that the American people are way ahread of him on the issue of sanctioning Bush and Cheney for their numerous crimes. According to a recent poll by the American Research Group 45% of Americans favor impeachment for Bush and 54% favor it for Cheney. But why stop there. Over the past few years countless impeachment resolutions have either proposed or passed by state legislatures, city and town councils, state and local political party committees and groups, including the California and Massachusetts State Democratic Parties. And it's not just liberals, leftists and Democrats who want to see that Bush and Cheney are truly held accountable by the sole means the Constitution provides. Last weekend Bruce Fein, a former associate attorney general in the Reagan administration appeared along with John Nichols of The Nation to discuss the vital necessity for impeachment on PBS' Bill Moyer's Journal. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel also used the "I" word a few months back.
We all know the arguments against impeachment: it will take too long, it will distract Congress from doing the people's business (I just fell out of my chair from laughing at that one!)it will rally the right and screw up those all important 2008 elections. But I'd like to lay out a different scenario which would require only a little balls and self-respect on the part of the Democratic Party.
In December 2005, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. released a report entitled The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover ups in the Iraq War. The report recommended that a special bi-partisan select committee be established to look into the questions raised by the Downing Street Minutes and other statements made by Bush, Cheney and other administration officials during the run up to the Iraq War. The only thing holding this recommendation back was, of course, the Republican majority in the House.
So, why not have a very public, fully televised investigation right now only forgetting about the special select committee because the proper place for such an investigation is the House Judiciary Committee which is now chaired by yours truly, John Conyers. And let's have Republican Bruce Fein be one of the first to testify. Is it not possible that under such circumstances the Republicans would be placed on the defensive, as one witness after another came forward to confront the entire nation with the veritable mountain of evidence against Bush, Cheney & Co? Is it inconceivable that a majority of Americans would rise up in anger to support the Democrats on the issue of impeachment? Is it beyond all reason that the Republicans, especially those in the more vulnerable coastal states and Northeast, might just decide to cut loose from Bush and Cheney in order to avert a complete disaster for the party in 2008?
But alas, as mentioned previously, it would take a Democratic Party with balls to seize the initiative in such a fashion. Either that or those that favor impeachment in the party's rank and file are going to have to get more unified and more determined to give the leadership the swift kick in the ass they deserve.
Al Ronzoni, Jr.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
U.S. the "Greatest Country in the World?"
That was the topic on open phones on C-Span this morning. I was in my normal a.m. 50 yard dash to get to work on time mode but I think the question was being posed in response to some statements to the contrary made by author, lawyer and activist Randall Robinson, who is going to be interviewed on C-Span's Q & A segment this Sunday.
The assertion that the U.S. is "The Greatest Country in the World" is in reality the greatest rhetorical flourish ever devised for use by self-serving politicians, assorted members of the American ruling class and their footmen (+women) in the media and academia, to choke off critical thinking on the part of the average citizen.
For example in a very similar vain, talk radio windbag Rush Limbaugh has said that the U.S. has "the greatest health care system in the world" and it probably is for someone with his kind of wealth. But what about the 47 million inhabitants of the world's greatest country that have no access to this system other than through an emergency room? Limbaugh and other proponents of the greatest country thesis would probably reply: "Well, all that is needed to fix that minor problem is a tax credit here, a state mandate there - no need to critique the system as a whole because, of course, it is the greatest the world has ever seen and you wouldn't want to risk that for something like they have in Slovenia, would you?"
Now I do think there are some things that Americans may be justifiably proud of - though William Bennett, Lynn Cheney and other conservative scolds would probably not agree with some of my choices. But when I tally up the moral balance sheet of the U.S circa 2007, I think we actually have a lot more to be ashamed of.
We allowed Fox News, Jim Baker, Tom Delay, John Bolton and the Supreme Court to carry out what author Daniel Lazare has referred to as the "Velvet Coup," placing Bush and Cheney in office in clear violation of the will of the majority of voters.
We allowed Bush, Cheney, the neo-cons, military contractors, oil co's, AIPAC and their collaborators in Congress and the media to take our country into an unnecessary war with Iraq and continue to allow the devastation and plunder of said country owing to the continued U.S. military and corporate presence.
We allowed Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell and other Republican operatives to subvert the voting process in that state (+others) thus conferring yet another dubious electoral "victory" upon Bush and Cheney in 2004.
We continue to allow Bush and Cheney to violate our civil liberties at will and to expand the powers of the executive branch beyond anything contemplated by the founders of the republic.
To my mind a truly great nation is one that would not put up with this kind of nonsense. Yes, our overall quality of life is far better than in many other countries and there are millions of people who would risk their lives to get here. But you are not going to get much of an inquiry as to why this is the case from mainstream politicians and pundits, who find it far more profitable to prattle on about America being "The Greatest Country in the World."
That was the topic on open phones on C-Span this morning. I was in my normal a.m. 50 yard dash to get to work on time mode but I think the question was being posed in response to some statements to the contrary made by author, lawyer and activist Randall Robinson, who is going to be interviewed on C-Span's Q & A segment this Sunday.
The assertion that the U.S. is "The Greatest Country in the World" is in reality the greatest rhetorical flourish ever devised for use by self-serving politicians, assorted members of the American ruling class and their footmen (+women) in the media and academia, to choke off critical thinking on the part of the average citizen.
For example in a very similar vain, talk radio windbag Rush Limbaugh has said that the U.S. has "the greatest health care system in the world" and it probably is for someone with his kind of wealth. But what about the 47 million inhabitants of the world's greatest country that have no access to this system other than through an emergency room? Limbaugh and other proponents of the greatest country thesis would probably reply: "Well, all that is needed to fix that minor problem is a tax credit here, a state mandate there - no need to critique the system as a whole because, of course, it is the greatest the world has ever seen and you wouldn't want to risk that for something like they have in Slovenia, would you?"
Now I do think there are some things that Americans may be justifiably proud of - though William Bennett, Lynn Cheney and other conservative scolds would probably not agree with some of my choices. But when I tally up the moral balance sheet of the U.S circa 2007, I think we actually have a lot more to be ashamed of.
We allowed Fox News, Jim Baker, Tom Delay, John Bolton and the Supreme Court to carry out what author Daniel Lazare has referred to as the "Velvet Coup," placing Bush and Cheney in office in clear violation of the will of the majority of voters.
We allowed Bush, Cheney, the neo-cons, military contractors, oil co's, AIPAC and their collaborators in Congress and the media to take our country into an unnecessary war with Iraq and continue to allow the devastation and plunder of said country owing to the continued U.S. military and corporate presence.
We allowed Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell and other Republican operatives to subvert the voting process in that state (+others) thus conferring yet another dubious electoral "victory" upon Bush and Cheney in 2004.
We continue to allow Bush and Cheney to violate our civil liberties at will and to expand the powers of the executive branch beyond anything contemplated by the founders of the republic.
To my mind a truly great nation is one that would not put up with this kind of nonsense. Yes, our overall quality of life is far better than in many other countries and there are millions of people who would risk their lives to get here. But you are not going to get much of an inquiry as to why this is the case from mainstream politicians and pundits, who find it far more profitable to prattle on about America being "The Greatest Country in the World."
Monday, March 13, 2006
On March 8, peace activist and gold star mother, Cindy Sheehan joined a delegation of women from Iraq for a rally at the U.N. to urge the organization to help prevent the outbreak of all out civil war in their homeland. Sheehan and about 20 protesters went to the U.S. mission to the U.N. to deliver a petition with 60,000 signatures seeking an end to the war.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, while the Fourteenth Amendment extends this obligation to individual states as well. Well, at least that's the theory of it.
No one from the U.S. mission (an agency of the federal government) had the decency to come out and acknowledge their presence, so Cindy and three others including Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange, peaceably sat down in front of the building and refused to leave.
What was the response from the attending federal police and NYPD? According to Sheehan in an article she wrote about the incident, while Benjamin and the others were picked up "gingerly," Cindy herself was dragged across the pavement and treated "very, very roughly." Was Cindy targeted for special abuse because she is by far the most recognizable symbol of the anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-Bush movement? Cindy said that she will continue to "stand up to them again and again...until our humanity is taken back."
Cindy Sheehan's uncompromising bravery is an inspiration to us all in an age of "free speech zones" and heavily armed paramilitary police more reminiscent of the People's Republic of China than the United States most of us were taught to believe in.
Al Ronzoni, Jr.
Truthempowered.org
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, while the Fourteenth Amendment extends this obligation to individual states as well. Well, at least that's the theory of it.
No one from the U.S. mission (an agency of the federal government) had the decency to come out and acknowledge their presence, so Cindy and three others including Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange, peaceably sat down in front of the building and refused to leave.
What was the response from the attending federal police and NYPD? According to Sheehan in an article she wrote about the incident, while Benjamin and the others were picked up "gingerly," Cindy herself was dragged across the pavement and treated "very, very roughly." Was Cindy targeted for special abuse because she is by far the most recognizable symbol of the anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-Bush movement? Cindy said that she will continue to "stand up to them again and again...until our humanity is taken back."
Cindy Sheehan's uncompromising bravery is an inspiration to us all in an age of "free speech zones" and heavily armed paramilitary police more reminiscent of the People's Republic of China than the United States most of us were taught to believe in.
Al Ronzoni, Jr.
Truthempowered.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)