Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Enough is Enough

Recent revelations including the Pentagon’s use of retired military officers as spokesmen for the war that they personally profited from, the Congressional report that the administration absolutely lied to the American people and to Congress to push us into war with Iraq, the new book by former Press Secretary Scott McClellen which documents the fact that Bush himself had a hand in the outing of a covert agent of the CIA and now the report “Broken Laws, Broken Lives” on medical evidence of torture by the US conclusively proving that the United States government used torture on detainees, have fused to form an unassailable case for impeaching both Bush and Cheney. The only thing preventing impeachment and continuing to protect the President and Vice President is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

There are others in Congress who were elected by Democratic majorities in their home states who now represent the Republican agenda through the miracle of corporate munificence. These Blue Dog “Democrats” are so in name only and are ruinous to the Progressive core of our Party, but this treacherous faction of Democrats are merely cheerleaders for the Speaker and her refusal to do her job. Pelosi alone holds the key to success or failure for any legislation regarding impeachment and she has long ago stated that the option was off the table. By itself that statement should be grounds for her removal from office, if only we had that option, but together with her knowledge and approval of Bush’s torture program it makes her an accomplice to his crime.

The citizens of this country can no longer wait for action by its elected officials and have begun to initiate necessary actions on their own. The Massachusetts School of Law is planning the necessary steps to pursue the guilty members of the Bush administration for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Individual across the nation have taken steps to force local governments to acknowledge Bush and Cheney as criminals and even seek to arrest them if found within their jurisdiction. Internationally, Bush administration officials, CIA officers and others connected to this administration past and present, are being sought to answer for crimes conducted against their citizens and against humanity.

It is no longer permissible for Speaker Pelosi to run interference for Bush and company without herself being held criminally complicit. She has no legal foundation for not beginning the process of impeachment by sponsoring and prioritizing Rep. Kucinich’s articles of impeachment. It is similarly imperative that the United States government get out in front on the prosecution of this administration that is sure to take the spot light on the world stage once Bush leaves office and the US rejoins the International Criminal Court Treaty.

Sunday, June 08, 2008


An uprising is exactly what this country needs if this war is ever to end. David Sirota's new book does a great job in outlining what an uprising is, how it applies in our current situation and the mentality and attitude required of the participants. Specifically, the unapologetic demands required by the grass roots movement to convince incumbents of the need for their compliance with the citizen majority instead of their usual capitulation to the corporate special interests that rule their worlds.

Here in Connecticut there is a particular sensitivity and lingering blemish on the souls of Democratic voters who have been bitterly disappointed by the junior Senator, Joe Lieberman. His deception of his loyal supporters, alliance with Karl Rove and other extremists on the Right, embrace of Republican cross-over voters, and total relinquishment of his integrity in support of George Bush's Iraq war, have culminated in a tangible hatred of the once trusted official. Lieberman exudes indifference towards his (former) supporters while displaying an attitude of incontestable rectitude about his worldview which includes continued and continuing war in the Middle East. Couple this with his shameless and transparent support and constant companionship to the only surviving war advocate candidate and Connecticut voters have every right to distrust and despise the Senator.

In spite of this, Senator Lieberman Chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees at the pleasure of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Chairmanship posts are highly regarded positions normally awarded to respected Party members with seniority status. Of course, Lieberman renounced his Party membership when the Connecticut Democratic Party elected Ned Lamont in the Primaries in 2006, so Lieberman ran on the CFL (Connecticut For Lieberman) Party ticket and lost his seniority and position within the Democratic Party. Why has Harry Reid passed over loyal current Party members to award the Committee Chairmanship to a defector?

As much as we have focused attention on repugnant Republicans and their scandalous actions in this administration, as well as the last, we need to also recognize those Democrats who have shamed themselves and our Party and make them uncomfortably aware of our displeasure. This includes the votes by Connecticut Representatives to condemn for expressing a Constitutionally protected opinion, which was both fair and correct, regarding the report by General Petraeus to Congress. Most of these individuals accepted campaign donations of thousands of dollars and other support from MoveOn, yet they voted to condemn a statement questioning the accuracy of the report to Congress by an unapologetic partisan of the administration which, frankly, paled in comparison to much of the rhetoric heard from the Republicans both in venom and dishonesty. Where is the apology due to MoveOn by Murphy, DeLauro, Larson and Courtney?

If an Uprising is at hand, let's get our own house in order before we take on the world.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Lieberman's Dilemma

As disappointing as John McCain’s behavior seems to be we can at least take heart in the knowledge that his most outspoken supporter, the moral and ethical Joseph Lieberman, will no longer be promoting his candidacy. Joe’s strong moral fiber and sense of justice will obviously prevent him from allowing the elevation to the highest office a man whose “infidelity must be viewed as immoral, disgraceful and damaging to the country”. At least that is how Lieberman described the conduct of one William Jefferson Clinton in exactly the same situation McCain now finds himself, and Clinton was a member of his own Party at the time.

With such unshakable principles and solid moral values it is unimaginable that our once Democratic Senator will possibly continue to support his new friend, John McCain. His willingness to break ranks with his own Party over Clinton’s sexual exploits demonstrates Lieberman’s integrity, wholesomeness and advanced sense of decency that he applies to himself and others.

So, if Joe is morally prevented from supporting McCain, who will he throw his support to that can meet his high ethical standards? Don’t forget, Joe has a war to win and defense contracts to fulfill and the entire Middle East to conquer, but he must accomplish this while only supporting sexually moral individuals. Who can he find that will order more American forces to their deaths and the continued carnage and murder of innocent Iraqis while remaining faithful to their spouse? Who, in any political Party shares Joe’s pious view that unceasing butchery, slaughter, bloodshed and atrocities pale in comparison to sexual infidelity?

Somewhere out in the political landscape there must exist a paragon of Old Testament virtues with whom Joe can enter into a sacred covenant of warfare and faithfulness. Party affiliation is not an impediment for Lieberman. He proved that when he defied his own Party in the 06 mid-term elections, accepting Karl Rove’s assistance that got him re-elected by Connecticut Republicans (and some dim-witted Democrats). The only matter of any importance to Lieberman is the perpetuation of armed conflicts in the Middle East relentlessly prosecuted by a Commander in Chief that can be relied upon to keep his dick in his trousers when not with his wife.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Who won the Debate, the Candidates or the Media?

Last night’s debate began by focusing on the dust up between Clinton and Obama, leaving Edwards on the sidelines where the Main Stream Media has wanted him throughout this campaign. His only participation in that early discussion was framed by NBC so that viewers would see him as the “establishment white male” against the new and progressive ethnic and female candidates.

As for the racial controversy spurred on by both Clinton and Obama staffers, thankfully they seem to have checked the rhetoric and focused on issues instead of each other.

Edwards, for his part, sincerely praised the Democratic Party for being the Party of diversity and said he was proud to be in a Party that has offered an African American and a female as serious presidential candidates. He did not express any disappointment or resentment for being in what some consider a disadvantaged position, rather he displayed gratitude for the opportunity to openly discuss his views for people to compare with the other candidates.

The most important issue that came out of last night’s debate for me was the evidence of the media’s usurpation of the electoral process. The day of the debate saw one of the originally invited participants uninvited followed by a court battle that resulted in a ruling that NBC must include Congressman Kucinich or the court would block the debate. The judgment was appealed and since no appellate decision was made by the time of the debate NBC had effectively overturned the decision of the first court and inflicted their judgment of which candidates are viable on the American public.

The debate was hosted by NBC and moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert. Williams has said he feels it is his duty to listen daily to Rush Limbaugh, one of the most egregious of the Right wing broadcasters. Russert’s show, Meet the Press, was identified by Vice President Dick Cheney’s press secretary as the one place they go to when Cheney needs to go on air and they can “control the message”. Russert has also publicly stated that he considers all conversations with politicians “off the record” unless agreed to in advance, which is the antithesis of good journalism.

The networks and cable news channels all want to host their own debate and the candidates have cooperated with the exception of the Democrats refusing to debate on the Fox News Channel because they are viewed as completely partisan and all but an official outlet of the White House. By hosting the debates the media channels have been enabled to frame the issues to their own perception which has greatly favored Republicans.

Finally, the campaign season itself is much longer than it has been in the past and the direct beneficiaries are not candidates or the public, but the media who has gained far greater influence, even control over the process. As a result of that influence the majority of Americans, who had been prepared to remove Bush and the Republican Party from office and give the Democrats an opportunity, are being subjected to more debates and more analysis which allows the media to structure the arguments and then interpret for the viewers what was said. This has had the effect of trying to legitimize Republican chances in the election and artificially improve their odds against the Democratic candidate.