Over at Daily Kos there has been a recent discussion about what it means to be a member of the reality-based community. DHinMI speculates that “Daily Kos has been infiltrated by Republican dirty tricksters.” Why? Well, he provides several examples. But the inspiration for his diary was a reaction to people calling for impeachment.
So, let’s talk about flying monkeys:
:::more:::
The first thing I want to do is put up the quote that inspired countless liberal blogs to use the tag: ‘proud member of the reality-based community’. It comes from Ron Suskind’s interview with a White House aide:
A lot of people have found the attitude reflected in this quote to be appalling. And it is. But it speaks of power, and power relationships. The Bush administration creates the facts that it wants reported. They ignore, or cover-up, or stifle the facts they want ignored. They are not in the business of truth, but in the business of creating impressions.
All administrations engage in this behavior to some degree. The Bush administration has just taken it to an unprecedented level. Nowhere is this more clear, than in the Downing Street Leaks.
But here’s the thing:
Bloggers are also in the business of creating impressions. In our most useful role, we are digging out stories that are being ignored, or insufficiently covered by the corporate media that most Americans rely on for their news. Or, we are debunking stories that the MSM is paying too much attention to. We are trying to change the reality of what is considered newsworthy.
Conventional wisdom was that Jeff Gannon was not a story. We made it a story, and by doing so we made the media more aware of blogs and assured that they would pay closer attention to us in the future. Without Lottgate, Rathergate and Gannongate paving the way, we never would have gotten traction on the Downing Street Leaks.
What would have happened if we had had blogs to cover the Nugan Hand and BCCI bank scandals, or Iran-Contra? Would Ronald Reagan be a national hero today?
So, we are also in the business of making the reality while others merely watch and report on what we do.
Which leads me to the question of impeachment. Since we like to deal in reality, the first question should not be whether Bush can or will be impeached, but whether he deserves to be impeached. Once we determine what should happen, we can talk about whether there is any chance that it will happen.
And right up front, I’d like to say that any question of impeachment pertains to Dick Cheney just as forcefully as it does to Bush. If one is guilty of high crimes, then so too is the other.
Have Bush and Cheney committed high crimes?
I think the answer is, yes. I believe they have committed a high crime by crafting and authorizing detention and interrogation techniques that are in violation of signed treaties that they are sworn to uphold. To me, this is the slam-dunk case.
They have also lied to and misled Congress. This is critical, because Congress gave them the authority to wage war in Iraq. It may have been illegal according to international law but once Congress agreed to pay for it, it was legal according to American law . (I know there was a misappropriation of funds from Afghanistan to Iraq prior to the resolution).
Someone else can list all the other transgressions of the Bush administration. There have been many that were more injurious to the Republic than a furtive blow-job. Upon closer inspection, some of them might amount to high crimes.
But, to me, the decision to use a program of torture and religious humiliation and renditions to countries like Syria and Uzbekistan, a decision that has led to the deaths of over twenty human beings, is an impeachable offense.
The decision to ‘fix the facts around the policy’ of invading Iraq is an impeachable offense.
But the impeachment process is not a trial like any other trial. It is a political process. The proper grounds for impeachment and conviction are ultimately whatever the House and Senate say they are at any given time. And right now, the House and Senate are more interested in oven-baked chicken and rice pilaf than they are in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and the Downing Street Leaks.
Back in 1998, they were more interested in the President’s pathetic sex life than they were with Usama bin-Laden’s attacks on the African embassies. They too, make the reality.
So, it is one thing to say that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, and it is quite another to call for the House judiciary committee to initiate impeachment hearings. Currently, there is zero chance of the House impeaching the President, and even less chance of the Senate convicting him.
New leaks containing more specific evidence of wrongdoing could change the current reality, but we should be honest about where we stand.
I have been careful not to call for impeachment. I have asked them to resign. I have said they should be removed from office, but they should do so voluntarily. There is nothing wrong with asking Bush and Cheney to resign. They should resign for mishandling the budget and failing to plan for the occupation of Iraq. They should resign for being unable to account for billions of dollars appropriated for Iraq. And they should resign for the reasons stated above.
Of course, they are not going to have a grinch-like epiphany and resign. But asking them to resign is not as disruptive as trying to put them through an impeachment process that they are almost guaranteed to survive.
I think the Democrats should start saying it outloud: ‘The President and Vice-President have lost their credibility and their ability to lead. They should step down and let Dennis Hastert take over.’
Even though there is no prospect of Bush and Cheney heeding this call, it puts the truth before the American people without tying up Congress. It forces Bush to explain why he won’t resign. It keeps the focus on the fact that Bush has done something egregiously wrong. It makes clear that we need the Democrats to have some subpoena power and oversight capabilities.
And it is our own way of overcoming our current reality by ‘creating other new realities’.
I wrote a diary yesterday in the wee hours of the morning, when I was sleepy, depressed and generally cranky about the state of the world and the state of the Left. I’d read so much about why impeachment was infeasible, so we shouldn’t even waste time talking about it. But by talking about it, we can find ways to make it feasible, by eliminating the Republican domination of the legislative branch in 2006, and continuing to shine the bright light of truth on the cockroaches in the Bush Admiinistration.
I want Bush/Cheney impeached…but until that day comes, I want investigations and noise, not silence and acquiesence to the status quo.
I was telling my outraged friends to cool it with the talk of impeachment. NOT because I didn’t think Bush&Cheney deserved it. But because I worried that use of the word at that point was premature. Most Americans weren’t ready to hear it. At that point, too many people still thought Bush was basically a good guy doing his best.
Then, “impeach” would be heard as left wing nutcase ravings, and tuned out. The word would have lost its power by now.
The abuse of Teri Schiavo was a turning point for many former Bush supporters. Now the reality of what the war is costing – in both lives and treasure – is beginning to sink in as parents are starting to wonder if they will be asked to sacrifice their children on the altar of the PNAC’s American Empire.
It’s time, now. Impeach. Resign. Either. Both.
These words can now, not create reality, but begin the process of letting people look at the reality that has been there all along.
Excellent, Booman. Well thought out and insightful. Thanks for the read.
What he said.
And, I’d like to add that it was exhilirating to read.
You filled me with hope! Because you offer us a path that is in the realm of possibility and which squarely puts the onus where it belongs.
Thank you for that.
I served as Field Director for the Grassroots Impeachment Campaign in 1987. We got one step farther than any current effort, in that a Motion to Impeach Pres. Reagan, VP bush, and Atty General Meese was actually introduced in the House by Henry Gonzales of Texas.
At that time, the Dems controlled both Houses, but did not follow up. We were told that there would be no hearings unless we could find 15 Republican co-sponsors. Even if the 2006 elections produce Democratic majorities, we’ll be in the same spot.
So my advice is outreach to the potentially most receptive Republican Members. This of course flies in the face of the “low hanging fruit” strategy of targeting the Republican Moderates seats, rather than the flaming reactionaries.
My proposal: Offer Jim leach of Iowa the Speakership in a coalition, if he can bring in 14 more House Republicans as a defacto 3d Party.
It’s indescribably refreshing to see liberal/left types actually discussing the substance of a proposal rather than the usual endless moping about how it can’t happen. That goes for impeachment, real voting and campaign reform, real universal health care, the whole schmear. I hope it’s catching and we can quit worrying about what’s possible (which is something we know absolutely nothing about) and what — as you say — SHOULD happen. And then think about how to get there. Sorry to parrot what you already said, but it’s such a pleasure I might print it out on a tortilla and eat it.
This was so well thought out and written. The best diary on the subject of impeachment to date. I agree with you completely. The realty is Bush lied and alot of people died, were maimed, were tortured.Every day I will shout it from the rooftops…Bush Lied Soldiers, Iraqis innocent children died!!
I hate to be a callous jerk, but… I will be anyway. By shouting about innocent Iraqis who are killed, you will be preaching to the converted. Think about the differences in emotional impact on Americans between a picture of a dead Iraqi child and a dead American soldier. With the American soldier, you have him, plus his family on TV who are crying, etc etc. With the Iraqi child, sometimes you have a quote or something from his or her parents, if they are still alive.
I think it would be more effective to say, for example, “Because Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq, Lance Cpl. Jonathan R. Flores, of San Antonio, Texas who was 18 years old was killed by an IED near Ar Ramadi.” The closer it hits to home the more effective it will be. Telling people that the actions of Bush have killed people halfway across the world with whom they don’t identify will not be as effective, in my humble opinion.
my post but I will add hear what i just said”Bush Lied Soldiers, Iraqis innocent children died!! “
SOOOOOOOOOOOO, I included our soldiers first and foremost.
One of the stories in my story bag is about an old man who plants trees, even though he will probably not live to see them bear fruit. Thanks to this diary for giving me a nudge in the direction of that story; I think it may be this week’s edition of Sunday Griot.
The reason this diary reminded me of that story is: Sure, right now there’s no way impeachment is going to work. You would need a bunch of Republican representatives to break ranks with their party and vote for impeachment, and then you’d have to have a bunch of Republican senators vote with the Democrats in the impeachment trial (assuming all Democats voted for impeachment and conviction, which is not at all a sure thing).
But you know what? You don’t get a tree if you never plant the seed. And you will also never get justice if you don’t plant the seeds. And just as it takes a long time for a tree to grow, it will take a long time for the idea to sink in that we in this country were duped into going into an illegal and immoral war, and for people to wake up to the acknowledgement of who’s responsible.
I realize that it’s difficult to be patient and let things take their course, but I believe it’s the only way that justice will truly be done, and I think more than we want to see Bush impeached, we on the left want to see justice done.
How many times have we said, “They’d never do that!” And then, they did!
Being rational about process just doesn’t cut it any longer.
Well, no reason we can’t just pull up the bootstraps and take it on. Assert, over and over again, and just maybe the Rovian technique will take hold.
to become part of America’s consciousness and that started with one voice at a time. I believe that all people are in a constant search for the truth, and we may take various avenues seeking it and we may be badly off course at times but I believe that the truth prevails always in the end. It is getting to the end that can be so grueling, and draining, and disheartening….it’s like running a marathon that I haven’t trained for. Pass the Gatorade though and when everybody is shitfull of this offal office let’s have impeachment on everybodys tongue because somehow that word has been brought into the arena of public awareness…….hmmmmmm!
Ha. Just kidding. đŸ™‚
Great post, and right on the money. Bush and Cheney have lost all credibility and their ability to lead.
I would only mention, as you did, another reason to keep up the pressure: more leaks. There has to be more dirt out there, and hopefully as Mess-O-Potamia drags on, more people will suffer the pains of coverup, and decide to come clean.
We all know the fix was in for Iraq — let’s hope more evidence comes out.
More news on the illegitimate doings of the Bush administration may, probably will come out. Mentioning the word “impeachment” out loud I think makes it more likely. Maybe there are some potential Woodwards and Bernsteins (though not at the Washington Post, I guess), another Deep Throat out there.
that there’s a Deep Throat out there, with NO Woodward and Bernstein that will listen.
Too scared to lose their jobs.
Anonymous sources cause death in the middle east, remember?
But I keep hope alive, as Jesse says.
Excellent post. I agree, we don’t want to wear out the word (or the concept of) impeachment too soon.
If bloggers just keep hammering away at the contradictions of the DSM and the Gitmo/Abu Ghraib tortures, the Bush administration will lose more and more credibility. If Bush and Cheney won’t resign, the stench will keep getting worse. Hopefully Team Bush will collapse like a house of cards in next year’s mid-term elections (come on, let me dream).
“the first question should not be whether Bush can or will be impeached, but whether he deserves to be impeached. Once we determine what should happen, we can talk about whether there is any chance that it will happen.”
I really like this point.
When someone says “Bush should be impeached”, one can read it either as “Bush deserves to be impeached”, or as “[Congress] should impeach Bush [now].”
Which brings me to one of my favorite hobby horses (besides Verbal Self-Defense)–psychological type and the MBTI. (For the curious, googling for “Kiersey Temperament Sorter” should provide an online quiz that uses the same letter codes and provides fairly similar results.)
The final letter of the MBTI is the Judging/Perceiving preference–which basically relates to how one normally relates to the external world.
If you’ve ever muttered something like “Gee I wish I could wave a wand and have my garden weeded” –and come home after work and found that someone had DONE it–and not the way you’d have preferred, because you hadn’t quite made up your mind yet–then you are probably a P who has met a J. (My stepmother has to be VERY careful when she talks to my father and admires something. If she doesn’t make it extremely clear that she likes it, but doesn’t want it –next time she turns around, he’s bought it for her!)
Similarly, if you have ever remarked that a job needs doing, and the other guy has agreed with you but then has done nothing about it (and you feel frustrated by this)–then you are a J and you’ve been talking to a P.
It’s the ambiguous statements which cause the trouble. As a solid P myself, I have to admit to my prejudices. (I’m going to try to switch to the “deserves to” way of saying things in future, but I have no faith that I’ll do it consistently–at least not right away.)
Knowing our preferences won’t prevent us from making our favorite mistake yet again–but it will enable us to recognize that we’ve made the mistake and reduce the collateral damage from the misunderstanding.
So–thanks for the shin-guards, Boo!
My love of bulleted lists knows no bounds, so some quick thoughts on the subject.
I like BooTrib because I can talk about flying monkeys without fearing the Thought Control cops.
I’m a scientist. I am skeptical of any assertion that is not backed up by data.
But that does not mean I automatically disbelieve everything I can’t prove. For example, it is widely stated that microwaving plastic can produce toxins. Has anyone done a study specifically about microwave ovens and plastic? Not that I’ve been able to find. But studies have been done of plastics in microwave fields and in similar types of radiation, all of which found that some types of plastic degrade readily, and others only slightly.
So it’s not proved that microwaving plastic creates toxins. But it’s also not been proved it doesn’t, and there is data that suggests plastic does this in similar contexts. Finally, it’s my family’s health, so erring on the side of caution is a smart decision until it can be shown there is no risk.
Apply this to election fraud: not having irrefutable proof of widespread election malfeasance doesn’t mean we should stop looking, or assume everything was legit.
Where was I going with this? Oh yes. impeachment. I did think talk of impeachment was counterproductive in the climate after the election. Now, when we can say with confidence that America despises Bush’s war, impeachment may still be unrealistic, but raising its profile further undermines Bush’s image, and addresses correctly the seriousness of his crimes.
Calling on them to resign is great, but ultimately toothless. I think a call for impeachment creates a more serious impression. The real war here is training our own Democrats to actually fight for us for a change, and from that point of view I think calling for impeachment represents victory in our own ranks.
There have been studies. Some containers do release plasticizers or other chemicals into food, especially if they become over-heated, which can happen when a microwave does not heat evenly. A lot of the problem was reduced with the introduction of carousels.
Here’s a good article:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Microwave-Health-Problems.htm
My brother, a plastics engineer, admits that it’s likely that some plastics will leach things into some foods and others that won’t. There are many variables, such as your microwave’s power, how evenly it heats, what you’re cooking, and the type of plastic involved. There isn’t a simple “Yep, it’s bad.” or “No, don’t worry.” answer.
There are plastics that are not allowed to come into contact with food – it’s against the law to use them in food containers. There are others that are considered food-safe. There are still others that are considered safe under certain conditions, but not others.
I’m not convinced that the blog political world is very connected to reality, despite the claims. “Real” reality is about getting elected to office, which is something that a whole bunch of professional Democratic (and Republican) officeholders have already figured out how to do.
The blog world goes off on these totally disconnected tinfoil hat, conspiracy theoretic tangents ALL THE TIME. Constantly.
I think that perhaps a moderating approach would be to look over at the real–elected–politicians and see what they’re doing. Maybe Kerry was right that it wasn’t worth recounting Ohio. Etc. Lots of examples.
There are Republicans out there on our side re: Iraq (not, obviously, impeachment), yet are doing nothing about it.
From Yglesias, via Atrios:
A smaller step might be to use his votes on various committees to help restart the process of congressional oversight. But he hasn’t done anything like that and he won’t. I don’t know exactly what’s wrong with these people, but they deserve to be attacked more, not less, harshly than your ordinary party-line Republicans. Voting for bad policies you agree with is bad. Voting for bad policies that, when asked, you say are bad is ridiculous. Liberals should direct nothing but scorn at this crew unless and until they start doing something instead of offering nice remarks to film screening audiences.
With enough evidence, would they turn?
First things first: I don’t think a group of flying monkeys is called a flock. I would go with troop… or maybe barrel.
Second: Not only have they committed high crimes and misdemeanors for which they should be impeached, but they have also committed crimes against humanity for which they should be tried in an international criminal court. In addition to the illegal war of aggression against Iraq, we now have the report by Scott Ritter that the US is a state sponsor of terrorism against Iran.
The blogs are part of our echo-chamber. Just as the righties influence public opinion (or “catapult the propaganda” as W put it) by repeating things over and over and over again, so to should we be repeating our key memes. In fact, the word meme means an idea transmitted through repetition or mimicry.
So hell yes, we should be talking about impeachment.
It’s passive voice, fact- and law-oriented, and neutral.
“Should” and “deserve” are dismissable partisan rhetoric until the concept of “offense” has gained currency.
Exactly.
Just a few thoughts… I read that diary at dKos and many of the comments. I had to leave it alone since it caused an increase in my blood pressure. This is all I’ll say about some of the dKos reaction because I think it needs to be said on all blogs that are concerned with impeachment talk: one of the main concerns was about damage to the credibility of the site. That was said about the Ohio fraud diaries, the pope diaries and so many other spurts of diaries in the recent past. Each time, site traffic was increased. The blog grew and thrived. Life went on. My point is that we ought not be self-censoring when it comes to talk of impeachment. The crimes of this administration meet the standard and simply telling people to be quiet because the right-wing might take advantage of our poor deluded souls is a pretty sorry excuse for censorship. (That is not directed at you, Booman. It’s just a general observation of our collective timidity when it comes to taking on authority.)
Republicans cheapened the seriousness of the impeachment process by what they did to Clinton to the point where it’s now simply seen as a dog and pony show that results in a slap on the wrist. I suspect the general public has no appetite for another round of Kenneth Starr type proceedings. What the public needs to know is what impeachment really stands for and why it is sometimes necessary. That’s the message we’re failing to provide. There can be no recourse through the ICC since Bushco opted out of that court and the public’s only recourse right now, besides punishing Republicans in the ballot box, is to seriously take into consideration an alternative course that has teeth. That route is impeachment.
I don’t agree with those who say we should not talk about the “I” word simply because it may never happen. So what? When you listen to someone like afterdowningstreet.org‘s John Bonifaz talk about the legalities of the case for impeachment as he did dring the Conyers hearing, you realize there is a potentially viable case. Even if it never happens, the severity of Bushco’s offenses can be well articulated according to the articles of impeachment and that sets those offenses in a place where they can be taken seriously and can be seen as justified.
If we want the right-wing to keep on winning, let’s stop talking about impeachment. If we want to stand up for our most deeply help principles of responsible government for and by the people, let’s keep talking about it. If we silence ourselves and cave in the face of opposition and ridicule, we might as well give up and go home.
One of the points made in the dKos diary was that while this talk of impeachment is going on, we are simply distracting ourselves and are not working at the grassroots level to take concrete action. Well, I do’t know about you, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time. This isn’t all or nothing. This is an attack from all possible fronts. Who cares if the Republican lawmakers don’t listen? Is that our audience? It sure isn’t mine.
Finally, I agree with calls to resign. I’ve signed such petitions. I would just ask why that is an acceptable alternative to a call for impeachment when both are unlikely to happen anyway? It’s up to the left to reframe what impeachment is all about and to make sure that people know how serious Bushco’s actions have been that they have reached the point where impeachment is an option that ought to be legally viable.
</end of rant for now>
with your overall point.
So, let me explain a little about why I didn’t write something more like what you wrote.
I think it is irresponsible to distract the Executive branch with impeachment hearings and trials unless you have a very good chance of winning. I think the Lewinsky affair did real damage to Clinton’s foreign policy and his job performance. Even if we had a majority in the house, I would not recommend initiating impeachment hearings based on what we know right now. Not unless we had good reason to believe that we could get the votes in the Senate.
But, that doesn’t change the fact that BushCo. should be thrown out of office. And without any subpoena power, we can’t move the ball along by making empty threats. We can say that we wish he would be impeached, or that it’s a disgrace that he isn’t being impeached. Or whatever. But I think asking them to resign sends the right message. It’s something they could say yes to tomorrow. It’s not a demand, it’s a request.
Anyone can say what they want on this site. But my advice for Democratic office holders is that they begin making the request.
And talking to Denny about how he’d like to redecorate the White House.
I respect your perspective.
A question regarding this comment:
I think it is irresponsible to distract the Executive branch with impeachment hearings and trials unless you have a very good chance of winning.
Isn’t there a very fine line between what Conyers is doing with his hearings and this concern about distraction then since there is talk of impeachment in the hearings?
Another question:
And without any subpoena power, we can’t move the ball along by making empty threats.
Procedurally, what is required in order to obtain subpeona power? Is that completely in the hands of the Republicans in power or is there a place for the courts or justice system to intervene?
But my advice for Democratic office holders is that they begin making the request.
Well, I see the opposition parties in Canada’s parliament do that practically every day on the hill and in the press. It’s created an antagonistic environment towards the opposition. The circumstances are different but I think the outcome might well be the same as far as public perception goes. Perhaps that’s why I’m more interested in seeing a solid legal justification for impeachment in the US. I don’t know what the answer is.
I do appreciate you allowing discussion about this on your site though. Thanks.
a fine line with what Conyer’s is doing, but he isn’t crossing it. If Bush had to spend 4 hours a day talking to attorneys, that would be a distraction. Right now, he is not meeting with attorneys.
Our justice department is available for citizens to use, but they are not going to initiate anything themselves.
And as for poisoning the well of public discourse? I mean, they launched a war on phony evidence. What are we supposed to do? Play nice?
re: Conyers – John Bonifaz is a constitutional attorney, so although Conyers is not directly seeking legal counsel to initiate impeachment, the hearing set the stage to consult with Mr Bonifaz to get his legal opinion. Fine line there…
I absolutely agree that playing nice doesn’t solve anything. I spoke of the Canadian experience as food for thought. What will the public pay attention to? Calls to resign or calls for impeachment? That’s a very hard call to make right now. For those who are gathering in numbers to oppose Bushco everyday, I think they’d be more willing to support something that they can involve themselves in ie. calls for resignation are really fruitless while calls for impeachment rattle feathers…
Like I said, I don’t know what the course ought to be. I’m just glad people are discussing it openly and are gathering solid evidence no matter what happens. The weight of the evidence is the key, regardless.
I don’t know if I can portray this with you all here or not, but in the way law is done, the way I understand it, is if they know you have committed murder, but that they just have a flaw in the evidence, then they try to make a deal for second degree murder, and hope that some one might come out and say the real truth. I do not know for sure if they can then change the plea or not, then. I do not know the law; however if they do this and get all their ducks in a row, then and can they then impeach bush and cheney?
I have no answers to all of this, for much of this requires much constitutional law and I do not have the education on this.
But this crew in the WH now is just playing on emotions of us all no matter what side we are on. What would happen if we as a democratic society asked for them to resign and they refused, would that give further evidence that they then need impeached? I really want them to serve hard time for their behavior in all this. I do not know what it will take to get this done, but something has to happen and soon for the situation is not getting any better in Iraq AND NOW LOOKS LIKE IRAN IS IN THEIR SIGHTS.
Which leads to this, do we as Americans, will allow it to happen.
The weight of the evidence is the key, regardless.
Yes. Proof is required. Noted above the phrase to use is “impeachable offense.”.
then is the DSM and the following minutes/statements coming out, are they considered evidence or not?
“I think it is irresponsible to distract the Executive branch with impeachment hearings and trials unless you have a very good chance of winning.”
That is an admirable and principled position. If the current administration was doing even one thing right, I’d agree. However, under the present circumstances, distracting the Executive Branch would serve the country’s best interests. I’d like to see BushCo have to focus their energies on damage control so that they would be at least somewhat hampered in pursuing their destructive agenda.
Impeachment (and recall) should not be used as a sore losers’ political tool. But these thugs and liars are even more deserving of impeachment than Nixon was. A president who lies to Congress in order to conduct a war that does nothing more than enrich the profiteering cronies of the administration certainly should be put on trial.
Perhaps right now is not the time. But if it begins to appear that the only way to stop expansion of the illegal Iraq war into Iran is to monkey-wrench the BushCo machine, I hope that someone in Congress will be willing to step up and set impeachment in motion.
I just got this press release from the ACLU:
Administration Considers Promotions for Generals in Torture Scandal;
ACLU Urges Senators to Appoint an Outside Special Counsel
Now, we all know that the Bush admin. and Frist are about as likely to appoint a special counsel as they are to hit a flock of flying monkeys …
BUT the ACLU got the NEWS STORY out there.
And the ACLU elevated the stature of the story by attaching a reasonable request of senators.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. Killen just got convicted of the murder of the three civil rights workers. Never say never.
Regarding Killen: You’re right. Even though he was convicted of manslaughter in all 3 cases, justice was served 41 years to the day after the crime. Never say never indeed.
I will confess to a moment of glee at hearing that on Air America this morning.
Here’s another instance, from the same “Condi Can’t Count” Juan Cole article — it’s such a great piece — that I linked in another story today:
Oh, I agree entirely. It is highly unlikely that Bush, who is trying to destroy the UN by sending John Bolton there, would even consider such a thing. And UN member states may well decline to send their boys into the Anbar meat grinder, especially if they think of it as cleaning up Bush’s mess.
On the other hand, the Right is always coming up with unlikely plans and managing to get them implemented, and we on the Left may have to simply learn to be more tenacious. After all, it was highly unlikely that Bush would get the opportunity he had long yearned for, of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. Moreover, you have to set up issues in such a way as to make your opponent take the fall. If centrists and progressives go to the American public next year and say, “We want to hand Iraq over to the United Nations, but the War Party insists on keeping our young men and women there in harm’s way for the sake of their corporate sponsors,” I think that may resonate pretty powerfully. As a line, it would have the virtue of associating the UN with problem-solving and the War Party with greed and stupidity.
…
“Shhhhh! No one will believe you” is the threat of the abuser and abuse enablers. “Oh, we can’t talk about impeachment, it makes us look looney.” “We can’t investigate election fraud, people will think we’re whiners.” Geez….
Let’s seek the truth without fear. Let’s speak the truth without hesitation, and let’s stand up for what is right instead of what is easy.
I would like to see more diaries about abuse as it pertains to abusive relationships and what we are all having to survive under this administration. I have felt abused being a military spouse and I have had that abuse validated, and now even reading Catch 22 because a bereavement counselor at my Uncle’s funeral strongly suggested that I read it. His words were, “all military families are being abused right now, read this book and it will help you understand more clearly what is happening to you and it will help you figure out how to get out of it.” Now that’s a tall damned order but I will sure give it a shot! I feel all of us being abused though, and those who are abused abuse others out of their frustration and pain and struggle. I find what has happened during the pie fights to be symptom of the abuse that has been piled onto Americans and most can’t really chart the abuse in such a way as to free themselves from it and in turn free others. They have us convinced in some wierd way that we have to give up basic rights in some things to even hope to gain back a smidgen of what we all used to call normal everyday personal rights and boundaries. I have noticed that people (even “my” people) seem to have lost touch with the notion of “abuse” even. I was shocked when I posted a simple basic list of what constituted harassment on Dkos and a bunch of people commented that MY LIST was wrong for this reason or that reason…….It wasn’t my damned list though….it was a garden variety list that anybody could have found in any mental health care facility any place, and all these individuals were instantly proclaiming that MY LIST WAS WRONG OR B.S., the mental gymnastics put up there to refute that list just astounded me.
What a bold recommendation, on the book and diaries. I’ll go with you!
Having grown up in an abusive home, the current level of abuse is crazy-making. The constant dissonance makes me want to start screaming and never stop. I think this has triggered the abuser/abused polarization, the verbal wildings defended as “I know what’s good for you.” “But it’s not!”, I scream. That’s the poison,the toxin that eats reason and logic and wholeness and truth. It eats the insides of the abuser and the abused.
“Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.”
Yes, Tracy, I do understand. I remember your excellent diaries you posted there and how ppl really joined in and discussed things. I read each one with great interest and loved what you and others had to say. I absorbed and then to trun around and place the fact on the table with personal motives of what has happened to us as individules they just seem not to care. or worse, they redicule…there is something so very wrong a going on there. I really sued to enjoy reading there but I simply do not now. I used to drop by every now an dthen but not now..TOOOOOO many crazies, IMO
I didn’t think anyone remembered that one.
Excellent analysis. Not talking about something has never protected anyone from getting attacked for the thing not talked about by the right wing anyway, as far as I can see.
Also, saying the words out loud.. impeachment, resignation, failed presidency, high crimes and so on, give others (non lefties, non blog people, etc) cover to say what they are thinking as well. Sometimes all it takes is for them to know that they are not alone in what they have been thinking.
exactly!!! I was like that till I came on board with the bloggers…I then learned I was not alone out here thinking the thoughts I was thinking.
Great post.
Michael Bérubé said something recently that I think was spot-on: The left wing of the Democratic Party is not the left wing of the possible. we have to remember that there are always people who will counsel timidity in our speech and advocacy, despite the fact that the Right got where they are by making crazy allegations such as:
“Hillary Clinton is a Communist.”
“All liberals hate Christianity.”
“There is a conspiracy among scientists to suppress evidence against global warming, evolution, and [insert your pet theory here.]”
“The Endangered Species Act is a way of seizing your property.”
We have abundant examples of rash statements not only succeeding, but utterly altering the nation’s discourse! I was a little disappointed thi week to hear Durbin waffle ever so slightly. How great would it have been to hear him say something along the lines of “The people who object to what I said are either lying or on crack.”
I found this thread at dKos disturbing, as it is representative of the overall trend there towards censorship in various forms. Dissenting voices have been harrassed off the site in some very ugly ways. Now the ruling cabal has turned its attention to silencing voices they believe diminish the credibility of the site.
Once again, the dKos crowd manages to spectacularly miss the point. The credibility of a blog as a blog depends on its being a public forum. Yes, you will have cranks, and we can debate all day about what separates the cranks from the non-cranks. And yes, politicians and right-wing bloggers will occasionally try to smear the community as a whole by quoting one of them. But at the end of the day, you are secure from the most damaging accusation of all, which is that the site is simply a propaganda engine for a particular political faction.
Once you start suppressing certain views, either by overt means or coordinated use of the ratings system, that credibility evaporates. The site ceases to be a genuinely public forum and becomes instead an echo chamber where the discussion is maintained only for the sake of appearance. It’s pretty obvious that Kos and his cohorts don’t want an open discussion, but rather than transition to being an overtly moderated news and opinion site, they want to do so covertly while retaining the appearance of being a grassroots organization with broad support.
But worst of all, they are laying the groundwork for dissmissing — nay, smearing — the dissenters by accusing them of being GOP operatives. If pressed, they will retreat to the position that what they call the tinfoil hat crowd is unwittingly helping the GOP, but the message is the same: you’re either with us or against us.
Markos is in a bit of a bind here. Dem politicians are interested in DailyKos only to the extent that he can generate support for them, but if he is going to actually influence politicians to suit his personal political agenda, he needs to be able to shape the discourse. If he attempts to shape the discourse, the dissenters will eventually leave — as many have recently — leaving a malleable but numerically smaller core of true believers. It’s a Catch-22. Democracy, like the Internet, routes around obstructions.
It’s also pointless. Creating an ideologically uniform organization is often a good way to raise campaign funds. It is, however, futile for changing minds. That actually requires the presence of dissenters, as anything less is just preaching to the choir. If Markos stays the course here, his minor net celebrity will inevitably fade. He might yet become an effective lower-echelon fund raiser with all of the minor power that confers, but if Howard Dean is any indicator, the road to fundraising success is built on inclusivity, not a rigidly enforced single message.
That is, however, his problem. DailyKos did indeed do left-wing activism a lot of good by encouraging people who had not been politically active (like me) to become so. We have since left — or been kicked out of — the nest, and rather than spend precious energy on the foibles of Markos Moulitsas and his cohorts, we need to be giving a lot of thought to how we can be politically effective while still being inclusive. Markos is right about the causes he dismisses when he says that much of the left is fragmented into groups focusing on single issues. That’s not as compelling of an argument as it might be when you consider the coalition of unrelated causes that make up the GOP, but the right wing is much better organized than we are.
We need to be developing a broad platform of left-wing principles upon which we can all cooperate most of the time. Activists who are, for example, primarily focused on women’s rights, and environmental activists have practically nothing in common as far as their causes are concerned, but as individuals, they almost certainly have sympathy for each other’s concerns. A letter-writing campaign, boycott, march, or practically any other form of political action will have much more impact if — to continue the example — feminists and environmentalists were to lend each other their support. That NOW march would certainly be more impressive if it were padded by Sierra Club activists, and vice versa. Throw in a bunch of gay groups, the NAACP and other minority activists, peace groups, and so on, and our actions will break turnout records and make conservatives wet their pants.
The truth is that if you picked the ten or fifteen biggest liberal causes, most liberals would support most of them. Any given individual liberal might only care a great deal about one or two issues, be sympathetic to most of the rest, and be uninterested in or opposed to a couple, but the area of overlap would be huge. That’s the power of cooperative inclusiveness, and that’s the method the right wing has used to pick off our splintered factions one by one. Neocons, as a group, are largely disinterested in abortion, and geopolitics is a secondary issue for evangelicals, but the two groups have banded together on each other’s issues in a tit-for-tat arrangement. They don’t speak with a single voice or maintain a united front. They do collaborate on fundraising and on get-out-the-vote efforts.
Just as importantly — and this is the point that the dKos set seems to miss — the plurality of conservative causes allows them to disavow each other’s cranks and liabilities.
Liberals desperately need this kind of cooperative inclusivity. Markos has wrongly decided that the way to avoid the splintering of leftist influence is to shove the lion’s share of it under the rug. That’s okay. DailyKos was a good starting point, but the struggle will go on with or without it. Now let’s get to work.
You did it again. Wrote a post that deserves to be a diary.
you bet this one did. I just love the way he/she puts it that way and gets right at the point of the matter.
from an ink and trees daily:
We’ve seen enough to impeach Bush by Dave Zweifel, Editor, The Capital Times. June 20,2005
So let’s get on with it.
“Daily Kos has been infiltrated by Republican dirty tricksters.”
When he posted that, I thought he was being intentionally sarcastic or something. I thought the whole point of the diary was to avoid tinfoil, and he was illustrating it that way?
I don’t deny that Bush and Cheney should be impeached (though Denny Hastert would not likely be an improvement–let’s keep that in mind). But running around saying “Impeach Bush” makes Democrts sound silly, like “No Nukes” or when all those hippies were planning to meditate around the White House and make it levitate.
Oh Slacker! Yea of little faith!! What about the mustard seed and the mountains Slacker? Don’t you read the Bible boy? You better look out for levitating meditating hippies cuz if they ever threw some prayer and faith in there you could go for a float!
Sorry, I’m an atheist (though I do like some of the philosophy of Jesus).
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
“No Nukes” made people think. So did “Make Love, Not War”. So does Greenpeace. So does Amensty International. So does Move On. etc.
No matter what Democrats do or say, the Republicans will attempt to make them “look silly”.
Only 39% of Americans are now in favour of the war in Iraq. How did that happen? Maybe a few of those silly-looking Democrats had something to do with it.
And they didn’t just plan to meditate around it, they did. Hundreds of thousands of people descended on DC, joined hands and prayed for peace. It was a spectacular display of organized dissent and got major national media coverage. It delivered a message: The Silent Majority are silent, but the Rabble-rousing Minority aren’t going to shut up until we’re out of Vietnam. And, we didn’t care one bit about looking silly or foolish. In fact, as I recall it, we were all about looking as silly and foolish as we possibly could.
And I’d argue that the result of all that “silly and foolish” behaviour was that Republicans have won a lot more elections over the years than they would have otherwise. There are a lot of swing voters who associate “Democrat” with, well, not necessarily Dennis Kucinich himself but with people like him. And though I love Kucinich and think he means well, I don’t believe that kind of thing helps Democrats win elections. Now, winning elections isn’t the be-all, end-all of existence, but it sure would be nice to win more of them, don’t you think?
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
People were being silly and foolish-looking to avoid being shot. It’s hard to be threatened by a white guy with a huge blonde afro. I think Ginsberg wore a dress and Leary dropped a tab or two.
Funny thing about Kucinich: Every time I took one of those surveys before the election, I got matched with him as the candidate who most closely represented my views. I’d snort, that elf, he’ll never get elected! I’m not sure what you mean by “people like him” or “kind of thing” in regards to his positions. Maybe you’ll explain…
The first step to winning elections is verified voting and equal access to polling places. If we don’t get that, we may never “win” again no matter what we do.
My mom caucused for Kucinich. He’s a great, well meaning guy, as I said, and I’m in favour of most of his policies (though the whole “Department of Peace” thing is a little silly, and that’s just the kind of thing I’m talking about, along with the “bake sale for bombers” sticker that–I’ll admit–we used to sell in our shop).
But you have to sell your policies in a smart way, and not overreach. You have to try to relate with the swing voters and not make them nervous, because as Mudcat Saunders says,
You did say one thing that I agree with 100%. (I’m tempted to say “1000 percent”, but I’m working on a math degree and I don’t want to lose my membership card. ;0)
I wish the Senate would filibuster everything until this is passed–especially the verified voting part. Why not get behind this as a grassroots/netroots movement (something that could actually have a chance of happening) instead of a futile and quixotic impeachment campaign?
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
It’s part of the entire feminist, homosexual agenda, don’t ya know. Reminds me of George Carlin, “Pull out? Doesn’t sound manly to me.”
Democrats will always be scapegoated no matter what we do because the manly white Christian men aren’t masculine unless they’re on top and blowing shit up. In the name of the Lord, of course.
It was Yippies, Alan. And they were trying to levitate the Pentagon.
Also: That silly little “No Nukes” thing put a halt to a multi-billion dollar energy-sector industry with the full weight of the US government behind it. Might be worth looking at.
Great, so they handed a gift to the oil and gas barons. On this issue, as with abortion, I am for France’s approach. Have you seen how low France ranks in greenhouse gas emissions compared to other industrialised nations?
People have made a bogeyman out of nuclear waste because, I believe, of its inherent strangeness. But when you compare it to all the “conventional” pollutants that result from fossil fuel energy consumption, it looks comparatively benign from where I sit.
-Alan
————————
Support Hugo Chavez: Fill up your car at CITGO!
————————
Let me say that again, with emphasis: Bush/Cheney deserve to be impeached and if the Republican majority in Congress cared about our country and respected their Constitutional oaths, they’d commence impeachment inquiries today. Say it loud and say it often.
It matters not one whit whether impeachment will happen or not. What matters is saying the truth over and over and over to everyone you meet. If you don’t ask for what you want, you’ll never get it. If we don’t build public awareness, most folks will never know. The Repubs can put their fingers in their ears and sing, la-la-la. But, what if there’s a ground swell under their feet, what if the public outcry for impeachment grows so loud they have no alternative but to jettison Dimson and Darth or risk their re-elections?
To hell with being reasonable and cautious, with doing the same shit and expecting different results. dKos advised us to shut up about election fraud and see how much good that did. Nothing has changed. Nothing has been done. So now they want people to shut up about impeachment… Well, screw’em!
…as to why I avoid Daily Kos. I linked to the diary in question and was greeted by the same old blaming, shaming, and finger-pointing followed by the same old self-righteous smugness that I have learned to expect.
It reminds me of my early dance training with a teacher who always used to scream at us to “Smile!” before a performance, and guess how many of us felt like smiling after that? Of course we pasted great big phony smiles onto our faces just to keep from getting yelled at again!
After that I moved to a teacher who would come right in front of us while we were dancing with the most beautiful and loving smile on her face. Not only did we smile back, irresistably, but it was a real smile, since we were presented with such an inspiring example.
So my suggestion would be to offer an inspiring example through our own behavior rather than blaming and shaming our fellow progressive activists to “get off their butts” and act to make the necessary changes. That would be true leadership.
With regard to the issue of chimpeachment…. Yes, it is a complicated and perhaps unrealistic discussion, but I do believe that part of the mission of Daily Kos is “daily rants.”
So, people need to rant sometimes!
and I have to say, I’m starting to get really fed up with the style of that blog.
I’m pretty new to the blogs — just started lurkin’ about two months ago — so I missed a lot of the earlier stuff that people refer to, but I personally think that it is a total waste of time (and energy) to worry about the “reputation” or “image” to the outside world of a particular blog site, and there seem to be some at dKos who are fixated on it. And I particularly think it is a dangerous game to start “assuming” that individuals might be trolls because you happen to think that their “left-wing” views are so radical that they must be right-wingers in disguise.
Maybe there might be some really bored, unemployed right-wingers (perhaps the kind Howie Dean was talking about) who have nothing better to do with their time than to impersonate left-wing radicals on dKos in order to somehow destroy the site’s reputation. Who the flock cares?
Number one, it wouldn’t work anyway, number two, it would keep them from actually doing something REALLY destructive. Frankly, it seems to me that some of “reputation-preserver” crowd over there are doing more to destroy the reputation of the site than anyone else.
For me, one of the main benefits of any blog site is as a marketplace for the exchange of ideas — an exchange whose boundaries are soemwhat less constricted than what is allowed in the MSM. I like that. I like to see provocative ideas expressed, argued in a principled manner, and allowed to stand or fall on their own merits. If some of the ideas seem out-of-the-mainstream so what!
For me, I can certainly understand how the events as they are currently unfolding in this country could bring someone to believe that we are witnessing the rise of fascism here, and we may be one state-side terrorist attack away from a totalitarian takeover by the wing-nuts.
I mean, I’m as middle-class as they come — mortgage, debt up to my eyeballs, two pre-teens, trying to nurse a vegetable garden and a lawn along in the few spare hours my job affords me for relaxation — and I sometimes sit here and debate with myself whether “standard” “mainstream” responses will be enough to counter the threat we are facing in this country.
I say let the ideas flow. Cream rise to the top, shit sinks to the bottom. It’s a natural process.
the best thing anyone can do is ignore dh…(not even going to spell out his whole name) the man has nothing better to do – it seems – but attack people who are too left for him which seems to be everyone at daily kos
it’s a shame that disgusting diary got recommended….i wouldn’t accuse him of working for Rove but since he seems to want to emulate the Republican party and self-police daily kos..who the hell knows who he’s working for
Terrific diary! Thank you!
I’d like to respond to your point about the bloggers on the left. The media clearly doesn’t respond to them at all the same way as they do those on the right.
A couple of recent examples will shed light on what I mean.
First, Memogate — CBS/Dan Rather version. The right wing blogs were all over this, as you recall, pointing up what they felt were flaws (bogus or not) in the document, even before the pieces ended. The SCLM (So-Called-Liberal-Media, as Eric Alterman likes to name them) ran with the right-wingers’ criticisms, and we know the rest of that story.
Second, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Bloggers of our ilk were as equally fast and forcefully on this as the right was in the first example. But the SCLM did not come close to picking up the story in the same way — instead going to a “he-said-he-said” mode, when objective evidence was available to lend one side (ours) far greater creedence.
(A swift – pun intended – note on Kerry’s lack of response: Would you expect a veteran, trading on his veteran’s status, and calling all veterans of the war in which he fought “brothers,” to come out and call a group of said brothers liars? Not that I was happy about Kerry: He voted for this sorry war, and even when it was clear the justifications for the war were bogus, said he’d vote for it knowing they were bogus.)
And let us not forget l’affaire Lewinsky, begin by what was, in effect, a blog, The Drudge Report.
The point I want to make is that the SCLM does not pay attention to us the same way it does to them. And that is why before we can even think about impeachment we should warm up our virtual vocal chords and commence to shoutin’ loud and long about this crap.