You are herecontent / Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?

Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?

By David Swanson

[Remarks at September 15, 2007, impeachment rally in Miami, Fla., organized by ]

It's great to see such a crowd and so many groups represented. I especially want to thank Veterans for Peace. Dave Cline was a great leader and will be badly missed. We should all go out and do as much as he did with his admirable life.

On a lighter note, I went to a party yesterday in Washington, D.C. You might think we have very little to celebrate, but this was a party to say goodbye and good riddance to Alberto Gonzales!

You won’t hear much about it on the news, but a bill had been introduced in July to impeach Gonzales, and it was gaining support during the August recess. In fact a bunch of Congress Members added their names to the list of cosponsors this month even though Gonzales had already announced his resignation. This was not the first time that an effort to impeach helped force out an unjust attorney general. An effort to impeach Richard Nixon forced him out as well. An effort to impeach Harry Truman led to the Supreme Court checking his abuses of power. In fact the threat of impeachment is usually enough to restore a level of justice and democracy in Washington, D.C. A promise not to impeach, on the other hand, tends to encourage abuses of power and is itself an unconstitutional abuse of power.

I wanted to mention Gonzo's departure because it's the only good news I have. None of the policies that Gonzales advanced have been reversed, and we are unlikely to see an honest attorney general assume office anytime soon. Nine of the 10 articles of our Bill of Rights are in tatters. And they don't make us house soldiers in our homes (which is our tenth and sole remaining right) because they tax us to pay for barracks and bases in this country, plus dozens of permanent military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in fact about 1,000 permanent bases in nations all over the world. We have lost the right not to be detained and held without charge, the right not to be tortured, and the right not to be spied on in our homes. We have lost the World Trade Center, a piece of the Pentagon, and the city of New Orleans. We have moved dangerously close to the point of no turning back on global warming. We have encouraged the proliferation of weapons around the world, driven much of the world to hate our nation, and watched a general this week brag to Congress about how many weapons we are selling to Iraq. But the term "we" now refers to the private companies that will profit from the weapons sales, the private companies that our grandchildren will pay for the reconstruction of Iraq that never happened, and the private companies we enrich every time we stop at a gas station. We have lost the right to organize a labor union, and we are rapidly losing the right to protest. We are penned into Orwellian free speech zones or arrested for holding a sign on a street corner. Should a catastrophe hit the US, everything is in place for martial law. And while it cannot find the decency to hold Bush administration outlaws in contempt, our Congress holds peace activists in contempt of Congress, when the Capitol Police don't tackle and beat them in the halls of Congress. Well, I've got news for you. Not only is there a huge march and civil disobedience action today in Washington for peace and impeachment, but we are ready to hold Congress in contempt of the citizens of the United States of America.

Yesterday a second study was published. There have now been two studies done of how many Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of our invasion and occupation of their country. The first was done by Johns Hopkins over a year ago and has been updated by Just Foreign Policy. The second was done by a well-respected British organization. The results of each study fall within the margin of error of the other. We are responsible for the deaths of between 1.1 and 1.3 million Iraqis. Another 4 million Iraqis out of a population of 25 million have been displaced from their homes, half of them to other countries. Most Iraqis lack adequate water and electricity. Half the nation needs emergency assistance. A quarter of the children are malnourished. And more than that number are traumatized and filled with hatred. A majority of Iraqis say things are getting worse and want the US occupation ended. The progress General Petraeus talks about not only is based on numbers he won't explain, not only is based on claims disputed by numerous other sources, but it's also progress that the Iraqi people haven't seen.

Make no mistake, the occupation is a bigger disaster for Iraqis, for our troops, and for our safety each year and each month that passes. We're dropping five times the bombs this year as last year, including 30 tons of cluster bombs in the first six months of 2007. If Bush and Cheney had unlimited troops, they would send another half million to Iraq. And the Iraqi people would still not be pacified. Bush is bringing a minimal number of troops home for only one reason. He has to. He has no more troops to send. This is not a victory for Petraeus or for Congress. This is a victory for the counter-recruitment movement. If you want to make a difference, go to schools and tell kids the truth about military service. Get a book called "Army of None."

Nothing in Iraq is getting better, and nothing is about to get better. Petraeus is arming one religious sect to kill another and measuring success by body counts. Every body he counts is 10 friends and relatives eager to kill the occupiers. This is not a war that can be won or lost. It is an occupation and a crime, and we must stop committing it! According to Republicans in Congress the real danger lies in people who would dare question the authority of a general. I set up a website called, so I must be part of the real problem. But then so must Petraeus's boss, Admiral Fallon, who calls him (and you'll have to excuse me, but these are his words), "an ass kissing little chicken shit."

Somehow the Bush White House seems to attract an unfair share of ass kissing little chicken shits. I watched Bush's speech the other night on ABC, in which Bush admitted, as his report yesterday effectively admitted, that none of the so-called benchmarks had been met. Senator Reed gave a good but vague and non-committal Democratic response. And then George Stephanopoulos of ABC, something of an ass-kissing little chicken shit himself, came on and immediately explained what it all meant. He didn't remind anyone of all the promises Bush had made back in January. Instead he announced that the Democrats can talk about ending the so-called war but cannot do anything about it because they don't have 67 Democrats in the Senate.

Let's get one thing straight: that is a lie. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can announce tomorrow and could have announced nine months, several hundred troops, and tens of thousands of Iraqis ago, that they will not bring up any more bills to fund the occupation. A Republican proposal to fund the occupation could be blocked by 41, not 67, Senators. The Democrats could also pass bills ending the occupation or funding only the withdrawal and have them vetoed and pass them again and again. This is no secret and there is no dispute that Congress has this power. Senator Feingold held hearings at the start of the year at which experts overwhelmingly agreed that Congress can simply stop providing funding. Bush has plenty of money to bring the troops home, and Congress can provide new money for that purpose.

Congress can provide funds for the reconstruction of Iraq by Iraqis. Congress can encourage the United Nations and the Arab League to organize transition efforts. Congress can ban the use of any funds for an attack on Iran. It's only a question of will.

There's no question of where the public stands. which I work for commissioned a polling company this week to ask the public what it wanted.

Forty percent said they wanted all troops home in 6 months, using existing fund to do it.

Another 14 percent want them home in 6 months and will pay $50 billion to make it happen.

Another 19 percent want them home in a year and will pay $200 billion for it.

And 13 percent want what Congress is considering doing, giving Bush another $200 billion with no strings attached.

Seventy-nine Congress members, including only two Floridians, Corrine Brown and Alcee Hastings, have signed a letter saying they won't vote for more money unless it "redeploys" the troops by January 2009. This effort is led by Progressive Caucus chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey. Woolsey is getting a lot of heat in DC right now because someone published the transcript of a private conference call on which she advocated pushing primary challenges to pro-war Democrats. But Lynn is not only right morally. Hers is a pro-Democratic Party position. Primaries are good for a party as well as a country. And the leadership of the Democratic Party is in very bad shape right now. They have made clear that their goal is to keep the occupation of Iraq and Bush and Cheney around until November 2008, believing that will help them win elections. Rahm Emanuel has told the Washington Post this, and Congressional staffers tell me this frequently. And the occupation and impeachment fit together, not just because there are so many impeachable offenses related to the occupation, but also because trying to end the occupation would lead to impeachment.

Congressman Brad Sherman asked Petraeus what he would do if Congress ended the occupation but Bush illegally kept it going. Petraeus said he'd have to ask his lawyer. But Sherman was right to assume that Bush will not end the occupation as long as impeachment is off the table, which is one more reason the Democrats will avoid a serious effort to end the occupation unless we force them to act. The thinking on the Hill right now is that if enough Democrats sign that letter and stand firm, Pelosi will go with a bill to please Republicans and win their votes. Pelosi operates in accordance with George Stephanopoulos's myth that she simply must pass a bill, any bill. In fact, when you get away from the topic of war, on every other issue this Congress can address, the consensus among Democrats is that they have two choices. One is to pass atrocities like the Protect America Act, which Bush will sign. That was the bill that erased the fourth amendment and legalized unconstitutional spying. When they get around to the "Love, Harmony, and Joy" Act, you can be sure we're all about to be killed.

The second option, as they see it, is to pass bills and have them vetoed. Of course they know in advance that it's all theater, that their bills are destined to be vetoed, but they view their whole job as an election campaign, and they don't think the public will catch on to what they're doing.

I think there's a third option. Impeach Bush and Cheney, remove them from office, and then pass bills that mean something.

With Bush and Cheney in office, even bills that are signed into law are altered or reversed with signing statements. And these are not just empty statements. The Government Accountability Office studied a sample of Bush's signing statements and found that in 30 percent of them, his administration has proceeded to violate the laws that he announced he had the right to violate. So, while I applaud groups like the ACLU again and again pushing to redundantly recriminalize torture, I long for the ACLU of 1973 that had the decency to stand for impeachment.

Depicting Pelosi and Reid as sheep in ads is all very good, but not if we're sheep too, not if we go along with the removal of impeachment from the Constitution which leaves Congress with nothing to be other than sheep.

The purpose of impeachment is not just to take back control of our government, not just to end an occupation, not just to prevent an attack on Iran. The purpose of impeachment is to inform future presidents that they must obey laws. But this is not something that concerns many Congress members. Their chief concern tends to be whether the next president will belong to their party.

Twenty Congress members have signed onto H Res 333, Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney. Many more signed onto the Gonzales bill or signed on during the last Congress to the Conyers bill for a preliminary impeachment investigation. And others have said publicly or privately that they favor impeachment. But these members have not signed onto Kucinich's bill on Cheney and have not introduced their own on Cheney or Bush. I've spoken to a lot of them and their staff and to constituents who've spoken to them. They have about 15 excuses, most of which are very easily rejected, a few of which it is going to be very hard but not impossible for us to get around.

Excuse #1: You can't judge articles of impeachment prior to a committee investigation. That gets the process out of order:

This is a complaint with Kucinich's bill, which lays out three specific charges against Cheney. Inslee's bill on Gonzales got around this by simply proposing that the Judiciary Committee investigate whether Gonzales had committed impeachable offenses. A new bill could do the same for Bush and Cheney and would not have to be wholly devoid of content. It could suggest the area or areas of inquiry.

Excuse #2. We don't have all the facts we need in order to impeach.

Well, of course that's what an impeachment investigation is for. But in fact we do have the facts. The Judiciary Committee passed an article of impeachment against Nixon for refusing to comply with subpoenas. Bush and Cheney and Rice have indisputably refused to comply with subpoenas. That one is an instant impeachment. Just add backbone. The signing statements is another instant impeachment. So is Bush's confessed violation of FISA, although it is complicated politically by Congress's recent legalization of this crime. Bush is on videotape being warned about Hurricane Katrina and on videotape claiming he wasn't. He and Cheney are on videotape lying about the reasons for war, and the evidence that they knew they were lying is overwhelming. That is the impeachable offense our founding fathers most worried about. James Madison and George Mason both argued as well at the Constitutional Convention that impeachment would be needed if a president ever pardoned a crime that he himself was involved in. The commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence (another notable ass-kissing little chicken shit) is another obvious impeachment. The list is endless. Congressman Conyers has published a lengthy book documenting many of the felonies and abuses of power.

Excuse #3: Impeachment would take too long.

Nixon took 3 months. Clinton took 2. They've spent 9 thus far avoiding it, and with very little to show for it. Impeachment for refusal to comply with subpoenas would take one day.

Excuse #4: Impeachment would distract from other things.

Yeah? Like what? Since when is restoring the Bill of Rights a distraction? A distraction from funding wars and legalizing spying is fine with me. A distraction from passing bills that will be vetoed does not worry me.

Excuse #5: We need to focus on ending the war.

OK, but if you focus on ending the war for two full years and don't actually end it, I wish you luck getting people to turn out next November. When Congress moved toward impeachment of Nixon, it found the nerve to end a war, and he backed off on his veto threats. Congress passed a menu of progressive legislation in part because of, not despite, the impeachment threat hanging over Nixon. And ultimately of course impeachment is going to be needed to end the current occupation of Iraq.

Excuse #6: Impeachment would be divisive.

Actually that's not true among Democrats. Eighty percent favor impeachment. But as far as bipartisan harmony on Capitol Hill goes, the dangers of creating divisiveness is sort of like the danger of violence breaking out if we leave Iraq. It's too late already! And it's too late because the Republicans never give a damn for bipartisan harmony. Were they in the majority with a Democratic president holding the all-time record for unpopularity, they would long ago have impeached him and forced every Democratic Congress member to either defend him or run away from their own party. Does anybody remember Al Gore picking Joe Lieberman as a running mate and pretending he'd never met Bill Clinton? That was the result of an impeachment without a Senate conviction. (John Nichols says: impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. It's the cure for the one we're in. Aspirin is not a headache crisis. Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis.)

Excuse #7: We don't have the votes in the House to impeach.

Well, you would if Pelosi whipped on it. And Congress members back bills all the time that are not predicted to pass. If their colleagues fail to join them, that's between their colleagues and their colleagues' constituents. And again, impeachment usually does its work without getting all the way to impeachment. A move to impeach for refusal to comply with subpoenas, for example, might result in compliance with subpoenas. And it is the only thing that might. Holding people in contempt through the courts will take forever and probably fail. Inherent contempt is a tool Congress doesn't have the backbone for. And Congress is not about to use either type of contempt against Bush or Cheney.

Excuse #8: We don't have the votes in the Senate to convict.

Well, you might if you put the crimes on television and if the house impeached. But you would do good for the nation and Democrats would do good for their party even with a Senate acquittal. Nothing would better identify for the public the Senators who need to be thrown out of office. And impeachment even without conviction would reverse the public perception of Democrats as having no spine. They may hold even in the next election without impeaching anyone or getting us out of Iraq, but if they want to win new seats, and if they want to win the White House with a large enough margin to not have the election stolen, they will reverse their current position and act!

Excuse #9: I won't sign onto Kucinich's bill because he hasn't asked me to, and he's a liberal, and he's running for president.

Well, yes, dear Congressman or Congresswoman, but this is the government of the world's largest and most powerful empire. This isn't high school. We expect you to sign onto a bill based on the merits of it, or to introduce your own.

Excuse #10: You can't impeach over policy differences because you don't like war. You have to impeach for a crime.

Well, Kucinich's bill charges Cheney with the felony that involves misleading Congress and with the crime of threatening war on Iran. Cheney is on videotape doing so. Conyers' book lists lots of felonies. But in fact, not every crime is an impeachable offense and not every impeachable offense is a crime. When Nixon cheated on his taxes or Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it under oath, no impeachable offenses were committed. When Nixon lied to the public or when Bush ignored warnings prior to 9/11, no crimes were committed, but the offenses were impeachable.

Excuse #11: If I backed impeachment, the media would be mean to me.

Yes, Congressman; Yes, Congresswoman. And if you don't people will die. Which is worse? A majority backs impeachment now for Cheney and a majority or close to it for Bush. Those numbers will go up, not down, if you act, regardless of what the media says. You know those 18 percent of Americans who approve of the job you're doing? Even they don't like the media. No campaign email raises more money than one that begins, "Fox News just attacked me."

That's 11 excuses so far. I think those 11 can be refuted. The next four are harder to get around.

Excuse #12: Impeachment would make Bush and Cheney sympathetic and rally people around them.

The idea of making Cheney in particular an object of sympathy may seem ludicrous. But then so did the idea that Saddam Hussein was about to attack us with unmanned aerial vehicles. Common sense is not enough in Washington. We need hard numbers. I think Congress should start with Cheney and watch as Republicans are forced to abandon him. The Republicans would have done this to the Democrats years ago. The idea that impeachment would help Bush and Cheney originated in Republican National Committee talking points published in May 2006. Pelosi immediately adopted the idea as her own. It flies in the face of the historical record. When the Republicans have moved impeachment, as against Truman for example, they've benefited at the polls. When the Democrats tried to impeach Nixon, who was popular compared to Cheney or Bush, they won huge victories. When they promised not to impeach Reagan, they lost in the next elections. The exceptional case is the Clinton impeachment which was uniquely unpopular. Nonetheless, the Republicans hung onto both houses of Congress and the White House. In fact, they lost very few seats, fewer than is the norm at that point in the tenure of a majority in Congress. The Democrats may be risking more by not impeaching than they would be by doing it. But unless we can get polls done in swing districts that show overwhelmingly that the Democrats will lose seats by not impeaching, they are unlikely to act. This is what their staffers tell me. And polls showing they'd gain seats by impeaching may not be enough, if they think they'd do OK without it. And we'll have to show that Republicans save their seats by backing impeachment if we want any Republicans to act. Of course this is all utterly disgusting. Human life and the future of democracy are not concerns that even come up. It's all about elections.

Excuse #13: Impeachment would remind people of Bill Clinton.

Well, would that be so horrible? I was no fan of Bill Clinton, but compared to Bush and Cheney he looks like a saint.

Excuse #14: Nancy Pelosi opposes impeachment.

Excuse #15: Hillary Clinton opposes impeachment.

The way we bring them around is to show that the Democrats have a better chance at the White House as the party with backbone and integrity than as the party that just isn't the Republicans.

So, what can we do?

Raise your hand if to get rid of Bush you'd do for him what Monica did for Bill.

Nine patriotic Americans! Thank you!

OK. May not be needed. There's a saying that goes like this: let's save our pessimism for better times.

We cannot afford the luxury of pessimism. While there are things Congress refuses to even consider, like ending the occupation or impeaching Cheney or Bush, there are also things that we as citizens have a responsibility to consider but rarely do. We can shut down our Congress members' offices with endless repeated sit-ins. We can make it impossible for them to work. That changes the whole calculation. We can shut down the city of Washington. The next big march is on the 29th, following a camp in front of the Capitol from the 22nd to the 29th. If we bring a million people and on the 29th refuse to leave, if we block the streets and fill the jails, all bets and probably all wars are off.

Whether we can manage such feats or not, if we keep building and pushing an impeachment movement, not only do we communicate to the world our good intentions, but we are prepared should some new event help trigger a pulse in the corpse of Congress. And let us hope that event is not an attack on Iran.

We can also organize in and do polling in swing districts to try to show the electoral advantage to be gained from doing the right thing.

We can also keep pressuring key Congress members like Congressman Wexler and Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz. We can do this through local media activism, PR, letters to editors, calls to shows, through visits, phone calls, emails, faxes, letters, post cards, posters, billboards, through honk-to-impeach events where you hold posters saying "Honk to Impeach" at the side of the street outside their offices, and through events where we sit in and read the Constitution aloud, refusing to leave.

We can also take our demands directly to the people Congress listens to: the media. The fact is that if we had had Fox News and if the other outlets had been in 1974 what they are now, Nixon would never have resigned. Today, the media do not cover the crimes, the evidence, or the public outrage, and do not poll the public's opinions on impeachment. We forced the Downing Street minutes into the news two-and-a-half years ago by flooding the media with phone calls, emails, and protests in their lobbies. That needs to continue.

Taking the all-consuming focus off the elections that are over a year away would give us a healthier democracy, but we also need to think in terms of electoral threats, or we are taking our power off the table the same way Congress has. We should promote primary challengers who use the issue of impeachment. We should promote third party general election challengers who use the issue of impeachment. Many are already doing so. To refuse to make these challenges is to fail to grasp the gravity of our situation. In terms of the presidential race, there is something we've not considered. If every person who likes Dennis Kucinich but believes he can't win were to send him $100, he would win quite easily and influence Congress immediately.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

No sleep till impeachment.

Thank You.

* photos by Alan Kobrin

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

But I really think it's too late for all this now. We were stupid, sleepwalking, in a coma for far to long and now we wake up to realize we are solidly in the grip of a death loving, war mongering fascist movement. They have the reigns of power and will not let go. Impeachment will simply provoke a declaration of martial law at this point. The Democratic "opposition" obviously does not have the stones for that fight and seemingly would rather maintain itself in some "Vichyesque" form rather than risk annihilation in the face of a regime which does not scruple at all. Environmental catastrophe is begining all around us, and peak oil as well as resource depletion in general are knocking on the door right now. We'll be lucky to avoid a nuclear war in the next ten years, as right-wing thinkers have advocated for decades some sort of program for worldwide de-population. Long ago, I met and interviewed a Polish Jew who as a teenager survived the Nazi occupation by fleeing into the forest and living there like a hunted animal for all of the years of WWII. He said that occasionally storm-troopers would come into the forests for some distance looking for people to round up but that being a single person "gone to ground" he was essentially unfindable. Without a significant split in the military to back it up with real force, I see no way that this regime can be meaningfully confonted, and that includes impeachment. They will happily grind us up as individuals; Thoreau never confronted a regime anywhere near as vicious and unprincipled as this one. The United States is finished. The Supreme Court was our Lee Harvey Oswald and we, like JFK, will never recover. Ultimately global warming and peak resources will guarantee that the world as we know it is finished as well. We are the Titanic, our captain steered us straight into the ice-field at full steam and now we are going down. Stop your economic contributions to the machine as well as you can. Decrease your income to decrease the number of bombs and bullets they can buy with your taxes. Forget new cars and flat-screen TVs. And think about when you will step off of this sinking ship with your strapped-together deck chairs so that you don't get sucked under.

Congress listens to, the media."

Good work, David.

I'm trying to determine how many local events the media managed to ignore yesterday. When I search for coverage of the Miami event, nothing comes up in the corporate media. Ditto for ours in San Francisco.

I'd like to compile a list so Readers' Reps can be confronted with what looks like a blackout.

And, how do we get you to Pelosi's district in San Francisco?


Re: The Senate & convivtion

> Well, you might if you put the crimes on television and if the house impeached.

What's the evidence that by putting it on tv, that Senators will change their mind? Highlights from Clinton's impeachment investigations and senate trial constantly made it on the evening news while C-SPAN and NPR covered most of it. Did it change Republicans minds then. No. What evidence can you show that this is exactly whaty will happen? I want to believe it but it all sounds presumptious to say one will lead to another.

As for Congressmen and women losing their seats if they don't impeach, that all sounds like a leap of faith because Nancy Pelosi is not going to get ousted on impeachment alone, especially "after all the bacon she brings to her district" and political clout she has on the hill. I don't think people in her district will want to sacrifice that.

I live in Vermont and Senate Judiciary chairman Pat Leahy said in a Vermont Daily Briefing interview that impeachment ISN'T going to happen. Leahy says:

Well, impeachment is not going to happen. You need a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which is just not gonna happen. We could spend all our time on that, or we can do the things I’ve done, Waxman has done, on oversight — on spending, US Attorneys and all the rest, which is turning out to be fairly successful.

Leahy is an admirable and truthful person. He knows these things and has an excellent grasp on the Senate. We can go ahead and impeach but it's going to take a lightning strike for this to happen, especially when Pelosi, Waxman, Conyers, and Leahy, the key people we need to make this happen, all say it can't.

So my question is, how do we get around this? AND LET'S KEEP THIS DISCUSSION CIVIL AND SUPPORTIVE PLEASE!

The constant need to project a result seems to me, anyway, a big part of the problem in our government at this moment. Everyone is so focused on a projected result that the lawful processes that have made our democracy possible get short circuited -- and, boom, we have ourselves a self fulfilling prophecy.

I respect Senator Leahy. But, the Senate does not impeach, the House does. And it's not clear to me that it's up to him or any elected representative to tell the citizenry what they need.

is a key word in what you quoted but possibly didn't read

i didn't say a word about pelosi losing her election

What happened to Nancy's promise that she would seek Bush's impeachment once she was named to office?? Another lie!!! (Can't stand when that happens.) For sure, she needs to be booted, for exactly the reasons you note. But let's be real... that is, indeed, a pipe dream. Instead...we need to put unrelenting pressure on the Democratic presidential front-runner (who, by the way, according to this week's edition of The Economist, will be Hillary--surprise!) to END THE SO-CALLED WAR IN IRAQ. Make her EARN her votes from us. Once she's in office, we need to hold her feet to the fire to make sure she does not slide back into the pit of lies that all the others are wallowing in. It's the only way. The current pack of pigs--whether Demo or Repug--is so entrenched in the status quo that we're stalled until the Anti-Christ leaves his (illegally gotten) post.


Thank you again for coming to Miami to speak to us. It was an inspiration.

You Said:

"If every person who likes Dennis Kucinich but believes he can't win..."


No one should be inhibited from fulfilling their moral obligations by fear of failure.

It may be an accurate estimation to believe he can't win the nomination. But it does not relieve his sympathizers of the obligation to support him (same for us Ron Paul supporters).

We can't know in advance what will happen. But there is a critical mass of social pressure that would turn the tide; it is a value impossible to calibrate. Thus, we are obliged to do our part, even as success seems unlikely.

It worked for us back in the Vietnam war era.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

---anthropologist Margaret Mead

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who do nothing"

---physicist Albert Einstein

You Said:

"Raise your hand if to get rid of Bush you'd do for him what Monica did for Bill.

Nine patriotic Americans! Thank you!"

As I shouted from the audience, "You're not raising your hand, David!"

(no, I wasn't one of the patriotic nine either).

But I did strain a muscle in my back holding my bike up for that photo. Never thought a muscle strain could feel good.

And it sure won't stop me from continuing to display the IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY sign around downtown Miami every business day.

Maybe it's just me, but I seem to be getting more positive reactions lately.

As my friend, The Question Everything Lady

who accompanied me would say:

Peace 2U

---The Bikemessenger

No one has been harder on Pelosi than I have, but something is really wrong here. Pelosi acknowledges that Bush should be impeached, but the reasons for not impeaching--AS EVERYONE KNOWS-- are lame at best. Is it possible that we are not being told that the Democrat Leadership has been threatened with their lives and the lives of their families?
Just look who received Anthrax? The Democrat Leaders and the news media.

At yesterday's march one of the right-wing nuts stated that Al Qaeda was going to do something in America. What he said was chilling. Where does that come from? Is that the right-wing planting more fear? It certainly is something to be considered as these criminals will do anything and say anything to remain in power by the use of fear and fear alone.

Maybe that's the black-flag hanging over our heads in order to give Bush & Company the permission to bomb Iran.

Not to be an alarmist, but something is coming to give Bush the vote to bomb Iran before 2008. They will not slip silently into the background or give power to the Democrats peacefully. And, they certainly will not leave without taking out Iran.



You say:

"Is it possible that we are not being told that the Democrat Leadership has been threatened with their lives and the lives of their families?"

No it IS'NT possible. You take the Democrats and Republicans to be two separate parties. This is a false facade you need to start seeing through.

"They will not slip silently into the background or give power to the Democrats peacefully."

Of course they will. That's the understanding between the two factions of the war party. They have an unwritten (I presume) agreement to compete with each other for office, even allowing dirty, under-handed tactics.

But whomever loses can always count on the winner to provide an acceptable consolation prize for the "loser".

What makes it work is that the spoils need only be divided two ways. The "loser's" incentive is to cooperate.

Doesn't that explain the Democrats behavior a little better than just "spinelessness"? Is John Kerry a coward? Is John Murtha? They fought and were wounded in Vietnam. I didn't, so I'm no one to question their courage. Are you?

Ask anyone associated with a third party about the resources they must invest in achieveing ballot access. Resources the Republicans and Democrats need not expend, since they are "established".

This is the real purpose of campaign finance "reform". By limiting the amount an individual can contribute, those that lack broad support are barred from acquiring backing from wealthy benefactors. The Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have the expertise to work around and the resources to cope with restrictions that strangle the competition.

Up until the middle of the last century, third parties played an essential and vital part in our political system.

There were always two established major parties. But whenever one or both got too out of touch with the will of the people, a third party would rise up to fill the void, pressuring the major parties with their threat to upset the status quo.

This, ironically, chronicles the assent of the Republicans. Those were the days of the two-party system. Long gone; replaced by today's TWO PARTIES ONLY system.

A subtle difference, perhaps. But an extreme and critical one, as a two-parties ONLY system rapidly disolves into "by-partisanship".

And by-partisanship = single-party rule.

"At yesterday's march one of the right-wing nuts stated that Al Qaeda was going to do something in America...Is that the right-wing planting more fear? It certainly is something to be considered as these criminals will do anything and say anything to remain in power by the use of fear and fear alone."

And so here we are, in Unfree Socialist/Fascist America, ruled by THE WAR PARTY.

"Not to be an alarmist, but something is coming to give Bush the vote to bomb Iran before 2008...they certainly will not leave without taking out Iran."

Be an "alarmist"; look at who you're talking about. How can anyone entertain the notion that bush is capable of sitting out the next 16 months and not playing with his nuclear toys at least once?

What else does he have left to counter Iranian influence, achieve "regime change" and prevent them from acquiring the nuclear weapons no one has any proof they're striving towards?

On the other hand, he might just declare martial law, formally suspend the Constitution...

That might buy Iran some time. But don't expect the Democrats to lose any sleep (or jobs) over it.

---The Bikemessenger

Sorry Robert, You are WRONG. Nice try at deflecting my point.
We are dealing with real black-ops killers doing the work of the Bush Crime Family.

The Republican Party is of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation, while the Democrats are truly of the people by the people and for the people. THE TWO PARTIES ARE VERY DIFFERENT.


Sorry, Harry, but I've observed too many election cycles, over too many decades to not figure out whats going on here.

It's the inevitable consequence of the opportunity to forceably eliminate competition and the need to maintain the illusion of competition.

If you look at history, you find that in most wars involving this country, it was the Democrats that got us entangled.

Here's a good starting point for you

if you're interested in learning history rather than repeating it.

"The people", according to polls, when taken, would favor impeachment if there were indications of lying to obtain support for war.

"The people", favor withdrawal from Iraq.

The Democrats have enough power now to do something about both.


---The Bikemessenger

I am not naive and have lived a very long time so if someone relayed to me a suspician that "corporate" had the power to end a life, I would agree. I am sure this has already happened here in my country. So to say that "they" could not threaten or do harm to someone is naive.

It does not take courage for a young person to be brainwashed to go fight a war. John Kerry was no hero for having done so. If I were from Massachusetts, I would never vote for that asshole.

I did vote for him as the lesser of two evils, but due to supreme incompetence he "lost" the election. It was hard work but he managed to "lose" an election against a known idiot. The truth is I don't think he intended to "win" the election even though it had to be stolen for him to "lose."

John Kerry -- a man with an ass-full of courage and a head full of something else.

In fact, I would be relieved if that were the case. But unfortunately, I'm afraid it's a real possibility that it might be Diebold's "fault" in Ohio - if you can call intentional fraud a "fault" :( Unless you are implying Kerry was complicit in his own "loss"? Interesting thought, and am open to anything at this point...



You're probably right.

Kerry's courage may be "all in his ass"; be that as it may, courage is still a fundamental virtue.

But it's a virtue sometimes displayed by those lacking in other essential virtues.

And if he was indeed "brainwashed" in re. Vietnam, he seemed to overcome it, at least with regards to that particular war (although, admittedly, not the underlying principles; applicable to the current conflict).

That the election was "thrown" is certainly a plausable theory at the very least.

Didn't the head of Diebold give a speech in Ohio in which he promised a Republican victory?

However, it would still be unfair to compare the character of John Kerry with that of the current White House resident.

If you're unfamiliar with the details of the chimp's "service", I recently summarized them here:

---The Bikemessenger

P.S.---On a parallel issue, I see conscription being resumed in the near future. If you know anyone of military age, they need the moral clarity that comes from watching this video,"Don't Go":'t_Go/dontgo.html

(I can't figure why this won't link, but you can cut and paste it)

Along with two others, I thought they make an an excellent trilogy for our times:

you guys are upside down!!!!!!! I don't even know what to say to you, you are so screwed up.

go fly a kite, dickhead! get out of here, this is where progressives come to talk. we don't need no steenking cucaracha bastards like you in here leaving your sniveling editorial comments that mean 'zero' to anyone with a three digit intelligence quotient, something you repblican bastards totally are incapable of. go away!!!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.