 |
||||
|
|
March 15, 2006Impeachable StrategyIf you're skeptical of the impeachment talk coming from some on the left--or not--below is my latest "Loyal Opposition" column for TomPaine.com. Comment away afterward. Am I thinking too conventionally, or are the impeachment advocates off the rails? And please remember to visit TomPaine.com from time to time. Impeachable Strategy In 1868, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Andrew Johnson. The president was a Democrat. The House was controlled by Republicans. In 1974, the House judiciary committee voted to impeach President Richard Nixon. The president was a Republican. The House was controlled by Democrats. In 1998, the House of Representatives votes to impeach President Bill Clinton. The president was a Democrat. The House was controlled by Republicans. See a pattern here? Yet a band of left-of-center activists and a group of Democratic members of Congress are now calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush and acting as if this is a campaign that can actually succeed. A recent email from one pro-impeachment group declares, "Let's make impeachment our highest priority this spring--victory is possible!!" It scoffs at Democrats who dismiss impeachment as unrealistic and proclaims them the enemy. There is nothing wrong with arguing that a president who overstated the case for war to whip up popular support, all for a misadventure that has led to the deaths of thousands, deserves the ultimate penalty. But neither is there anything wrong with recognizing political realities in assessing political strategies. Republicans don't impeach Republicans and Democrats don't impeach Democrats. So why waste time demanding that the Republicans politically assassinate the leader of their party? This is not to suggest that the opposition ought to allow Bush's misdeeds to go unnoticed. In the March issue of Harper's, Lewis Lapham (whom I much respect and for whom I worked many years ago) has a cover story entitled, "The Case for Impeachment." At the start of the piece, he relates a conversation he had with Representative John Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House judiciary committee, who last December introduced a resolution in the House calling for the formation of a "select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." What, Lapham asked Conyers, did the congressman hope to gain by this exercise? "What would you have me do?" Conyers replied. "Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done. At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news." Let it be noted that grumbling, complaining and making cynical jokes can be worthwhile endeavors. Certainly, the same goes for establishing the record and telling the story. In that regard, Conyers staff has produced a 182-page report that thoroughly describes much of the serious wrongdoing conducted by the Bush administration related to the Iraq war. But why did Conyers--who has more recently been accused by three former staffers of having forced them to perform personal tasks such as babysitting--have to peg his effort to the explosive I-word? Of course, Democrats ought to be calling for accountability and investigation into the prewar use of intelligence and similar matters. Calling for impeachment--given the history noted above (and most everything we know about human nature and politics)--cannot escape the obvious slap-down: impeachment is a dream; it is so far-fetched a prospect that it raises questions about the sensibility and political judgment of anyone who suggests it be adopted as a real-life goal. A debating point, perhaps--but not an operating premise. A possible reply to this slap-down is that other political movements that were fueled by high-minded principles not pragmatism did manage to succeed against the odds--the civil rights movement, the movement against the Vietnam War--and that those who accept the limits of conventional thinking condemn themselves (and others) to the status quo. But--let's be real--those movements took years to gain momentum. And in the case of the civil rights movement, there was much tactical strategizing along the way that was shaped by hard-headed practical considerations. The impeachment of George W. Bush is not a cause for the ages. He will be out of the White House in thirty-four months. Yes, that is plenty of time in which additional damage can be done. But it's not much time for changing the fundamental political consciousness of the nation--and, more importantly, that of Congress. Bush's approval ratings are indeed in the tank. Yet is the public clamoring for impeachment--say, in the way it clamored for port terminals that are not owned by Arabs? And can anyone see a revolutionary change in attitude sweeping through the House and Senate that would permit the Republicans in charge to consider booting Bush for even a nanosecond? The current crop of House Republicans--most of whom hold safe seats in gerrymandered districts--are not going to impeach Bush. Not this year. Not next year. They still support the war and, for the most part, accept the wireless wiretapping Bush ordered. These are party loyalists who won't even hold a hearing on Halliburton. What could conceivably turn them around in the next two years? Bad news from Iraq? Perhaps public sentiment could become so anti-Bush that House GOPers might feel pressure. But, once more, consider those gerrymandered districts. And remember that politicians--contrary to everything you know--do not always adjust their actions according to public opinion polls. Republicans pursued the impeachment of Clinton despite the polls that showed impeachment was unpopular. So what's the impeachment game plan? Stir up public outrage to such an extent that Republicans--scared silly by a surge of people power--cannibalize Bush? That seems a quite bit tougher to achieve than the more down-to-earth goal of winning the 15 seats the Democrats require to gain control of the House. (And picking up those seats is already a tall order.) Impeachment certainly has a visceral appeal that some may not find in that mundane and tired ol' cause of let's-take-back-Congress. But unless you have a fanciful imagination, it's difficult to envision the former without the latter. And if your goal is impeachment, why focus on that controversial aim rather than on achieving the political power necessary for waging such a drastic step? The potential costs of an impeachment campaign are clear. It could cause Democrats to appear marginal or out-of-touch. (Sorry, that's how much of the world works.) And it could create a wedge issue--for Democrats. That is, it could lead to division among Democrats in the months before the 2006 elections. (Democrats.com, an Internet-based activist group that passionately champions impeachment, has been attacking Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean for supposedly trying to smother impeachment fever among Democrats.) As for the benefits--well, if Bush is not impeached before the next election, what are they? One need not champion impeachment to whack the president. Consider Senator Russell Feingold. On Monday he introduced a resolution to censure Bush. "The president," Feingold said on the Senate floor, "authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about he existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm that rule of law by condemning the president's actions." There is no chance that this resolution will be adopted by the Republican-controlled Senate. But Feingold has taken a stand and provided a rallying point for those (in and out of the Senate) who share his belief that Bush trampled the Constitution by okaying warrantless wiretapping. There's a realistic way to defy political realities and an unrealistic way to do so. It's no sellout or surrender to recognize the difference. Lapham elegantly concludes his article with these words: "It is the business of the Congress to prevent the president from doing more damage than he's already done to the people, interests, health, well-being, safety, good name and reputation of the United States--to cauterize the wound and stem the flows of money, stupidity and blood." In theory, the grand man (and wonderful writer) is right. But the Republicans in charge of Congress have been partners with Bush every bloody, stupid, costly step along the way. You may as well ask them to impeach themselves. For that matter, you may as well call on Bush and Dick Cheney to recognize their disastrous mistakes and resign. Let's remember that politics is about gaining and using power--and that gravity does apply. Posted by David Corn at March 15, 2006 11:54 AM |
|
|
"HUBRIS is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." --Tom Brokaw |
Comments
FINALLY! Good work David.
Posted by: O'Reilly at March 15, 2006 11:59 AM
"The president," Feingold said on the Senate floor, "authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about he existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm that rule of law by condemning the president's actions." There is no chance that this resolution will be adopted by the Republican-controlled Senate. But Feingold has taken a stand and provided a rallying point for those (in and out of the Senate) who share his belief that Bush trampled the Constitution by okaying warrantless wiretapping. There's a realistic way to defy political realities and an unrealistic way to do so. It's no sellout or surrender to recognize the difference.
more (link)
Posted by: O'Reilly at March 15, 2006 12:06 PM
As long as certain twisted souls feel the need to lie, cheat and murder to achieve their ends some of us need to keep pointing it out.
http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/
Posted by: James Ha at March 15, 2006 12:07 PM
Mr. David Corn,
With all due respect, to allow the dictator to go unchecked thus far has proved to our detriment and nearly destroyed our once great nation. To take a position that we should not demand accountability smacks of defeatist rhetoric.
We should not have a trial after crimes have been committed because a conviction is unlikely? Bullshit, that assumes none from the GOP could be enjoined with and support such an action. They would never be given a chance to do the right thing. That would be the wrong thing to do.
There is still right and wrong, doing nothing is the wrong thing. America and Americans love the underdog that is willing to fight for what is right not the lapdog to cowardly to growl or snap.
The least that could be accomplished is to expose the truth, and make these GOPher slugs vote for or against the dictator. That is more than anything being done now by the D's , the MSM, independent journalists, writers, or reporters.
But what do I know, the "press" has done such a fine job everybody already knows the truth, right?
Thanks for all of your work
Kirk
Posted by: capt at March 15, 2006 12:20 PM
"Calling for impeachment--given the history noted above (and most everything we know about human nature and politics)--cannot escape the obvious slap-down: impeachment is a dream; it is so far-fetched a prospect that it raises questions about the sensibility and political judgment of anyone who suggests it be adopted as a real-life goal."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. David, this is madness! These people are vile monsters! Its hyperbole, but imagine the Germans keeping Hitler in power, or the Italians Mussolini. I NEVER want to see you suggest that we don't get rid of these crookcs ever again. You think two years will be short and sweet? Not at all. These people went into this with the intent to destroy this country and piss off half the world in the process. Two more years of them attempting to succeed at this plan would be horrible for everyone. And don't you dare claim pragmatism. What a show of democracy it would be for the people of AMERICA to rise up and remove their shitty president! The world would almost forgive us overnight. If we do not react in such a manner to being played as fools and suckers then we will be lumped with every other mindless nation that has succumbed to the will of the greedy and power-hungry. To bear the yoke of this administration any further would be to cement our status as sheeple, and the Great Experiment will be over!
Write another pussy piece like this and I may never read your articles again.
Posted by: goob at March 15, 2006 12:34 PM
I dont think David Corn likes the idea of a Democracy where the people have the power. He has poo pooed every grass roots, people power movement from demonstrations to impeachment. I believe that our founding fathers gave the American people as a whole, not just the elitist few, the power to govern themselves. Pundits like David Corn are perfectly happy with things as they are. They have plently to write and argue about. Down here on the bottom of the ladder where I sit, life is very different. We are being crushed by the Republicans and ignored by the Democrats. There is a greater sense of urgency for us down here in the swamp of the lower class.
We are watching deep scars being formed. We are watching our rights being taken . We are watching our hopes and dreams fading away. We are becoming "unpeople".
As for the assertion that we can just wait for the 2006 elections and then do something? The democrats are adopting the same losing stategy that has lost us elections for the last eight years. The concept of voting for a flip flopping jellyfish may not even get me out of the house in November. This ship of fools is dead set on a course of self destruction. The only hope for our nations future lies in the hands of We The People.
We still have the Bill of Rights. It is time we started using it to take our country back.
IMPEACH BUSH...Or Else
Posted by: corky at March 15, 2006 12:35 PM
The Feingold resolution to censure is creating the same sort of indelible stain on the Bush administration that the Conyors resolution did. Bush can't shred this part of history. It has become part of the public domain. I want as much out in the open as possible. I want a glaring picture of who these Republicans are and what they have been supporting when they back the Bush administration. I want their careers to be over. I want Bush and Cheney to retire to their homesteads and be afraid and embarressed to leave. I want it to be worse for them than it was for Nixon.
David, you don't think impeachment will happen. Worse yet, I don't think war crimes trials will happen and they should. They have committed crimes against humanity. It was intentional. It was calculated. It was cruel and barbaric policy that came out of no where. Why do we need to torture? Why destroy Geneva Convension? There should be a price paid. There has to be.
Posted by: Jeanne at March 15, 2006 12:36 PM
Right On goob! This was a "pussy piece"!
Posted by: corky at March 15, 2006 12:38 PM
In 2006, when we lose AGAIN, will we finally wake up?
Posted by: corky at March 15, 2006 12:40 PM
David, rolling over like lap dogs is why we are in the fix we are in. You actually believe what you write? What is it about mass murder, torture, and rampant reckless disregard for human life you dont understand? We have been HAD! Political correctness does not apply to evil deeds, prison does, just as it has for many criminals convicted of a crime. Impeachment is NOT severe enough punishment for the cabal in charge. As for Congress, aiding and abbetting a crime would be punishable by prison time for the non-elite but somehow it is OK in your book. Put down the kool-aid and open your eyes, PLEASE!
Posted by: DEN at March 15, 2006 12:49 PM
I think we're all skipping around the obvious. There is no way the machines are going to let loose.
Impeachment can't happen. Too little balls. Too many Republicans. Yes, we have a problem; we people have become enamoured with dictatorship.
I am rude because I haven't been this sick since college--a good long time ago. I apologize to Mr. Ha. I haven't been myself for several days now, but you do get ornery.
Posted by: Carey at March 15, 2006 12:57 PM
Capt. it just isn't going to happpen. While I'm this sick, I've found that it is wasted energy. Better to clear the rats out and we can.
Posted by: Carey at March 15, 2006 01:00 PM
Following the logic above, no president has ever been impeached and removed from office so . . Why bother with articles of impeachment?
To continue with the "control" issue is to presume the slugs in power and in the majority are above stealing elections. That is ridiculous.
So if the Democrats are never able to gain control just forget about any law broken? Let the one party rule run unleashed and rough-shot over the minority.
Citizens rights should ever be trampled by an insulated executive, ideological judiciary or fascist legislature. Violation of the law by the executive is not an option nor optional because his party is in the majority.
High crimes and misdemeanors should not be allowed under any circumstances especially if it is because there is one party rule. That is tyranny by acquiescence.
capt
Posted by: capt at March 15, 2006 01:00 PM
The idea of NOT trying to impeach Bush at this point is impeachable. Seeing Democrats and journalists quiver like JELLO makes me want to vote Republican. Maybe America is safer under the iron fist of the GOP. All they have to do is frame the Democrats like the wimps they are, and victories in 2006 for the GOP are almost certain.
Posted by: corky at March 15, 2006 01:09 PM
Abizaid says U.S. may want to keep bases in Iraq
Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:06 AM IST
By Vicki Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.
While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee he could not rule that out.
Abizaid said that policy would be worked out with a unified, national Iraqi government if and when that is established, "and it would be premature for me to predict."
More.
**************************
Permanant bases on false pretenses?! Impeach the bastard now!
Just got off the phone with a gentleman from Harry (Spineless) Reid's office - and it was all I could do to keep myself as polite as I usually do when speaking with Congressional staffers. I did with some effort.
Anyway, I told him that at 49 years of age I've never voted Rethuglican...but that the Dems were spineless and I'm embarassed by them.
Left him sputtering...TOO MANY PHONE CALLS...
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 15, 2006 01:10 PM
What are "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"?/b>
Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role.
*****end of clip*****
The simple fact is: The GOP is never going to start to write articles of impeachment. That does not mean articles should not be written and voted upon.
The GOPhers might not walk in lock-step on the wiretap issue. The real (traditional) conservatives and the libertarians are already with the Democrats.
Assuming no GOPhers would break from their pack is no reason not to pursue justice because justice is not a gift to the people it is a social contract for all of us including those in high offices and positions of power.
I submit the house has no choice because justice is not a luxury for the majority. Justice is the only protection the people have from each other or those in power.
capt
Posted by: capt at March 15, 2006 01:18 PM
Corky,
I agree with you, it just sickens one. But impeachment is out of the question; until we get rid of Rove it will not be.
When people speak of dictatorship, they are correct. That's what Bush/Rove have done.
No I don't feel like giving up, aside from the horrible flu I've gotten. None of us can give up.
Posted by: Carey at March 15, 2006 01:22 PM
They are trying to lose! John Kerry got the nomination becasuse he had the money. He ran a losing jellyfish campaign. Hillary has the most money and she will get the nomination. She will run a losing jellyfish campaign. Both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry will get richer as a result of Republican rule. David Corn and other "journalists" will still cash thier checks from Fox News.
Posted by: corky at March 15, 2006 01:22 PM
Impeachment is not hopeless. It is the only hope.
Posted by: corky at March 15, 2006 01:24 PM
UN creates new rights council over US objections
Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:37 PM ET
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday created a new U.N. human rights body, despite objections from the United States.
Sustained applause greeted the announcement of the 170 to 4 vote with 3 abstentions. Joining the United States in a "no" vote were Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau. Abstaining were: Belarus, Iran and Venezuela.
More.
*************************
We are the United States. We Reserve the Right to Torture. We Reserve the Right to Kill. We Reserve the Right to Claim Your Land and Resources...
Ah, we're in such good company.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 15, 2006 01:26 PM
Speaking of "winning" some seats, why not allow a vote on the censure issue then beat the GOPhers over the head with their vote against protecting our rights and our privacy from the long arm of the government.
We are a nation of laws or a fiefdom for a pretend cowboy that cannot open his mouth without lying.
capt
Posted by: capt at March 15, 2006 01:28 PM
Never forget what they did to Paul Hackett. Both parties are resisting the will of the American people. I think it is safe to say, after all we have witnessed, the Democratic party is nothing more than a weak left arm of the GOP.
Posted by: corky at March 15, 2006 01:30 PM
Corky,
It isn't what happened to Paul Hackett that bothers me as much as what I suspect happened to Paul Wellstone.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 15, 2006 01:37 PM
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors............. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Posted by: DEN at March 15, 2006 01:40 PM
Mr. Swartz,
You are the first place I've heard that accusation, but it wouldn't surprise me. Wellstone was a very good man. Are you saying that he had some goods on Rove/everyone?
Posted by: Carey at March 15, 2006 01:41 PM
carey 11~
I apologize to Mr. Ha. I haven't been myself for several days now, but you do get ornery.
?? dude, what the devil are you on about? I admit to being ornery, but I'm unaware of any need for you to apologize to me ??
tell you what:: click my name and watch the video on google:: 'LOOSE CHANGE' and I'll forgive you!
Posted by: James Ha at March 15, 2006 01:41 PM
HENRY HAZLITT AND THE GOVERNMENT-SPENDING HAZARD
The national debt is reason enough for the impeachment of W. Today, as The Christian Science Monitor reports, it totals $8.3 trillion. Democrats are quite right to tar "Bush as the president who squandered the Clinton-era track record of fiscal responsibility." As our national debt stands, we would not be admitted into the company of socialists: The European Union. The EU "expects member nations to hold deficits below 60 percent of GDP."
The US doesnմ qualify.
The evidence goes to show that government growth as a share of GDP coincides with a decline in GDP growth. Governments in high-income developed economies have now been steadily accreting for decades. The decline in prosperity or in real growth rates in these nations has been concomitant: As government share of the GDP rises, so has GDP in the OECD nations been declining. 10 percent increase in government expenditure as a share of GDP results in a 1 percent point reduction in GDP growth.
If they do nothing else, Americans should switch off Fox News and open Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson (the first makes you too dumb to comprehend the last). There they will learn that there is no free lunch. To finance his Welfare and Warfare wantonness, Bush calls on the Federal Reserve and the printing press to print money. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. This practice inflation raises prices and depreciates the value of the currency. The new money will generate price hikes throughout the economy. The endemic price hikes and economic distortions that follow are a byproduct of this legalized counterfeiting.
And that invariably means poorer people, not politiciansсmericans should also know that the parasites in charge, the ones they give their unremitting support to, will always get richer; you and I poorer.
Why? The new money reaches the politically connected first. They get fat checks well before the general price increases caused by all the new money affect their purchasing power. Corporate cronies like Kellogg Brown & Root, the construction arm of Cheney's Halliburton, and the Bechtel Corporation are good examples of war profiteers who'll benefit first from counterfeit coinage.
By the time you and I, politically unconnected suckers that we are, experience a meager rise in money income, rising prices will have obliterated the tiny gain.
Posted by: capt at March 15, 2006 01:41 PM
Oh watch out, don't answer that question. Remember, we're all on THE LIST.
Posted by: Carey at March 15, 2006 01:45 PM
The death of US Senator Paul Wellstone: accident or murder?
There is a serious question about the sudden death of Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone that has no doubt occurred to many people: was Wellstone the victim of a political assassination?
It is possible that there will emerge a credible explanation of the October 25 plane crash that killed Wellstone, his wife Sheila, daughter Marcia, and five others near Eveleth, Minnesota. Initial reports, however, are disturbing. None of the typical causes of a small plane accidentengine failure, icing, pilot errorappear to be involved.
The plane, a twin-engine Beechcraft King Air A100, was apparently in good condition when it hit the ground and exploded into flames about two miles from the Eveleth-Virginia airport in the Minnesota iron range. The Beechcraft model has an excellent safety record, with only two fatal crashesboth in December 1997in the past six years. Debris recovered from the crash site includes both the planes engines, which suffered blade damage, suggesting that the engines were running when the plane crashed.
More HERE
*****end of clip*****
There are many more but this speaks to the issue.
capt
Posted by: capt at March 15, 2006 01:47 PM
David Corn, your reasoning is sound but so were the arguments against every noble struggle in the history of this republic. This administration must be held accountable before we lose the constitution altogether. What is unrealistic is to wait for a Democratic victory in November.
Given the proclivity and ability to steal elections along with the conviction that the end justifies any act including taking this county to war in order to retain power there will be no Democratic victory in November or ever after.
While I support Russ Feingold's noble effort, I worry that it could dampen the call for impeachment and eventually let these criminals off the hook. It could be like admonishing the serial killer that what he did was naughty and that he should cease and desist. That and November could be too little and too late.
Never in the history of this country have we faced so dangerous a threat to the last best hope for humanity. I can think of no high crime or misdemeanor that this President has not committed and I do not exclude Treason. They may be Republicans or Democrats, but I would hope that enough of them could recognize that they are Americans first. While you and the public await the congress, remember that they await and are moved by the public. I look forward to your meaculpa.
Posted by: Hal O'Leary at March 15, 2006 01:54 PM
Mr. Carey,
I am not a place.
**************************
Wayne Madsen Reports:
March 15, 2006 -- Day two of Special Forces conference features private contractors like Halliburton and "My God is bigger than theirs" Lt. Gen. Boykin. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Joseph Cosumano, the former Army Program Manager for both the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) and Donald Rumsfeld's favorite pet, the National Missile Defense Program and currently Vice President for Contingency and Homeland Operations for Halliburton, stressed that contractors on the battlefield are here to stay. Cosumano said that Halliburton/Kellogg Brown & Root now has over 52,000 U.S. expatriate, host country nationals, and third country nationals deployed to 94 operating bases in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Dubai, Jordan and other countries around the world. Cosumano, who, as Director of Force Development for the Army Chief of Staff, was instrumental in developing the LOGCAP program on which Halliburton gained a virtual lock while Dick Cheney was Halliburton's President and CEO, now heads up Halliburton's LOGCAP contract in one of the most flagrant revolving door escapades ever seen in Defense Department contracting.
Cosumano stated, "we are not going back and can't go back" to pre-contractor wars. Cosumano showed a slide of blue jeans/blue shirt-clad Halliburton contractors standing in military formation with active duty military personnel. Halliburton trains 250 contractors per week at its Houston Support Office and surged trained as many as 750 personnel in one week, according to Cosumano.
The LOGCAP program will generate an estimated $41.4 billion for contractors like Halliburton over a 20-year period, according to an October 2005 Congressional Budget Office report. Currently, Halliburton has over 100 Army task orders generating $5-6 billion annually. Halliburton is augmented by a number of foreign and U.S. subcontractors. The company also has its hands in other outsourcing contracts let by the Air Force (AFCAP - Air Force Contract Augmentation Program) and Navy (CONCAP - Construction Capabilities
More.
*******************************
Private contractors are making fortunes on the misery which is war.
Private contractors are loathe to give up revenue streams.
Ergo, private contractors are loathe to give up war as a means to extract revenue.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 15, 2006 02:17 PM
How truely disappointing David. Just because one does not have the power to make something happen does'nt mean that one should not try to make it happen. Just as the Republicans did'nt understand how unpopular impeachment of Clinton was I don't think the Dem's realize how popular impeachment of Bush is "out here". "We the people" are getting use to the idea that the MSM and beltway pundits either don't understand how we feel or don't care. Every time C-SPAN has shown any programming that covers this issue its to packed houses that are very vocal in their support of the idea. The only time I encounter opposition is from hard core Bush supporters. I live in Texas so you would think I would run into opposition often. You would be wrong. There is a strong sentiment even here that Bush has to go. If you guys would stop talking to yourselves and get out here and really pay attention I think you would be supprised. We keep getting told by the so called experts on American politics that Dems don't stand for anything and don't have a message. How about Rule of Law, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and accoutability. Thats the Democratic and democratic message. If you don't get that then why are you here and why should I care what you have to say
Posted by: JerryB at March 15, 2006 02:39 PM
Federal Prosecutor Says 'No Point' in Continuing Moussaoui Trial
Prosecution's Case Gutted After Judge Bars Federal Aviation Witnesses
By Jerry Markon, Timothy Dwyer and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 15, 2006; 1:54 PM
A federal prosecutor in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui told the judge in the case that he saw "no point" in going ahead with the proceedings under a ruling that barred key government witnesses from testifying.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Spencer, one of the prosecutors trying to persuade a jury that Moussaoui deserves the death penalty for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, made the comment in a conference call yesterday among U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema and lawyers for the prosecution and defense after Brinkema prohibited testimony and evidence from half a dozen federal aviation witnesses. Brinkema issued the ruling after a day-long hearing convinced her that misconduct by a federal lawyer had so tainted the proceeding that all evidence concerning aviation security must be stricken.
More.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 15, 2006 02:41 PM
Nothing says we must free you from a dictator more than a bomb in your lap
Posted by: DEN at March 15, 2006 02:58 PM
David, I usually read your pieces avidly and with agreement; however, on this one I must tell you I disagree. As a Naion subscriber, I am astonished to read one of its major journalists would write such an article. Let me say why I feel this way.
If you read Rep. Conyers rationale for his motion he concludes, I believe, by saying sometime in the future he wanted to be on the right side of history when all of this administration's mendacity and criminal behavior is called to account. For me, that is reason enough to press for impeachment now. The President of the United States has lied in order to get us into a war thereby causing the immoral and illegal slaughter of thousands of innocent people. I ask you, is not that reason enough to be up in arms?
You seem concerned about people who urge impeachment may be "over the top." Of course we are! Is there not such a thing as righteous anger? When a president does the foul things this one has is it not our duty to be "over the top?"
You also suggest that the politics is not right for impeachment. Too many Republicans. In this case you are right but for the wrong reasons. Yes, in this Congress there is no chance for impeachment. That is a political fact. It is also a political fact that many, a majority?, of Americans would support impeachment now if only some of our elected representatives would demand it. We need to set the necessary ground work for impeachment now, not later. If we elect a Democratic Congress then we would have a greater chance to bring charges; however, without doing a lot of preliminary work now such a time may never come. I am not sanguine enough to stand by and watch this scoundrel work his machinations for another three years. No sir!
I was really saddened to see your usually carefully analysis turn south on this one, David. We need people like you to keep the heat on these birds. We may accomplish more than any of us may dream if we stand up for what is right.
Posted by: cml at March 15, 2006 03:00 PM
The "I" word is showing up on cable news, and not a moment too soon. Whats next Pinky?
Posted by: DEN at March 15, 2006 03:15 PM
Hoorah!!
David just gave all you impeachment cornnuts a butt monkey spankin!!!
Posted by: LBH at March 15, 2006 03:16 PM
I would much prefer to spend our energies winning back Congress. Then, perhaps, we can make a move. A scenario that scares me, maybe for no good reason, that impeachment proceedings were to take place with our current Congress, and he was found not guilty, would that make an attempt in the future amount to double jeopardy? If so, I would not be surprised to see them try and bring it to a vote before the composition of Congress changes.
Posted by: club at March 15, 2006 03:18 PM
Second senator sponsors censure resolution
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has become the first co-sponsor to Sen. Russ Feingolds (D-Wis.) controversial resolution to censure President Bush for authorizing an allegedly illegal domestic surveillance program, ROLL CALL reports.
Excerpts:
"In a brief interview, Harkin said, I think it makes sense. ... Quite frankly, I think we ought to have a full-fledged debate on this.
"When asked if the president violated the Constitution by pressing ahead with the wiretapping effort, Harkin said, Everything Ive seen looks that way.
"Feingold said that even though support for his resolution is low so far, he believes he is already meeting his goal of reopening the debate on the matter."
***********************************
Thank you Tom Harkin! It might be pointed out here that Mr. Harkin was one of only three Senators to vote against John Negroponte's appointment as ambassador to Iraq, before being elevated to DNI.
Anybody surprised to see death squads appear in Iraq? I'm sure Tom Harkin isn't.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 15, 2006 03:26 PM
A scenario that scares me, maybe for no good reason, that impeachment proceedings were to take place with our current Congress, and he was found not guilty, would that make an attempt in the future amount to double jeopardy? - club
Not to worry. For the scenario you describe to take place, the House must first vote to impeach, which is the equivelent to the indictment; only then would the Senate have an opportunity to convict or not. So, if the House votes not to impeach there is no reason not to try again if the composition of the House changes.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 15, 2006 03:31 PM
Venezualas Hugo Chavez is anti-semite according to the Simon Weisenthal Center for speaking the truth. Like the race card it is mighty convenient to play the anti-semite card whenever it suits them. Read the whole article HERE. I believe he was speaking of the Illuminati. Any time you poke that hive you WILL get bees.
Posted by: DEN at March 15, 2006 03:33 PM
Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Read text of letter.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 15, 2006 03:45 PM
Your "Impeachable Strategy" title is misleading. You give the impression you're offering a solution to the Bush mob's insane asylum policies using impeachment. Instead, you say the opposite. You suggest nothing can be done, so no one should try. I'm sorry, but this approach is too defeatist for my taste. The Dems are in trouble because they follow weak-kneed advice like this. The only folks on the Hill willing to fight this insanity are the minority and liberal caucuses. The leadership of the Dems are so spineless you could slip each and every one of them through a Slinky! WHADDYA MEAN WE CAN'T GET RID OF THIS BUM BEFORE 2008! The people in this country are depressed not because of the Bush mob's evil deeds. They're depressed because no one will stand up and say: "Damn the torpedoes! It's time to fight!" David, too often you've gone soft when you should stand tall. This is shameful because you're a better writer than this. Perhaps, a few doses of writer's Viagra will help put some lead in your pencil!
Posted by: Franklin L. Johnson at March 15, 2006 03:54 PM
In regards to the Wednesday U.N. vote on
Human Rights 170 to 4 w/3 absentia.
Look on the bright side ;we now have a core foundation in which to build a new coalition.
It's also reenforcement that FOX news is not only fair and unbiased,but the rest of the
world is so out of step with what is really going on in todays'reality
Posted by: Patrissimo at March 15, 2006 04:17 PM
I suggest that you all visit your psychiatrist. You are all very ill people and suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. I have never read so many vile comments in one place about a man who is a good human being (whether you like it or not). If he were truly Hitler or Stalin, you would find that you wouldn't have time for sharing comments like these. You would be running for your lives or imprisoned in a gulag. Get REAL!!!!!!!
Read something that makes you think - check out the study that says that liberals (and conservatives) aren't THINKING about their what they read and see, whether or not what they are reading or seeing is factual. They are simply reacting emotionally from WHAT THEY ALREADY BELIEVE. Too bad for the truth. Get a grip!!!
Posted by: ljbgranny at March 15, 2006 07:47 PM
Typical. If we don't have victory in the bag then just give up. And while we're at it, lets stab our brothers in the back if they haven't decided to quit yet.
I am sick and tired of people deciding what to do based upon some kind of stupid "success" strategy. This is the same kind of thinking that leads FBI and CIA types to keep terrorist groups running because "If we shut them down then others would pop up somewhere else, but we wouldn't be in control of THOSE groups."
So what does this lead to? As the years roll by, the FBI and CIA are ultimately in charge of ALL the terrorist groups. Do you really think Osama Bin Ladin is the TOP boss? I think he answers to CIA.
It is past time for people to do the right thing whether or not they know it will fail. Without that we are just animals.
Posted by: Digital Dave at March 15, 2006 10:25 PM
How about this strategy: Democrats running for the House this year run on the platform of Elect-me-and-I-promise-to-vote-to-impeach-Bush?
Posted by: Mark at March 16, 2006 01:35 AM
Okay, you and Arianna and other left wing pundits miss the point of impeachment. I don't believe that you are all so jaded that a president can commit all sorts of crimes and you give up on holding them accountable because you just don't think it will work. That's like a prosecutor not going ahead with a hate-crimes trial because they can't find a sympathetic jury. Sure, it happens, but it doesn't mean it's moral.
And that's the point. Sometimes you have to fight not because you will win, but because it's the RIGHT thing to do. One scenario I can see is if we push for impeachment and don't get it, other things will come out and maybe the American public will wake up and get the republicans out of office.
Again, I'm tired of the left always compromising their moral principles-- that's how the left moved to the center and there really is no opposition party to speak of.
David, if this gains momentum and Bush might get impeached, don't go acting like it was your idea all along.
Posted by: John at March 16, 2006 01:40 AM
David,
Im dissapointed, you made my kid actually consider Not voting. And worse yet, consider becoming a Republibot.
You write well and eloquently, but your writing lacks fire in the belly.
You act when faced with change....like MSM.
Corky will vote, as will I, we will continue to write not just Our reps, but ALL reps.
This President should have been impeached long ago, and the country knows it. To bad so many of our Representatives are so tied to Porky Bush.
I find the reference to viagra somewhat amusing, but submit that Congress et al should get a truckload and very damn soon.
We the PEOPLE, have had enough, and we are NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.
We will break no laws we know about, but we will be relentless. My Dad gave his life in the service of his Government, We will not let that be for nothing.
It is way past time to organize. We are the majority, lets finally use that. PLEASE.
Corky even joking about being a Republibot ruined my whole day.
Democrats are spineless and completely owned, and completely outed now.
I for one am keeping a list of every single dem who failed to step up this time.
I plan to write each and every one of them and tell them what spineless scum I think they are. Ill suggest they just go get the corporate jobs they have been promised, because WE THE FREEKING PEOPLE don't wan't them around anymore, stinking up the place.
Ill say this for your site Dave; rarely does anyone reply to me here, so its a lot like visiting a shrink, cathartic.
Not always this dissapointing though.
Posted by: titchaba at March 16, 2006 03:30 AM
I had several points to make, but having read the comments, I will simply say... David, your readers are the voice and conscience of America calling out from beyond the beltway. Heed what they are telling you.
Posted by: roberto at March 16, 2006 07:06 AM
Well done, David. You really are the very personification of the Demcrat party's spinelessness. With jellyfish like you to lead the way, victory in November is abso-tootly-ootly certain!
Don't impeach.
Don't protest.
Don't rock the boat.
Just shut up and vote.
Posted by: AlanSmithee at March 16, 2006 08:57 AM
Very disappointing post by Corn. I feel disgusted at his letting political concerns trump the responsible thing to do. If Corn continues this thought process I'll place my attention elsewhere.
Posted by: Fred at March 16, 2006 10:40 AM
It hardly seems fair to censure Mr Corn for a lack of courage. He has plenty of courage. He has a different opinion about how best to proceed. He's choosing reason and realism for guidance. I'm wondering if the Declaration of Independence seemed like a reasonable or rational act at the time. Thank you Senator Feigold for giving me hope. And thank you Mr. Corn for your courage to expose Bush's lies.
Posted by: freespeaker at March 16, 2006 11:02 AM
Mr. Corn. I'm in full agreement with you that Impeachment is futile in the current environment. But I think that if Democrats and investigative reporters like yourself continue to prepare documents and a strategy just in case the tide turns. This could actually happen if say we are attacked again, a major smoking gun appears, or it turns out that Bush is actually an Arab who wants to manage our port security. It's hard to predict what stupidity the very reactionary American people will undertake next.
Posted by: Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s at March 16, 2006 12:53 PM
Mr. Corn, You miss the point, and talk like a fully made member of the Washington gang. We fully understand that impeachment is improbable or impossible.... because the Republicans control the House. Why do they control the House? Because the Democratic party is pusillanimous. People of integrity call for doing the right thing even if it might lose. Calculating politicians advocate doing the right thing only when they think they can win. If the Democratic party wants to win, it needs to advocate for what is right and might lose. Its unwillingness to call for impeachment, or even endorse the Feingold Censure resolution, is what guarantees that it will not win. Your approach tells us why the Democratic party doesn't deserve to win. So go ahead, make the case against impeachment, you and the misguided Democratic leadership and pesuade yourself of your rightness with your realistic analysis and fine legal and historical arguments. But if you and the Democrats get tired of losing, you might consider the possibility that a more effective strategy is to be less political and process oriented and more focussed on integrity and a committment to doing the right thing, marshalling the facts and calling for justice regardless of the odds.
Posted by: Miles at March 16, 2006 02:12 PM
Margaret Meade said:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
It's really very simple to me, impeachment is the consitutionally required remedy for this president. If members of congress believe,as I do, that this is the appropriate action then they are ethically, legally and morally required to uphold their sworn duty to the Constitution to try to make it happen. The politics of expediency have brought us to the precipice, if not the reality, of fascism.
Posted by: polydiatonic at March 17, 2006 12:08 PM
"THE HOTTEST PLACES IN HELL ARE RESERVED FOR THOSE WHO, IN TIMES OF GREAT MORAL CRISIS, MAINTAIN THEIR NEUTRALITY"
Dante Alighieri, The Devine Comedy
Nuff said.
Posted by: titchaba at March 19, 2006 03:07 AM
Post a comment