Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Want to Prevent a Depression? Impeach Dick Cheney

By Bob Fertik, Democrats.com. Posted January 25, 2008.


Why is it that, since Reagan came to Washington in 1981, "bipartisan unity" has always meant Democratic capitulation to Republicans?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Bob Fertik

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As we all know, Nancy Pelosi's "Capitulation Congress" will do absolutely everything it can to avoid a battle with Bush over his utter contempt for the Constitution, the rule of law and even Congress itself.

Remember Pelosi's 2006 campaign reason No. 1 for electing a Democratic Congress? "Subpoena power." So what about all those subpoenas Bush flagrantly and illegally defied in 2007? Never mind, says Pelosi.

House Democrats will postpone votes on criminal contempt citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, while congressional leaders work with President Bush on a bipartisan stimulus package to fend off an economic downturn, according to party leaders and leadership aides.

Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would "step on their message" of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks.

Ah, "bipartisan unity." If that phrase means anything, doesn't it require compromise by both parties? So why is it that since Reagan came to Washington in 1981 -- including the eight years of President Clinton -- "bipartisan unity" has always meant Democratic capitulation to Republicans? Every progressive knows what Republican Grover Norquist famously said: "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."

At the moment, the Washington establishment -- and Democratic "leaders" -- believe the slightest hint of constitutional conflict would terrify financial markets and trigger a depression. So if "bipartisan unity" is the issue-above-all-other-issues, why doesn't the Washington establishment demand that Bush show some bipartisanship by respecting lawful (and entirely justified) congressional subpoenas?

American business leaders arrogantly tell foreign leaders that economic growth is impossible without the "rule of law." Well, without the basic legal tool of subpoenas, there is no rule of law -- in the third world or in the United States.

Just imagine what Bush would say if Vladimir Putin defied subpoenas from his parliament. By refusing to hold Bush in contempt, Congress is allowing Bush to be more of a dictator than Putin.

Personally, I believe the single most important thing Congress could do to prevent a depression and restore the pillars of our legal-economic system is to get to the source of all White House legal obstruction -- by starting impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney as advocated by Rep. Robert Wexler. Why?

First, consider the alternatives. Financial markets around the world think a $150 billion economic stimulus is utterly useless in the context of the massive collapse of the U.S. mortgage industry and the banks that tried to milk it. That's precisely why global markets plunged 5 percent to 10 percent on Monday.

Why did the mortage industry collapse? Simple: Bush's government stopped regulating it and let the banks create a gigantic bubble by offering reckless and even criminal mortgages to people who could not afford them. Who in the White House waged war against all forms of economic regulation? Dick Cheney, of course.

And speaking of war, another major reason for our profound economic problems is Iraq. After predicting a cost-free war, Bush's disastrous occupation has already forced him to borrow $500 billion from China and the Arab oil monarchies, driving down the dollar and discouraging foreign investment. Who demanded the war in Iraq? Dick Cheney, of course.

Speaking of oil, the indirect economic costs of Iraq have dwarfed the direct budget costs. Oil was under $30 per barrel before Bush's invasion, but the political instability caused by the invasion has helped drive oil near $100 per barrel. This has driven up costs throughout the economy, cut business profits and slashed consumer spending power.

Another drag on the U.S. economy is hard to measure but still large -- corruption. Bush and his huge donor "Rangers" brought crony capitalism to Washington and killed competitive bidding in favor of corrupt no-bid contracts. The result was predictable -- massive waste and cost overruns. Who was the driving force behind Bush's crony capitalism? Dick Cheney, of course.

Bush's disastrous policies in all three areas -- economic regulation, foreign/military policy and government waste -- have driven the U.S. economy to the verge of another Great Depression. Just as Karl Rove was "The Architect" of Bush's political strategy, Dick Cheney was -- and remains -- "The Architect" of Bush's economic and military policies. So as long as Dick Cheney controls these policies, absolutely nothing will change.

If Congress wants to prevent the coming depression, it should forget about tax rebates and start impeachment hearings for the most catastrophic vice president in history, Dick Cheney.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: impeachment, cheney, depression, recession, economic policy

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Impeaching Cheney
Posted by: SENILEBIKER on Jan 25, 2008 12:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
would certainly help cure my depression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Impeaching Cheney Posted by: snarlah
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 25, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it great when a one-party state can put its differences aside and collaborate?

Under the current system, not a single participant in the Bush conspiracy is going to be punished and the same pattern of lawlessness is going to happen over and over and over again.

A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss and hold over for criminal prosecution any elected official who fails in their obligation to serve the people of the United States.

VOCA, now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CHENEY RULES - sadly
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 25, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never in history, has the overt criminality of an elected representitive been so perfectly and disturbingly obvious -and yet - so cowardly is the opposition party (NOTE TO VIEWERS OF FOX AND FRIENDS: That would be the Democrats) they're unable to take any action whatsoever. They want to take back the White House next January that they don't want to "rock the boat" so to speak. Dick Cheney should be rotting in a federal prison but these pathetic Democrats just don't seem to get it.

Here's the funny thing: All they have done is disgusted their base - people like me. If my choice is between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I won't even bother voting in November. For the past twelve months, the GOP have kept the talking points going in overdrive:

"Whooooahhh! Hillary Clinton sure is going to be a formidable candidate!"

"Whooooahhh! She sure is going to be hard to beat!"

"Whooooahhh! We're sure scared of her!!!"

And these stupid fucking Democrats are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry....

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CHENEY RULES - sadly Posted by: funnyfarm12
» RE: CHENEY RULES - sadly Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: CHENEY RULES - sadly Posted by: Southern Gal
» RE: CHENEY RULES - sadly Posted by: patfr
» VOCA? Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: VOCA? Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: VOCA?: no Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Please, Tom, Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: CHENEY RULES - sadly Posted by: willymack
Cheney the lightning rod.
Posted by: deepsquid on Jan 25, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Cheney is responsible for anything beyond ribbon cutting ceremonies, the power was given to him by the President. The constitution gives specific and limited powers to the Vice President. Cheney is an easily detestable character to be sure, but ultimate responsibility for all the law breaking falls upon the President.

Additionally, this article draws many lines but I don't see how they converge at Cheney. In my view, Cheney is yet another distraction. And this author seems to have fallen for the distraction hook, line and sinker.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good reason Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Good reason Posted by: deepsquid
"Dennis Kucinich" = the two words conspiculously missing here.
Posted by: AlaskaSteven on Jan 25, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another AlterNet article on impeaching Cheney manages to NOT mention --not even once, not even in passing-- the congressman who has not only "advocated" impeachment but actually forced an introduction of a bill to impeach and then reintroduced that bill again after the Dems let it die in committee the first time. Wait, was that Robert Wexler? No, it was Dennis Kucinich.

This Democratic-controlled congresses skill in capitulating to Republicans may only be exceeded by AlterNet writers' skill at not crediting Dennis Kucinich.

Just because there is a corporately-controlled-media blackout on coverage of Dennis Kucinich and exclusion of him from debates on the public bandwidth does not mean that AlterNet needs to ape ABC, NBC, and the Democratic Party "Leadership"... oh, wait, sorry.... (I forgot who is running AlterNet).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bipartisanship?
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Jan 25, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why the HELL aren't House & Senate Democrats willing--no, EAGER--to start fighting this most un-American administration in our country's history? That after all is what we elected them to do. The "Independent" option is now looking better and better. And Republicans who want Dems to put up "unelectable" (in their opinion, and maybe true at that) candidates for the Presidency of the US of A...sure they're telling everyone who'll stand still & listen, how 'scared' they are of Billary...but why the hell doesn't Reid get some balls and FILIBUSTER THESE REPUBLICAN ASSHOLES????? RIGHT UP TO THE '08 ELECTIONS. Then see who among the Repukes gets (re) elected???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bipartisanship? Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Bipartisanship? Posted by: zenbruder
Though....
Posted by: ptoddchesser on Jan 25, 2008 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it won't happen, Slick Dick should be sitting in big boy prison next to a huge motherfucker that has made him his wife. He should also be blocked from earning ANY income from Halliburton profits related to the war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guys... People.... Friends....
Posted by: xbj on Jan 25, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AS MUCH as I'd like to see Cheney not just impeached, but hanged for war crimes against humanity, here's a little story that might help us all GET A GRIP...

When you've got an angry dying wolverine cornered in a cage, AND that angry dying wolverine has his finger on button that nukes ALL of Iran, EVEN IF YOU KNOW the military will give him the finger rather than follow his orders, are you STILL going to poke the Wolverine with a sharp stick?

Well, are you?

Maybe Pelosi and Reid know far more about the true extent of the situation than you and I.

Just maybe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Guys... People.... Friends.... Posted by: ptoddchesser
» RE: Guys... People.... Friends.... Posted by: carbon-based
This is leadership?
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 25, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In November 2006, the American people gave both houses of Congress to Democrats in hopes that they would rein in the Bush administration and end the occupation of Iraq. That has not happened, nor is it likely to happen as long as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in positions of leadership.

As soon as Pelosi declared impeachment "off the table," Bush and Cheney knew they could continue their attack on our Constitution and ramp up our rape of Iraq. As soon as Reid caved in on immunity for Republican lawbreakers, the Republican minority in Congress knew they could scare him into favoring other Republican aims--such as economic stimulus benefits going only to businesses and to those who have jobs.

The only way progressives can win is to replace Pelosi and Reid. Unfortunately, because the line is now being blurred between Democrats and Republicans, voters might do that for us by putting Republicans back in power next November.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is leadership? Posted by: Lauren
The economic mess predates Cheney
Posted by: SteveO on Jan 25, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately the current mess goes back to when Cheney was a lowly congressman.

It began with the barrow and spend "voodoo" reaganominics of the 80's. Reagan promised us that the American way of life was non-negotiable. So the government created the military build up bubble (on barrowed money).

Then the stage was really set when the Glass-Steagle Act was repealed by the contract-on-america congress which Bill Clinton signed while praising the economic progress it have allowing banks to do things other than bank.

Now we are all going to suffer the pain caused by 30+ years of off shoring our manufacturing and our inflation and suppressing wages. Anyone who paid attention in econ 101 could tell you that you can't keep inflation at 1 or 2 percent and have a healthy economy.

There are plenty of reasons to impeach Cheney. He is a lieing, war mongering, thief. I think he should be declared a terrorist threat and sent Gitmo, but he is a small player in the coming economic disaster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: True Posted by: walldodger1969
» RE: True Posted by: SteveO
» RE: True Posted by: Lauren
If you...
Posted by: motamanx on Jan 25, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...waterboard Cheney--you'll find out what happened on 9/11. For those who monitor these things, remember that Cheney was asked to ascertain the possibility of terrorist activity in May 2001. It was his first big assignment after being appointed VP.
Other than building a secret bunker for himself, he didn't do much about it.

How the repubes can claim that they are stronger on defense and security is the ultimate snare and illusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If you... Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: If you... Posted by: papananook
» RE: If you... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: If you... Posted by: compu
Exactly. But even on Nixon,
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 25, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Democrats weren't ready to impeach Nixon. It was the Republicans who made him resign first. Unfortunately, as has been proven since Reagan in 1981, unless we have INDEPENDENTS in charge, it will take Republicans to DEFEAT Republicans !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DENNIS KUCINICH
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 25, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just announced that he will introduce articles of impeachment. Based on the recent info from the Center for Public Integrity. It's on you-tube and c-span. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Democratic capitulation to Republicans"
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jan 25, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a fallacy of epic proportions! In reality, it is the Republicans who have been capitulating to the Democrats. Our economy is being run into the ground by

1. Tax and spend economic policy. It's been packaged and sold as "borrow and spend" but as Ron Paul has said a thousand times, when you borrow and spend it devalues the currency, lowers purchasing power, and that of course is a de facto tax. Of course the media still refuses to call a duck a duck, and if it werent for Ron Paul there would be almost no coverage of this at all. I find that quite shocking. Anyway, the point is where does tax and spend ideology come from? From the democrats! So the republicans have just been acting like democrats! And why not? Everybody seemed to love Bill Clinton. And that's what he did. (Please save your "but Clinton balanced the budget" tripe, its just not true.)

2. Costly and unconstitutional wars. Democrats are masters at this. Look at LBJ... he was the previous recordholder for vietnam, previously the costliest and stupidest war. Bush was just emulating him.

3. Disgustingly unconstitutional and socialistic programs such as No Child Left Behind. That has Democrat written all over it. You damn well ought to know it too. If Bush did this, and its bad, then you better be saying its bad when a democrat does it.

4. Orwellian free trade legislation such as NAFTA. Clinton could have vetoed that... But instead he figured he'd insult your intelligence and sell out america. And he did it... over and over and over again. So when Bush signed CAFTA, why didnt everyone cheer???

The list goes on...

All of these things have been a result of republicans acting like democrats. But who can blame them? After all, when a republican acts like a republican, he gets the Ron Paul treatment.

I was like most people on here, believing for a long time that the country was sliding more and more towards the right. But thats not whats happening. It's sliding more and more towards authoritarian socialism. The authoritarian component leads us to believe we're heading to the right. The socialism leads us to believe we're heading to the left. Which, I wonder, is more dangerous?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ahh.....I get it now... Posted by: lexicon
» RE: Yeah, but Posted by: TheLimit
Kneel before your masters: the robber barons
Posted by: ScottP on Jan 25, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not just admit that both parties are owned by the same masters? Why continue the charade that the Democrats are against the war, when in fact the majority of them vote to fund it over and over? Why not admit that Iraq, just like Vietnam, is supported by both major parties? Just like they support right wing Supreme Court justices almost every time.

And why not admit that most Americans still support the war, as long as they aren't perceived by their friends as being cruel war pigs? Are we not supposed to notice that there were originally 4 anti-war candidates (Kucinich, Richardson, Gravel, and Paul), and 2 have dropped out, and the best that the 4 combined polled was barely over 10%?

Fact: 90% of Americans prefer big screen TVs to peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

out of sight out of mind
Posted by: solrev on Jan 25, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The demons are playing a dangerous game if they want to win the presidency. Trying to keep Bush and Cheney up front and personal is losing a lot of independents and from the comments here a lot of progressives. Shortly, McCain will get Hucky’s evangelicals and Giuly’s warmongers. If the demons manage to knock out Obama with the race card, the independents will flock to McCain over Clinton. My money says McCain can not lose, especially if one brings the New Yorker in at a late date. Is Rover still running this show?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

capitulating democrats
Posted by: sageworks on Jan 25, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and this is EXACTLY what obama has in mind. nicey nicey with people you can't be nicey nicey with. it's what Clinton did, and at least he ran as a populist. obama has already sold out the young liberal dems who gave him the win in Iowa by stating it was republicans and independents who gave him the win. there's no doubt in my mind that he will represent more of nafta, more of cafta, more lousy health reform - all of it. the republicans play very hard ball. obama will get chewed up and spat out. John Edwards is the man, especially now that Kucinich quit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney is Not The Real Problem
Posted by: opmoc on Jan 25, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real problem comes from above. It is those who have the power to dictate the political and economic process at a world level. The likes of Bush, Cheney and Blair are mere puppets. Whilst all 3 should be on trial for war crimes against humanity, this would only be a worthwhile exercise if it resulted in them identifying the actual source of power - ie those who are making the decisions.

Financial crashes don't happen by accident - they are planned events. Meanwhile, democracy itself is an illusion. Most people will vote according to their indoctrination - which they receive from exposure to the media that is controlled by the same powerful people.

There are of course good solutions to all our World problems - and there are bad solutions.

But the only way to achieve good solutions is by the influence of the good people over the evil in the power elite.

Not all who are members of such organisations as the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations and other similar secret organisations are evil people.

It should be completely obvious to them that the policies that have been pursued in our recent history have been disastrous and that it is now time for radical change to avoid complete catastrophe for both humanity and our planet.

We do not need a massive financial crash and we don't need genocide. There are far better solutions to all our problems.

For example there is a great deal of evidence that our energy problems can be solved in a clean way by further development of geothermal energy - check out MIT.

The Bush government's response is to virtually shut down such research - and pour funds into producing ethanol from food - that uses more conventional energy in its production than the end product contains.

Wasting both food and energy is another crime against humanity which betrays the ultimate objective of the power elite which I believe is mass depopulation starting with the very poor.

Whilst I accept that the world is overpopulated, and that the current financial system is not sustainable in the long term - there are far better solutions than what is currently on the agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do we have a "do nothing" Congress?
Posted by: Chloe2005 on Jan 25, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MONEY is always the answer. And lets not forget illegal wiretapping. Perhaps bu$h and cheney have more on our Congressional leaders than we can imagine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservative Republican doublespeak
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 25, 2008 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doublespeak didn't start with Orwell's 1984, it started when Reagan got elected in 1980:

Compassionate Conservativism: economic and social Darwinism

Personal Responsibility Act: throw the unwed mothers and all the other lazy welfare bums out on the street. Let 'em survive as best they can.

Economic stimulus packages: Tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, or better no taxes at all.

Right to Work laws: give companies the freedom to bust unions with impunity.

Homeland Protection: spying, snooping, torture, illegal detention, no habeus corpus.

Free trade: give corporations the power to trash jobs here in the U.S. and take the jobs to countries with greener economic pastures or rather: more desperate workers.

Protection of Marriage: Give the seal of approval to anti-gay hatred

Any one care to add to the above dictionary?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» pro life: Posted by: undrgrndgirl
cheney is The Worst American EVER
Posted by: cheneyMustGo on Jan 25, 2008 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article about the crimes of cheney.

Shows how no American with power has ever singlehandedly done more to ruin America than dick cheney. He needs to be impeached and then prosecuted as the criminal he is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please, ask yourselves:
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jan 25, 2008 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do the Democrats want to keep Bush and Cheney in office, and the war going, to the bitter end? Because actions speak much louder than words, and that is what they are DOING.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congressional refusal to Impeach? My 'theory' is...
Posted by: fsuthai on Jan 25, 2008 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the leaders of Congress know that 9/11 was an inside job...but think that we don't know or that the facts will never be uncovered enough to convince the American people! Those 'leaders' in both Houses have likely had National Security briefings & sworn to secrecy so, by not speaking out immediately, they have become co-conspirators. Whether the reason for their silence is fear that such revelations would tear the country apart or merely cost them their credibility & 'public trough' jobs, I don't know. Either way, their continued failure to act confirms their complicity.

Once you accept the FACTS that the WTC buildings were demolished by thermite explosive charges (see AE911Truch.com) then all of the other circumstantial evidence and strange coincidences of that perfect Shock Doctrine morning point straight to the U.S. White House, the CIA, and a whole host of cohorts yet to be identified. But it was clearly an INSIDE JOB! Bush/Cheney, et al, were the perpetrators and should be tried & hung! Plus, a lot of other government personnel, including some from the Congress, are going to have to be tried and jailed for their assistance and/or silence.

This actually might tear America apart for a while but, whatever the result, it has to be better than trying to bury a crime of this magnitude. Most Americans will refuse to believe any of this until actual convictions start. Hell, most of the progressive liberal posters here are afraid to talk about it! But it HAS TO BE REVEALED!

Please, repeat after me: 9/11 was an inside job, 9/11 was an inside job, 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Heart of Gold
Posted by: opmoc on Jan 25, 2008 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last Night On English TV Was Broadcast This American Film Made in 2005

Neil Young: Heart of Gold

It is completely wonderful

I am completely amazed at the Sound Quality

I hope Neil Yound doesn't mind

But I've copied it from My SKY+ to My Other Hard Drive

And I'm going to make a copy of it on DVD

And give it to my friend

I am not going to charge him for it

The thing is - he gave me everything that Neil Young had ever recorded on over 12 CD's

Not realising that I had already bought them all and seen Neil Young on numerous occasions..

And have already got tickets to see him again in a few weeks time in London

And fell in love with him about 35 years ago when My Muslim Girlfriend lent me

Heart of Gold

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Heart of Gold Posted by: opmoc
Buckshot Dick, and all former and current Bu$h & Co.
Posted by: drfun on Jan 25, 2008 6:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
administration should not only be impeached, but trials of Treason and the Hague have War Crimes trials for them as well.
They need to spend their life sentences at Gitmo experiencing the same torture that "Enemy Combatants" have endured.
Confiscate the illegally amassed fortunes of these fascists, and give it to U.N. humanitarian projects where they have been Terrorizing innocent people around the world.
Then the world will know that the U.S. is seriuos about its "War against Terrorism".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK then, let me...
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Jan 25, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...have a whack at the ever-popular "9/11 was an inside job". Inside WHAT?

FACT #1: Sandra Day O'Connor, with perhaps a touch more solicitude than a US Supreme Court judge usually shows, decided to give us W for president in 2000. This took place in January, not coincidentally when a new President usually takes office, but normally that's when he/she's actually been ELECTED. So--on to:

FACT #2: Upon Bush being confirmed, affirmed, or whatever the hell arcane bullshit the USSC performed--the stock market TANKED. Now:

SUPPOSITION #1: Bush's Saudi friends were even more determined to see him in the White House, than were S.D. O'Connor and her conservative colleagues in the USSC.

SUPPOSITION #2: The Saudis were about to become huge global hoo-has - or, in politespeak, oil barons (think Dubai Ports World) on a scale that they were tired of merely imagining - and theyknew that Best Business & Close Family Friend George W. Bush, most probably wasn't going to be President for the length of time necessary for completing the project, which they knew would take a LONG TIME.

They didn't want to have anything in America distract from their (then) secret project, and they remembered that the last time they tried that, George Senior had had the war in Kuwait, which pretty well cemented the public's dislike of him, AND didn't get them any closer to controlling Dubai Port City. So:

SUPPOSITION #3: Dilemma, dilemma. What to do??? We need EIGHT YEARS, the sheikhs were telling one another. OK then, the answer was short and swift: another war. But THIS time, they'd hit us--and Bush Jr would become the 'Wore Prez'dunt'--whip up mass hysteria which after the WTC's destruction, wasn't too hard for him to do--and very quietly take over the Ports complex in Dubai and replace its British management with their own.

PROPOSITION: Did they succeed? NO. Why? Because the American people still weren't the morons that BushCo had tried to make them become, and we rejected Dubai Ports World. And this isn't even going into that other sweet plum for the Saudis--the land grab that we made on an innocent country which had never hurt us, and which our lying leaders assured us gravely, had been severely implicated in 9/11.

HOWEVER, even a cursory glance at the map of the region shows that the Saudis and the Iraqis share a common border, and the bone of contention is of course, the Kirkuk Oilfield, a practically virgin piece of property that BushCo assured us would 'pay for the war all by itself' and from which we have yet to see a single solitary drop of oil. To say nothing about the PRICE of that oil (in other but our blood, that is)

So--all this, for nothing. At least though, the Saudi 9/11 murderers didn't get what they wanted. That's my PROPOSITION, and I sure hope it's an accurate one... Now, let's see how much of this letter can get printed, LOL! Oh wait a minute, this is Alternet, not AOL: LOL LOL!

Anyway, the above is only my own take of things. Believe it--or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Vote.
Posted by: FRoller on Jan 25, 2008 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I vote that we go to Canada. Home of the brave, land of the free, all that...

I know this, nothing is going to change if impeachment doesn't happen. The next president, democratic or repugnican, is going to continue doing the same things, torture, warrantless wiretapping, unlimited budget (debt), war, etc.

It's easy to sit here and type. It's another thing altogether to actually do something to fix this. Write your senator? Vote? Nope, those won't work. I've tried. Nothing other than impeachment, a depression, or revolution will get America back on track. Or just sit there and watch American Idol. Your choice.

What you can do, while sitting there, is apply for immigration to Canada or Australia. Better go now before the depression hits, or until your visa is revoked in an attempt to keep the smart people around. Oh, you don't have the job skills that Canada or Australia need. Too bad. I guess you'll stay!

Definitely change your American dollars into something with stability, before inflation hits. Washington has the money printing presses on full-time now! Ask your rich friends where they are putting their money.

It's a sad state of affairs that America is in. Fascinated by cell phones and profits, engineering jobs went overseas. Middleclass jobs disappeared and so did the tax income from them.

It used to be an excuse that the Republicans held the house and senate and low and behold the same thing happens with the democrats.

Right after you impeach Cheney, and Bush, impeach everyone in the House and Senate as well. Even those who appear to want change aren't doing their job. Why aren't they on tv every night demanding impeachment??? On radio??? On the internet???

I vote we move to Canada.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Vote. Posted by: Bioya1
Secession for California
Posted by: macdon1 on Jan 25, 2008 10:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I could, I'd take my state of California out of the union and make it the Bear Republic again. We have the 5th largest economy in the world right here and could manage just fine without those bozos in DC. Then I'd banish some reactionaries to Nevada and set up border checkpoints. No more guacamole for you Dubbya!! Failing that, maybe a cat 4 or 5 hurricane, spawned by climate change, will blow into DC and submerge the whole mess under 15 feet of water. One can only hope...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Secession for California Posted by: undrgrndgirl