That phrase is a perfect summary of the influence of the Bush administration. It comes from an article in which a prosecutor explains how the office of the Attorney General undermined the tobacco lawsuit.
Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s office began micromanaging the team’s strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government’s claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.
She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.
“The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said,” Eubanks said. “And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public.”
The last few years make sense if you see them as a prolonged exercise in treachery at the highest level: a betrayal of the American public to benefit American corporate interests. Gonzales must go. Bush and Cheney must be impeached. Let’s not make the mistake we made with Nixon, letting a corps of criminals escape unscathed, even allowing them to continue their pernicious influence on government for another generation.
You don’t have the political power for impeachment.
To be perfectly frank, the American political system is dominated by two groups of crazy people whose madness is identical but whose specific delusions are incompatible with each other.
Sure, there are a few sane people here and there, and a handful of the lunatics have moments of clarity now and again. But sanity is a tiny minority.
You can’t run a lunchroom without sanity, much less a nation. It’s time to let sinking ships lie.
PZ wrote:
“The last few years make sense if you see them as a prolonged exercise in treachery at the highest level: a betrayal of the American public to benefit American corporate interests. Gonzales must go. Bush and Cheney must be impeached.”
Hear, hear!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear_hear
Really? Please provide examples of issues on which the Democrats’ position is equally as irrational as the Republicans’, without confusing “starting from different premises about citizens’ responsibilities to each other” with “insane”.
The above was directed at Caledonian; forgot the attribution.
…
…
“Treachery” is the perfect word. This entire administration has been a textbook illustration of treason and dereliction of duty, both to American ideals and to the American people. Never forget that watching Bush sit in brainlock for long minutes while planes flew into the World Trade Center was just the FIRST of the shocks in how this tiny little man is literally incapable even of thinking about serving the office of President and the American people.
However, something worth considering, in my opinion, is that EVERYTHING that has happened is also the fault of Democrats. They’ve participated in this giveaway of American government to corporations over many decades, and have also helped destroy the confidence in and understanding of American government.
Just as a for-instance: Ever wished just ONE presidential candidate would come out and say this creationism nonsense has got to stop? That it’s just a mass of blatant lies, and is poisonous to American education AND scientific progress? Of course no GOP candidate is going to come out with that. But hold your breath until a Democratic candidate says it … and we’ll all come to your funeral.
…
…
I second Mondo’s “Hear, hear.” This is most anti-American administration in history, in my opinion, and I ernestly hope that history agrees. Regarding the long-term negative effects of the Nixon pardon, that last point echos my most recent comment on the Limbaugh thread. I couldn’t agree more.
Oops, time-stamps show that my comment was the echo! :-)
To be fair, it was not at first clear that the original crash wasn’t a terrible accident. It was the second strike that made the terrorist nature of the events obvious. Everything since then, however, fits the pattern you describe (not to mention most everything before then).
How have the Democrats worked to create a system that is reasonable, rational, and in the interests of its citizens? Party affiliation is meaningless precisely because elected officials act to benefit their parties, not the people they’re supposed to serve – because serving the people gives them little political benefit, whereas serving the party yields a return of power and influence. They’re all just throwing pork at their people in order to maintain a power base; there isn’t a single person of intelligence and decency who can maintain power in Washington, and few people with those traits but sufficiently foolish to run in the first place.
You don’t have the political power for impeachment.
Who cares. It’s the right thing to do. They outed a CIA agent, they took away our right to privacy, they went to war under false pretenses, and they torture. Not quite lying about a blow job, but serious stuff nonetheless.
George McGovern makes a good argument (“Bush is much more impeachable than Richard Nixon was”):
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=121907
Chuck Hegel is starting to get the melody in his head:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/06/hagel-impeachment/
Vermonters like the idea:
http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/032007/TownMeetingImpeach.shtml
The Mayor of Salt Lake City gets it:
And Colbert really gets it!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/22/colbert-dares-democrats-to-impeach-bush/
Impeach the bastards!
That’s not what I meant. By all means, make the gesture, but be aware that it will be futile.
(I think I’ve been watching the closing episodes of Angel a bit too much.)
By all means, make the gesture, but be aware that it will be futile.
Yes, it will be futile, but it will also be a permanent stain on Bush’s presidency. It won’t be so easy for him and his sycophants to polish his reputation after he leaves office. Just getting the stuff he has done into words and into the Congressional record would be a huge plus.
If they move to impeach him (and Cheney) and get the troops out of Iraq before he leaves office, that would be a momentously symbolic slamming of the door on their disastrous occupation of the White House.
As great as it would be to see Bush and Cheney impeached, I would be very, very surprised if it happened. Despite the fact that everyone and his brother seem to be calling for it, the Democrats just lack the spine. They’re doing a good job showing the general corruption and will probably take down some of the more minor players, but Bush will get to retire to ranch and Darth Cheney will go back to his Death Star, both unscathed (except in the realm of public opinion).
It’s been absolutely delicious seeing this administration finally hoist by its own petard, but I have to admit, I agree with this statement. I’ve spent too many years enduring the likes of G. Gordon Liddy’s talk radio show and Ollie North’s senatorial campaign to think these bozos are ever going to have to take responsibility for their own misdeeds. Sometimes it is to our benefit that we Americans don’t have long memories, but in this case, it’s a travesty.
Making the case for impeachment over a deceitful run-up to an illegal war has always presented a problem for two kinds of Democrats: those who were derelict in their oversight responsibilities, and the subset of those Democrats who were complicit in Bush/Cheney’s criminal bellicosity for fear of looking weak.
Because of the administration’s mind-numbingly inane incompetence on every front, there are, apart from the war, more solid pieces of evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors than there are elephant turds in a circus, and the reek can’t be ignored even by the rest of GOP, who must run against Bush and his war in ’08.
If that gang of incompetent traitors is to be properly humiliated, it will happen only if at least as many Republicans join Democrats as happened in 1974, when Goldwater and others visited Nixon and told him it was time to pack. I doubt that there are a dozen Republican senators who could summon the conscience to place their country ahead of party loyalty, so Bush/Cheney needn’t worry about a similar visit today.
Republicans will join Democrats to impeach only when failure to do so will jeopardize their political futures, which is not a slim possibility. If there is one thing certain, we haven’t gotten close to finding the bottom of the barrel of shit that is the Bush administration’s pile of high crimes and misdemeanors. There may be enough Republicans canny enough to step over to the other side of the fan, but that would require a degree of intelligence long out of fashion in the GOP.
I’m disappointed that the Bush Administration didn’t throw the case out altogether.
I support killing the persecutors of tobacco companies.
Well, it may be the right thing to do, but if it results in continued reign of those who would subvert the processes of science for political reasons, of what benefit will impeachment be now.
This impeachment thing is not without precedent. The Republicans impeached Clinton without adequate votes to get him removed from office. Some combination of this and lack of general public approbation of Clinton, resulted in him being one of the most popular presidents ever. (60-some percent approval rating during the time of his impeachment.)
When you’re playing chess, you don’t run madly into battle. You set up the board so that you control it. Then, what happens is largely academic; whether victory comes from the bishop taking the knight or the pawn preventing the escape of the king is not central. You control the board, you control the outcome.
It must be this way for Bush. The Democrats, if they are wise, are maneuvering him to an unwinnable situation. There are probably already informants who have let our friends in congress know which avenues of questioning will be the most fruitful in terms of setting up an impeachment case. The Democrats are making their moves, putting their pieces into play, and controlling the board. Bush is in deep deep trouble. His malfeasance I think we have yet to fully plumb. By passing the requirements for Rove and Gonzales testimony, Bush knows he has few avenues of recourse, and refusing to allow them to testify is probably the smartest move he can make. If he can prevent the outrage to demand his impeachment, he may yet run out the clock.
But he’s got over a year and a half of this, and we have barely to scratch the surface of outrage-engendering scandals. Be patient but vigilant. Concluding that the Democrats are being negligent from the lack of impeachment proceedings today is to be ignorant of strategy and maneuvering.
Be patient but vigilant.
BCH
You could very well be right, Burt, but you could also be overestimating the Democrats. Some of them are pretty decent, but others are just as corrupt. In the end, I think all we can really do is keep pushing for impeachment in public discourse, and hope they either keep at it or take a hint, depending on their actual plans.
I’m not above plea bargaining or deal cutting. Let’s set up a truth and reconciliation committee and announce a policy of amnesty for congressional leaders willing to go on record about corruption. Whether they get re-elected or brought up on civil charges is another issue, but let them have at least amnesty for their testimony (on record, Gonzalez) in criminal terms.
BCH
There is a lot of corruption to go around, Burt. At firedoglake a strong case is made that all roads lead to Rove. How could Bush credibly distance himself from the actions of Abu Gonzo or Turdblossom?
that is the problem now there is not very much time left for a slow game
you would be hard pressed to find any thing this “junta” has done that has been honest or very successful for the country and its people.
the clock is ticking what is the fear that is holding us back from proceeding?
ever since Al Gore did not demand a recount it has looked like the fix was in?
I feel like I’m locked into a bad Sci-fi book what is going on with people?
that is the problem now there is not very much time left for a slow game
you would be hard pressed to find any thing this “junta” has done that has been honest or very successful for the country and its people.
the clock is ticking what is the fear that is holding us back from proceeding?
ever since Al Gore did not demand a recount it has looked like the fix was in?
I feel like I’m locked into a bad Sci-fi book what is going on with people?
He can’t! That’s what’s so great. He’s got to play a game of utter brinksmanship – no testimony under oath whatsoever – because if he let’s the camel’s nose in the tent, he’s completely f’d. So he doesn’t allow anything. And when scandal after scandal starts coming out, when there is such a demand for answers that his brinksmanship engenders so much outrage that even the right-wingers’ constituencies demand impeachment, that will be the time to bring the vote.
Set up the pieces. Be patient, but vigilant.
BCH
Glenn Greenwald in Salon today offers some hope (“There is one thing and one thing only distinguishing this U.S. attorneys scandal from all of the others over the past six years: namely, because Democrats now have subpoena power and seem willing to use it, the administration is forced to disclose actual evidence and documents — rather than simply issue unscrutinized and uninvestigated denials of wrongdoing — and that evidence demonstrates that their claims are false.”), but offers us a kick in the stomach with a Tweety video showing how this is all just a big joke to the journamalists.
I feel too much like Charlie Brown after that football. It may never be time to pass the popcorn on this one.
If there is one significant difference between Nixon and Bush, its that Nixon, while being a stupid fool that liked to have his thumb in everything, did so because he **wanted to know** what was the real cause of problems and fix them. Bush… Doesn’t give a shit about real causes, just his own delusions. This didn’t make Nixon any less criminal in his refusal to put a stop to the rampant privacy invasion and illegal activities of the intelligence services, but it still made him far less of an idiot and a liar. If the only choice was between Bush and Nixon… Guess who I would vote for, but also keep a much tighter chain on that the last time.
Nixon’s mistake was thinking he didn’t have to pay the piper and do what was right, but could cover it up.
Bush’s mistakes… He thinks he is the piper, thinks he can’t make mistakes and thinks that his personal “feelings” about what it going on make more sense than actually trying to figure out what it going on.
Whether or not the next nucklehead we elect atually looks for “real” answers or just listens to lots of unfounded opinions, then flips a coin, or always sides with his own political party, even when they get something wrong… I am not going to hold my breath on that one.
Seems like all you get are megolomaniacs and people that can’t make decisions without a lot of other know nothings holding their hands and telling them, “But people *believe* this, so it must be true!”, no matter which side you are dealing with at this point. Its almost preferably to have a semi-rational megolamaniac than another moron that gets things half right, because he doesn’t care about figuring out what it *really* going on, but instead of just wants to know what everyone’s personal gut feelings and opinions are. We might as well elect fracking Opra if that is the way this country is going to be run.
And some, of course, are stupid.
——
“Abu Gonzo” is a great name! Must remember it.
And some, of course, are stupid.
——
“Abu Gonzo” is a great name! Must remember it.
Question remains: who was the WORST Attorney General of all time?
Abu Gonzo is fighting hard to edge ahead of (per wikipedia’s summary):
John Newton Mitchell (September 15, 1913 – November 9, 1988) was the first United States Attorney General ever to be convicted of illegal activities and imprisoned. He also served as campaign director for the Committee to Re-elect the President, which engineered the Watergate first break-in and employed Watergate burglar James W. McCord, Jr. in a “security” capacity….
On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the White House horrors. He served only 19 months of his sentence before being released on parole for medical reasons.
Okay. Who comes in 3rd, in Constitution-shredding and generally illicit hypocritical slime-mongering? Preacher’s son Ashcroft, who famously draped a sheet over Justice herself, who had — y’know — breasts? That was the last time Justice was seen in Washington D.C.
Wow. I love the fact that two of the three are Dubya’s. That’s just so… Craptastic! (Translation: “Words fail me!”)
Ashcroft was dreadful, but things have gotten so surreal since ’04 that I’d almost forgotten about him completely. Damn, now I’m getting disgusted with him all over again.
Three changes that are bare minimum to bring back democracy from the hands of corporatopia:
1. Presidential candidate who can scrap the current campaign finance to make room for an ordinary citizen candidate. Make candidacy affordable so that they can break off the corporate noose around their neck, and reform the government to really serve the people.
2. Introduce ‘national referendum’ on major issues such as waging a war or a new sweeping law such as Patriot Act that may impinge on the constitution. 2004 presidential election dispute could also have been resolved by national referendum rather than a supreme court decision.
3. Diversify the corporate ownership of mass media. They lost collective guts to report the truth to inform the public.
Oh well, a very short lived day dream!
“Okay. Who comes in 3rd, in Constitution-shredding and generally illicit hypocritical slime-mongering?”
Alexander Mitchell Palmer, who illegally arrested 10,000 suspected communists around 1920, has got to be up there toward the top of the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Mitchell_Palmer
As far as AGs go, don’t forget this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Meese
The only problem with impeaching both Bush and Cheney..
President Pelosi
“To be perfectly frank, the American political system is dominated by two groups of crazy people whose madness is identical”
It is pretty much a truism that no two distinct phenomena in nature are identical. That is particularly true in politics. Anybody who cannot tell the difference between today’s Democrats and today’s Republicans is simply not paying attention very well. I’m not saying that there are “good guys” and “bad guys”. I am saying, however, that if Clinton had tried 1/100th of the things that Bush has done, he would have been impeached and kicked out of office.
“By all means, make the gesture, but be aware that it will be futile.”
That is not something anybody would know until the process started. Let us start with the premise that every Congressman has a threshhold for behavior at which they would either vote for impeachment (in the House) or for removal from office (in the Senate). I think it’s reasonable to say that, if the President were found to be personally bankrolling a terrorist ring that attacked the United States, or was personally transmitting defense secrets to foreign powers, or had personally seen to it that billions of dollars were sent to Iraq in cash, without any accountability, then he would be widely seen as a criminal.
(On second thought, I might have to rethink the last point.)
Think on this: as early as two years ago, polls asking whether Bush should be impeached, if it were found out that he had lied the US into war in Iraq, were getting majority support from the people asked.
If Bush actually were impeached, and Congressional managers aggressively detailed all of his crimes, including lying to start the war, using the NSA to spy on Americans, turning Gitmo and Abu Ghraib into centers for torture, outing a covert agent as a form of political revenge, using the Justice Department as a political wing, etc., then you would probably see at least 60-70% support in the public for removal from office.
Would that be enough to force a resignation or a conviction? We don’t know. But at least everybody in Congress would be forced to go on the record as to whether they support Bush or not. Nobody would be able to continue the fence-straddling game a la Arlen Specter.
Absent an impeachment, I’m concerned that the VRWC will just continue with business as usual, setting up a shadow government within the government, abusing power recklessly, and using the power of the pardon to stop any serious criminal charges from being pursued.
As some point, you simply have to turn up the heat and force the criminals to prove they are just as politically powerful as they claim to be.
Given Bush’s approval ratings, I think it’s a bluff.
And anybody who thinks Clinton’s impeachment should be at all relevant really needs to think about how law enforcement works.
He put the adverb in the wrong place, it should be “we zealously failed to represent the interests of the American public.”
And I’m not griping about the split infinitive… ;)