You are herecontent / Prepare To Dare or Prepare to Despair
Prepare To Dare or Prepare to Despair
Prepare to dare or prepare to despair
Email conversation with Thomas Nephew about the Million Doors for Peace effort got me to pull together some thoughts I've only let myself reflect on briefly over the last few months.
There's been a divide among antiwar activists -- between those who are serious about ending the occupation of Iraq and those who’d like to do that but only if it doesn’t cost Democrats politically. Depending on the size of the Democratic majorities in Congress, and assuming an Obama administration, that divide might be less important in 2009 than it's been for the last two years.
Given that Voters for Peace (the coalition organizing Million Doors) includes both tendencies, it's an encouraging sign that their petition calls for a faster and firmer wrapup in Iraq than even the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, not to mention the probably-never "conditional engagement" plan of Colin Kahl and company, who have Obama's ear. If the Responsible Plan were the strongest demand on the Obama administration, then we'd end up with something closer to permanent bases and endless occupation. With Voters for Peace mobilizing a million petition signers this winter for something stronger, the Responsible Plan backers in Congress should be able to position their policy (accurately) as the centrist choice.
There’s a whole constellation of issues just ahead of us in which this dynamic plays out, where an insufficiently vigorous presence on the "radical" end of the spectrum could result in blown opportunities that haunt us for the next decade or more.
Health care: Health Care for America Now has more than a little in common with Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (see 'divide' above). I accept that there's an imperative for Dems to pass something that concretely provides access to affordable health insurance for everyone. I also accept the political impossibility of legislating the private insurers out of the medical market in the next Congress. So I grasp the incrementalist strategy, whose goal is to get a public insurance pool into whatever's passed as the thin end of the wedge that could lead eventually to an all-public plan.
What I don’t buy is that single-payer advocates should just fold into the HCAN campaign rather than mobilizing to create the serious threat of a stronger plan from which the HCAN public-pool proposal can be urged as the compromise retreat. If HCAN’s is the starting position, then we’ll end up with less than that. In this case, anything less would mean foreclosing the chance for public health care for another generation.
Impeachment right away: Only a small minority of the American public -- even of informed, activist liberals -- understands that the Constitution provides for impeachment of officials after they've left office, not just for sitting presidents. Yet post-power impeachment hearings are the single best way to uncover just what lawbreaking was done. Not only do impeachment investigations have much stronger testimony-extracting powers than regular Congressional hearings, but post-term impeachment is much less easily characterized as a "partisan witch hunt" because it's removed from an electoral landscape.
Other excuses will be will be thrown up by compromised, fearful, lazy, and/or power-loving Democrats. The two most common are "we don't want to be seen as vindictive" and "impeachment would be a distraction from the vital work we have to get done".
The best answer to ‘vindictive’ is that this is about restoring the Constitution, pruning back these dangerously expanded executive powers that no one -- including "our" people -- should have. That’s the opposite of vindictive.
We’re going to get the ‘distraction’ line not only from politicians but from our allies, every organized progressive constituency desperate to get issues addressed by Congress after eight (or 28) years in the desert. Yet if the impeachment investigations are put off for even a year, we’ll run right up against the midterms, and by 2011 the presidential campaign will have begun. So if hearings don't begin in 2009, it’s hard to see how they could get going before 2013 -– by which time the "ancient history" charge will have more effect. So it could be 2009 or never.
We cannot wait. If there’s no serious domestic move toward accountability for torture, for which impeachment hearings are among the most practical and plausibly effective forum, then within a year there will be international legal interventions. The politics and optics of that are terrible, for anyone who cares about achieving a systemic rooting-out and reversal of this country's policy of torture. Legal threats from outside the country risk creating an effect of rallying around the old regime (however incredible such a thing seems now), and not only among Republicans. The most secure footing for international law will be created by Americans ourselves restoring the rule of law in the United States.
Likewise, only actual exposure of what went on with domestic spying under Bush-Cheney can light a big enough fire under Congress to get them to roll back the legislation that enables it, and only impeachment hearings seem to me to have the testimony-inducing force to get that exposure.
Impeachment is the key to reversing the damage of the last eight years, not simply papering it over. The time to organize for demanding it is not after the election, but now.
(The mechanics to accomplish this are for another post. Please don't wait for that; share thoughts and suggestions in comments.)
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
IF United for Peace and Justice's 1,400 local groups and all the other peace groups around the country were to do negative campaigning and protesting weekly, or better yet daily
UNTIL THE ELECTION.
We'd GET IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
The reality of impeachment is waiting for the peace and justice and anti-war community to get on board.
We have very little time to lose to get impeachment hearings started. At this point the only method that will work is rejected by many anti-war activists primarily because they are SO AFRAID OF THE REPUBLICANS.
Negative Campaigning, Negative Protesting and Negative Commenting on
News Articles in Newspapers
DOES HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT
on the effort to cause Impeachment Hearings.
Using these methods has caused Colorado's Rep. Udall to change his thinking on impeachment. Udall is in a race too close to call. More negative pressure may push him to call for hearings. Udall is getting closer.
We are monitoring his reply letters to his constituents. Two are below.
UDALL's (Feb 2008) LETTER JUST BELOW shows that he is dismissive of impeachment and doesn't much want to discuss it.
Dear Dr. Siu-Runyan:
Thank you for letting me know you think the House of Representatives should consider impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney. I appreciate your taking the time to get in touch.
I am not a lawyer, but I take my oath to uphold the constitution very seriously, and I understand why many Americans believe the current Administration has failed our country. The constitutional grounds for impeaching and removing a Vice President must be specific and ought to come from considered investigation by the House Judiciary Committee. That committee has not such taken action.
Based on what I know now, I am not persuaded that it would be good for our country for the House to take up a divisive impeachment proceeding against the Vice President.
I opposed going to war in Iraq and disagree with many other policies of the Bush Administration, and will work to change those policies. But I think those changes should come through the normal legislative and political processes, rather than through impeachment.
Thanks again for contacting me. I welcome your letters and e-mails and always listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say. For more information, visit my web site at http://markudall.house.gov/HoR/CO02/home.htm .
Warm Regards,
Mark Udall
Member of Congress
----------------------------------
Many Coloradoans received that same reply letter early on.
---------------------------------
------------------
------------------
UDALL's ( Sept 4, 2008) LETTER AT BOTTOM SHOWS
he's now thinking about impeachment and debating it with himself, perhaps getting closer to being for holding hearings (perhaps only trying to make us think so to get us to back off long enough to gain advantage)?
>From: "Congressman Mark Udall"
>
>
>To:
>
>Subject: Response from Congressman Mark Udall
>
>Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:35:44 -0400
>
>Dear Dr. Siu-Runyan:
>
>Thank you for letting me know you support impeaching President Bush. I appreciate hearing >from you.
>
>I have not and will not turn a blind eye to the >president's faults. I think his failures of >judgment and leadership will haunt future >generations for years to come. And many of those >failures were cited in the impeachment >resolution recently introduced by Rep. Dennis >Kucinich (D-OH).
>
>On June 11th I voted to refer that resolution to the Judiciary Committee instead of having the full House of Representatives debate it immediately. I did so because I was not then prepared to conclude that President Bush's actions constitute grounds for impeachment, and I did not think Members of the House should be called upon to vote on that question on that day.
>
>Impeachment is not entirely a legal question. It is partly political, which is why the Constitution entrusts it to Congress and not the courts. But I think it is essential that a decision to impeach any federal official should come only through a careful, thorough process that provides adequate due process for the accused and lays the proper foundation for a sound decision.
So, I think before the House votes on impeachingPresident Bush the president should have an opportunity to respond to charges
and the Judiciary Committee should hear from legal experts and prepare a report that will provide the basis for debate by the full House. That was the process followed regarding theproposed impeachment of President Nixon in 1974, and I think that set the example we should follow.
>
>
>Thanks again for contacting me. To do my job well, I need to hear from my fellow Coloradans. www.house.gov/ markudall
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Mark Udall
> Member of Congress
Seems to me that he is on the cusp of calling for hearings.
All US Congressmen can be swayed to some degree with Negative Campaigning, Negative Protesting and Negative Commenting on News Articles.
Udall has made it worse for himself by allowing his campaign manager Melanson to say "Mark is not going to do that. It's not what the people want." Easily proven wrong.
I was appointed by Bob Fertik to be the Colorado State Impeachment Coordinator for Democrats.com
I just finished emailing a simple survey of members of Democrats.com in CD01 (Rep, DeGettes District) asking for a yes or no answer.
99% came back positive for impeachment for both Bush And Cheney.
The Democratic Party is sitting on a powder keg of national impeachment fever within the Base of the Party.
If we can tap it and unleash it quickly we may be able to get hearings started before Nov 4.
You all will need to do this negative campaigning within your own states to make it happen. You must do it ruthlessly for it to be believeable. Find the one or two incumbent House Democrats or House Dems running for the Senate and accuse them of only one thing. Of being a traitor to their oath and to our Constitution. Also say that they are corrupt since they are covering up for a President and Vice President every voter knows is corrupt. The House Dems go nuts when we us their name and "traitor", or "corrupt" in the same sentence.
Today I and others attend and protested negatively at a Udall campaign event where supporters were meeting to hear Udall before going out canvasing the neighborhoods in Lakewood Colorado. The Udall activists went bananas over our sigative signs, cursing, screaming, and yes (tow ladies) crying to try to get us to stop.
The Democrats are Very Sensitive to this kind of negative campaigning.
Our lobbyists in Washington should not be doing this, but when they get home, yes.
The Democrats will probably take the Presidency, they will definitely win majorities in the House and Senate. IF THREATEN THE DEMOCRATS with the possibility of not having a filibuster proof Senate (Udall losing) and a veto proof House THERE IS A VERY STRONG PROBABILITY that we can move them to start impeachment hearings before Nov 4.
But you have to start now and be ruthless.
Someone smarter that I once said something like this "Washington will not change Unless YOU are willing to make the Democratic Party MORE AFRAID OF YOU Than YOU Are Afraid of the Republicans".
Time to step up. This is more important than any campaign. Politicians who won't hold impeachment hearings will do little that you will like.
John H Kennedy, Denver CO,
43 yr Democratic voter, Obama delegate to the Denver CO County Convention, and organizer of the
Impeach Colorado Coalition http://ImpeachCO.com
I am also the National Impeachment Network Coordinator for Colorado.
Anyone wishing to contact me should email me at:
protestinthestreet@yahoo.com
..
Would you like to further accountability of the criminals in this administration and scare the crap out of BOTH of the big political parties at the same time? It's easy: VOTE FOR RALPH NADER for president. It does NOT MATTER that he won't win. All it will take is a good showing at the polls. Vote against the corporate stooges that are killing this country!
www.votenader.org
AL K.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35718
Swear words are at a minimum :)
Jonathan,
I don't know what you are referring to exactly, but I am a very opinionated character and if anybody really cares what I think (surprise!), my private political rant might be interesting reading. It's mainly a pro-Nader opinion.
http://www.s114186177.onlinehome.us/
Al K.
I just want to start out by saying that Nader is great ... I've followed his work quite extensively and he is truly an unsung hero.
That said ... yes Alk ... I would like your opinion on this matter. Since the Nist report came out on the 21 of August I've been trying to get David Swanson And Chip to cover it. You know the report where at the Behest of the Bush administration they publicly stated that ... "For the first time ever" ... pixie dust is real and witches should now be actively hunted. I'm not sure what the color is for that on the terror status alert list yet ... Fuschia or something maybe. As of yet I have been ignored by David AND chip. If one were to follow the comments on my forum "Nist rewrites the laws of physics .... I'll be taking some questions now ... Cut the mic damn it!!" from top to bottom one would see that this is the case. WHY??? Al ... Why??
Johnathan,
I really don't have a solid conclusion about anything with the 9/11 truth movement except that everything is not know about it. Serious investigations should be done and it isn't going to happen unless Nader is elected. He is for getting to the bottom of it and so am I. The only comment I have is that I don't accept the "controlled demolition" theories that have been put forward about building 7. I also think the Pakistan intelligence agency has something to do with 9/11 and this should be investigated up one side and down the other! Our alliance with Pakistan is VERY suspicious. Another point: The "laws of physics" as they apply to this sort of thing are VERY complicated. Most people haven't a clue and think they are experts. It's going to be a lot like the "single bullet theory" of the Kennedy assassination. Even though it virtually a proven fact, not a theory, the conspiracy proponents will never give up on it!
Al K.
OMG! Johnathan, just let is go. it's only one oppinion, although it does matter, just let it go brother. Because you have proven your point to the ten thousandth power, and that is all that really matters.
As for his statement relitive to the single bullet theory, I know pretty sure what evidence he is basing that statement on, and it may indeed be factual, but the ultimatite motivation for that day has never been investigated completely. And that was more important.
That was then, this is now, and the conclusion you push JD is supported by solid mathimatical, engineering
evidence, your own personal knowledge of structural steel componets, as well as criminal procedural evidence, or lack there of. The lacking of procedural compliance is very compelling. Not to mention, what we saw with our own eyes as seven fell at that unobstructed speed.
What If I said that about Israel ... Would you give it up ... Brother?? What If I said that to David regarding Impeachment ... or to Vincent Bugliosi regarding prosecution all together?? Would they give it a rest??
And No ... the fact that I have proven my point here isn't all that matters. Me proving my point doesn't answer my specific questions to David and Chip. In fact ... Them refusing to anwer me is why I'm still pushing.
No i met what AL said. Just brush that asside.
I don't know whats up with swanson. I thik he has been totally focused on the events of this past week end.
And im wondering how that all went.
So, what ideas do you have to address this NIST report?
Other than what you have been doing here? I have some ideas, but I csn't tell you them, because, well, their illeagal. Nobody would get hurt mind you, only gov property damage. These are just ideas. The things I think about that make me go hmmmmm. And for you FBI agents monitering this, sorry, im not conspiring to comit criminal acts, oh and by the way, FUCK MEULLER!
You see the predictiment don't you JD? Anyway, you get the idea. That is where my mindset is. It's the only way to get their attention. Something, someone, is going to have to make a sacrifice. And even then there are too many stupid people who might not ever get it. you knoe "we have no king but ceaser". BTW up above I put that thing in sat morn ref battle ship row, uss arizona for you. For it to be of any value, you got to go look at all the photos of that battleship row stuff.
I went and did exactly what I was advising you not to do, so disregard my last transmission. I got sucked into the current warnning you to stay clear. Go figure. Its my nature I suppose.
Specifically...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alUOi8hwdLQ&feature=related
And I have many many more but what makes WTC 7 such a gem is that you dont need more...Scientific Method cuts through all beleif systems EVERYBODY can see this data ... It is indisputable!!!
I've boxed Many a Bush Toll into a wall with this and .... It feels wonderful I gotta tell you!!
Jonathan,
I am working today at a computer that has no audio at all. I can only view Utube clips. If it's the same video I have seen of building 7 falling, it really is NOT proof of anything in itself. Nobody has every intentionally set fire to a building like that to see what would happen. Controlled demolition has been done may times and the building MUST be prepared in advance to do it. It takes may weeks and it's obvious it's being done to everyone! Those are the only two ways that have been proposed about building 7 that I am aware of.
I just looked at the NIST report quickly. I didn't read it completely, but it makes sense to me.
Al K.
When you get a chance ... listen to it and you will see what I'm talking about. Look into this further ... really!! And after you do so tell me what part of the nist report ... specifically ... makes sense to you.
I never heard of "Thermite" until now. I don't know enough about it to conclude what it might have done had it been there. BUT: Would it have been noticed by people in the building that a large quantity of "something" was being applied to the structure? That was a BIG building and anything that could destroy it like that would have to have been delivered in large quantity. Someone would have noticed! I tend to take the position "It's most likely to be what it's most likely to be". I forget who said that, but it's true wisdom in my book. That says it's most likely to be the fire that did it. There is no question there was a big fire!
AL K.
If it's been proven that thermite WAS there I no longer have to prove HOW it got there. That's where the investigation part comes in ... an investigation which has clearly been obstructed for seven years now.
Please Al I don't expect you to have an epiphany at work but when you have time I respectfully refer you to my forum:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35718
Please ... look further your already almost there.
It's always good to look at evidence. Realize too that the presence of some material doesn't prove the quantity. Was there enough to do what is claimed? Maybe something that looks similar after a fire was being stored in the building someplace. It's known that diesel fuel was there. That burns pretty how too! Anyhow, I'll listen to the video when I get a chance.
AL k.
...if you haven't read the report, how can it make sense to you?
check these people out. They took time to read the report before talking about it. and they prepared several essays about it's validity.
http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/WTC_fire_sim_comparison_080912c.pdf
first time in history fire caused a steel framed building to collapse into it's own footprint through the path of greatest resistence? because of office fires?
and you buy that? Maybe you should take some time like Jon there suggests.
Johnathan,
I looked at the video. He raises a valid question. I also verified his temperature assumptions. They seem correct. This should be investigate by researching everything that was known to be stored in that building to see if anything could have caused the high temperatures. This should be investigated to put the point to rest. What seems obvious on the surface often is not. Just don't jump to conclusions until ALL the facts are in. The "physics" of this is VERY complicated. I would still like to know how the "termite" could have been put there without raising suspicion. Also, why in that building and not the towers? Why not other buildings nearby? If others, look to see if there is any still there. Again, "It's most likely to be what it's most likely to be".
Al k.
of course it was in the other towers; Towers 1 and 2... or do you think office fires caused them to implode as well?
And Al this ... unlike WTC Demolition ... Is only speculation on my part.
I find it interesting that George Bush's little Brother was in charge of the security company at the entire WTC site as well as both airlines involved and I believe the pentagon as well for quite some time before 9 11. He gave up his position of authority on the morning of 9 11 to a man that is now dead. That coupled with the 3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld had admitted "went missing from the defense departments budget" in a press conference he held on 9 10 and the fact that the leasor Larry Silverstien was complicit and stood to make billions. As well as the complicity of the president of the united states and all his minions... these people together were more than capable of pulling an opperation like this one off more so then nineteen muslems with box cutters. Take all that into account Al and you my friend have yourself a plausible explanation for How Demolition could take place. How did you put it ... "It's most likely to be what it's most likely to be".
I also find it interesting that the only functioning office in the newly renovated section of the pentagon that was hit that day was the office that was charged on 9 10 by Rumsfeld himself with tracking down exactly where those trillions disappeared to and what they were spent on. The picture of the book on a stool that was sitting out opened up and unburned at the pentagon ... that was a book an accountant was going over that morning, that accountant is now dead.
Money, means, and opportunity ....
Seriously Al ... I could go on speculating all day about such things as motive but I'm not going to. I only hope that you seriously look into WTC Demolition for yourself. Thank you for your time today. It is much appreciated.
Go Nader!!
...had you taken the time to read the NIST report, like I have, then you would already know that even NIST admits that the fuel in the building had nothing to do with the collapse. That's because the tanks didn't rupture and they were crushed (or blown apart?) when the building "collapsed"?.
JD TELL HIM THE IMPLICATIONS TO THAT STATEMENT, WHO EXACTLY SILVERSTEIN IS, HOW THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE PUBLICLLY AND HAS BEEN RECORDED ON VIDEO! TELL HIM!!!
hOW THAT RIGHT THERE IS AN ADMISSION! PLUS, ON WILLYLOMANS SITE, AMERICAN EVERYMAN, THERE IS A VIDEO, TWO FIREMAN AT A PAYPHONE, SOMEONE WAS SHOOTING VIDEO, THE BLD-7 WAS IN THE BACKGROUND, SUDDENLY, BOOOM!! THEY ALL JUMPED! TURNED TOWARD THE BLD-7, AND DOWN IT'S COMMING! IT WAS F U C K I N G DEMOLITION!!!
AL K, understand this, we didn't go lookin for this. we want to have it as you say it is. unfortunatly, it is not. ignoring it does not make everything ok. everything is not ok. I wish it was ok, but it's not.
this cannot be allowed to pass quietly. If you care, about your countries future, then you have a duty to yourself, your family, and to the future of this country, to give benifit of doubt to this truth, learn the facts, get informed, and join us. we didn't go looking for this. and this is not conspirscy theory nuttyness. somebody who is american as you, did this to us. And if the majority of americans choose to ignore this, much worse is in all our futures. We all have better things we'de like to do, but this thing has to be addressed quickly, or something far worse will be in our future. were not nutty people. well, I am, jd isnt, willyloman isnt, your not. so give it some study, and listen to the experts, what their telling us about this. NIST has been taken over by something that does not have the best interrest of American citizens as it's prioity.
Do it for you, for your family, for your countrys future. And be objective.
You fellows seem to imply that I have some insight or influence on the subject of building 7. I don't! I do believe that anyone who seriously thinks the subject needs further investigation (and I do) should support Ralph Nader. The two corporate stooge candidates won't bother! Here is a letter Nader wrote in support of a call for more investigation. It was taken from www.votenader.org :
http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/07/16/Kristof/
Al K.
That would go a long way ... what would Nader say on this subject? Ask him.
As if I had any pull with Ralph Nader! You give me too much credit!
You might try an email to one of the state coordinators you will find on www.votenader.org.
AL K.
But as the old saying goes ... the more the merrier.