Armando says we are making progress on a variety of fronts by using a strategy of passive aggression. What this means in the context of the Downing Street Leaks is that we should apply something more akin to Chinese Water Torture, a kind of drip-drip-drip approach, rather than coming out and calling for hearings, resignation, or impeachment.
Armando told me yesterday that he thinks the case for impeachment has not been made, and that I am taking the legitimacy of the recent election too lightly. We shouldn’t so cavalierly attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government.
Of course, I can’t imagine any act more impeachable than fixing the facts around a policy of invading a sovereign nation, and cynically using the UN inspections process to try to entrap Saddam into creating a phony casus belli for war.
So, Armando and I disagree about whether the case has been made. But I agree with Armando that is not productive for our Democratic leadership to call for impeachment hearings based on the evidence we currently have. It will go nowhere. But that doesn’t mean that everyone else in the bloody world can’t say it. There is no reason for ordinary citizens to muzzle themselves. Passive aggression might be a viable strategy for Pelosi and Reid, but is sucks for the rest of us.
In a May 31st, column in the Boston Globe, Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese wrote:
If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ”high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ”I” word.
That’s not passive aggressive. And neither is this:
Loyalists at this weekend’s state party convention in Oshkosh passed a resolution calling for Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the three officials for their role in the war in Iraq.
The resolution contends that the administration “lied or misled” the United Nations, Congress, and the American public about the justification for the war. It cites the so-called “Downing Street memo” from British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government, as well as reports from U.N. weapons inspectors as evidence of widespread deception.
“Democrats, not only in Wisconsin but throughout the U.S., have been outraged by what we believe has been a clear cover-up of why the U.S. went into Iraq,” said newly elected state party Chairman Joe Wineke.
:::flip:::
Or this:
In a 6-1 vote, the council decided to send a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee asking the panel to investigate the president.
Santa Cruz Mayor Emily Reilly, at right, and Vice Mayor Scott Kennedy, left, conduct a meeting of the City Council in Santa Cruz, Calif., on Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2003. The Santa Cruz City Council is considering becoming the first local government in the country to ask Congress to look into impeaching President Bush. Dozens of activists cheered the decision, even though the letter was a muted version of their proposal for a council resolution in favor of impeaching Bush and other top members of his administration.
“It’s a courageous action,” said Sherry Conable, leader of a coalition of 10 local groups that support impeachment of all top administration officials.
Conable held a sign saying: “Love your country and the world. Impeach Bush/Cheney.”
Or this, from Paul Craig Roberts, one of Reagan’s assistant secretaries of the Treasury:
Or this by Greg Palast:
Or this:
Or this from the Toronto Sun:
Of course, all politicians lie.
But lying to get one’s country into an unnecessary war is an outrage, and ought to be an impeachable offence.
Or this from Doug Thompson of Capitol Hill Blue:
I don’t think Pelosi and Reid, or Dean and Conyers for that matter, should be using these talking points. But I can think of nothing more brilliantly passive aggressive than politely asking for Bush and Cheney’s resignation.
was married to a passive/aggressive guy and let me tell ya, it sure can wear one down. Yes, we need to be vigilant and stay on point: Mr President I call for your resignation NOW! Mr Cheney, I call for your resignation NOW. Mr Rummy I call for your resignation Now. Ms Coniliar I call for your resignation NOW.
Now let’s do it as ONE VOICE PATRIOTS FOR DEMOCRACY!
There is a broad spectrum of positions emerging about what to do in the face of Bush’s lying to Congress. Some want to investigate more. Clearly, we should do that. Some want to call for impeachment. We should do that, too. And then there’s everything in between.
As I’ve written on several occasions, those of us out on the “acting-up” fringe have a roll in pulling the center to the left. Equally important, we provide cover for the pussy-footers amongst us who are worried about premature impeachulation. I love all those eminently reasonable people dearly . . . but I am also glad I’m finally old enough that I don’t have to be one anymore.
Anglico
PS If I took time to note all the ways I agree and disagree with Armando, I’d never get anything written . . . bless his hot-blooded little heart. Cheers!
“premature impeachulation”! Brilliant!
I was going to comment on that when I saw it but gave it a pass…
I have a problem with “passive agressive” because, well, it isn’t honest, imo.
Continued use of it as a tactic can aslo result in personality disorder, see
this and this for example….
I am not discounting what you’re saying here, but we may want to be a little more circumspect in calling for passive-agressiveness. What do the rest of you think?
Passive agression is basically a personality disorder based on projection and abnegation of responsibility for your own weaknesses and flaws. To suggest using it as a political tactic is an admission that you are a weakling laying the groundwork for your martyr complex.
I don’t want to disagree so adamantly with our generous host but, I must. Asking for resignation is weak. I say, we demand impeachment and make a lot of noise about it, raising public awareness of the basis for our accusations of high crimes.
Politics should be (used to be, ought to be) a process of compromise similar to bargaining in a marketplace. If you ask a low price, then the customer is going to hector you down to a lower price and you lose money on the deal. If you start at a high price, then you have a middle ground where you make money, the customer gets a bargain, and both of you feel that you got a good deal.
Let me ground that out: If we ask for resignations, what’s the compromise position? Being laughed out of town? If we demand impeachment proceedings, the compromise is resignations. Am I making sense?
Am I making sense?
Absolutely.
but…
We cannot even initiate hearings, let alone an impeachment hearing. Therefore, we must raise awareness of the crime of using the UN as a cynical ploy to entrap Saddam, and that they were always going to go to war.
Asking for impeachment is fine for me and you and a columnist, or a relative backbencher in Congress. But it is not smart for our leadership to do so.
We want to keep the rumble up in the background, not in the foreground.
But, we can’t pretend something seriously wrong hasn’t been perpetrated. There is no better way than to suggest that Bush and Cheney resign. Why are the Democrats saying that? Something must be seriously wrong? What backs up such extreme statements? </Chris Matthews>
“Well, Chris, they’ve lost all their moral credibility. They lied to the American people and the world, they used the UN as a prop and fixed the intelligence on WMD. They didn’t plan for the aftermath of the war, they badly misjudged the reaction of Iraqis and the costs. And now no one will help us. They have utterly failed the country, and the endangered the well being of the world economy. No one believes a word they say and no one wants to be associated with them, or us. They need to step down and let more responsible people take over. They no longer have any ability or any right to lead this country.”
And so on. All we need is a few Democrats to start saying this. It’s not weak. It’s brutal.
Works for me.
Our job is to speak truth to power, and to pull the consensus to the left. The job of the politicians is to look grave and sober and express great regret when the consensus gells that Bush must go, as they show him the door.
About the fundamental nature of passive-aggression (as one who’s dealt with far too much of it closeup), about the flawed thinking of deliberately adopting such a dysfunctional stance, the weakness of bargaining from a deliberately weakened position–all of it, pretty much, and very stated.
The only niggle I have is this: I think there’s something to be gained by holding a little back. And how that would look here is asking for Bush/Cheney to step down, so that we are not forced to move forward with an impeachment battle, which we cannot now win, but well could win after the 2006 elections.
Make no mistake, I think that impeachment is not just something we ought to consider–it is our duty given the gravity of the crimes involved. If we don’t demand it as a last resort, we are, in fact, guilty ourselves of collaboration in war crimes after the fact, at a bare minimum. We shouldn’t be waiting for others to charge us, we should be proactive in standing up for the rule of law.
But part of what we are fighting for is a politics of inclusion. And that means we can only fight fire with fire in certain strategically indicated situations and ways. So we have to give Bush what Bush never intended for Saddam–a reasonable opportunity to comply. For us, political war really should be a last resort. But one we are quite willing to take up, when we are forced to.
Of course we know that Bush will blow us off. So on one level this is a mere formality. But it’s important to reaffirm the framework of civility that the GOP has so wrecklessly sought to destroy over the past 30+ years. We can’t just wait for afterwards to start rebuilding bonds of trust. We have to work on it throughout–even or especially because the other side will have none of it.
Impeachment is a very serious business. It is not, as the GOP clearly believes, a mere matter of sport. We are forced to take up out of duty. But we should seek every opportunity not to be forced into it. And–just so I’m clear–those opportunities should simultaneously demonstrate the underlying necessity for Bush/Cheney to leave office.
There’s nothing positive in passive-aggressive behavior, as far as I know. It’s basically the “poor me” ploy used to manipulate people into getting your way: “No, PLEASE go bowling with your friends — I don’t mind sitting here alone watching COPS reruns, I really don’t. You deserve to enjoy life.”
Nothing wrong with the strategy, it’s just wrong usage of a word that needs to be nipped in the bud before the other side throws it back in our faces. Nothing more repugnant, to me, at least, than a p-a gamer.
I agree. Having been on the other end of extreme passive-aggressive behaviour, I can tell you that it’s a no-win situation for anybody.
is the answer.
I recall this from reading a popular book a while back — The Assertive Woman. It had a wonderful chart which helped the readers identify, from their responses to others’ actions, their personality types.
I realized that I was leaning toward passive aggressive.
Then the next chart showed the likely outcomes for each personality type. The passive would be most likely to have a breakdown, as I recall. The aggressive would be most likely to commit murder and be imprisoned for life.
But the passive aggressive? Most likely to BE murdered!
That’s when I got to work on . . . assertiveness, instead.:-)
I got stuck on that line.
I think you could step aside from your conversation with Armando and let Armando talk to Armanto. He disagrees with himself better than you’ll ever be able to disagree with him.
At any rate,
On the impeachment front keep in mind, it took three long years to slowly draw the lines connecting the dots on Nixon and that septic-tank-sludge administration.
And back then we had lots of “don’t talk Impeachment while the Russians and Chinese are breathing down our necks!” And “its anti-American to question the President when the country is at war…” and other jingoistic clap-trap.
With BushMart, we got dots that a Watergate investigation never dreamed of being able to connect. In fact, a lot of ’em are the same goddam dots.
And back then,
We had a paid-for-press that didn’t want to dig too deeply either…
It’s Nixon all over again. Tricky DickCo II.
This time we nail ’em.
Checkers-Mate.
I know this has been said a million times before, but impeaching Bush won’t be in the cards until the D’s take over at least the House or the Senate. Without a place to conduct legitimate inquiries that can subpoena – it’s over. It sucks, but the only option appears to be an outright takeover in ’06 like the R’s pulled with the Contract with America”. Sure seems like a longshot… *sigh* –M
The Contract on America sucessfully nationalized the congressional elections and allowed (in combination with a major democratic screw up of redistricting after the 1990 census) the massive swing of congressional seats to the GOP.
If the ’06 elections can be nationalized along the lines of-
“Vote D to find out the truth- did Bush lie us in to a failing war?”
The Dems could have a shot at taking back the House, especially if the country is in the mood for a scapeoat.
This is a media myth. Polls taken at the time found that very few people had heard of the Contract, much less knew anything about it. It was a brilliant marketing tool for snowing the media, but it had little impact on voters. What it did was shape the media narrative interpreting what was actually a very amorphous feeling of frustration and disillusionment.
We are actually in a much stronger position today. Thanks in part to the internet, we can actually nationalize the eleciton in a way that people will actually know about. It will many months to do it right, of course. But we’ve got, like, what, 17 of them?
I don’t think following constitutionally based procedures on impeachment is equivalent to “cavalierly overthrowing a democratically elected government.” Overthrowing a government means breaking the constitional order.
For this issue, it doesn’t matter if the 2004 elections were legitimate. If the evidence is there that Bush & Co. commited high crimes, we must discuss impeachment.
and it seems to me that calling for impeachment would shine some light on the illegal actions of this administration.
I realize the common wisdom is that we don’t stand a chance, and I understand. But what is the cost of politics as usual? Letting the debacle in Iraq go on without international intervention is one huge cost in lives, dollars, and suffering. The continuing rape of the taxpayers by corporations is another. Our country is now an aggressor, and much of the rest of the world rightfully hates us. The economy, jobs.
Shining a light on bushco’s conduct might be worth losing a partisan impeachment vote. Also, it’s remotely possible enough repugs may be sick of the religious right to make it a good fight.
Perhaps calling for his resignation is enough. But can we do it massively enough to make a difference? Conyers only got about a half-million signatures on his petition, a tiny part of the population.
I just don’t know.
I completely disagree with Armando and his use of ‘passive/aggressive’ is just plain crap in my opinion. Passive gets us nowhere. Aggressive doesn’t have to mean shrill or anything like that but simply standing up for what is right and having democrats talk about what is wrong-so very wrong with this whole bushco operation.
Then again his whole argument lost me anyway when he mentioned legitimate election-that’s the beginning of the whole wrong premise right there.(and of course if Clinton can be impeached for cheating on his wife and having oral sex why then is Armando squeamish about democrats talking about bushco’s very real impeachable offenses?)
My opinion would be for democrats to not necessarily talk about impeachment but hammer away at what constitutes impeachable offenses and continue to lay out actions that the White House has taken on so many fronts that are impeachable and continue to talk about these offenses instead going right to calling for impeachment…lay the ground work. Get that into the public consciousness and go from there…and hope the MSM will cover the democrats keeping these facts about impeachable offenses and actions in the news..ha ha but I can hope can’t I.
Forgetting about the political reality for the moment, I’d say there is clearly enough out there for hearings – the equivalent of a grand jury investigation. Maybe, just maybe enough for sending it off to the Senate – i.e. indictment. Nowhere near enough for conviction.
The question is whether the WMD stuff was just cherry picking, spin, and relying on dubious intelligence or outright lying. If the former, it indicates gross incompetence, but that’s not enough to get rid of a president. You need the latter.
We don’t live in a parliamentary system. Incompetence and stupidity are not valid reasons to get rid of a president.
Returning to political reality – the commenters who have noted that this is all a pipe dream without a House majority are correct. So as Boo says, no point in congress members talking about it. Activists, why not, as long as they keep in mind that what they’re saying is ‘he deserves to be impeached’ not actually trying to build a movement towards impeachment. The former is a legitimate way of pointing out that the president is a disaster. The latter is a distraction and a waste of time.
PS. Please don’t quote Paul Craig Roberts in support of an argument. The guy is a white supremacist and a general nutcase, a regular over at VDare. There are some allies you simply don’t want to have.
he’s a bigot. If we get all the bigots in the House to call for handcuffs, the handcuffs will come out.
The guy makes Tancredo look moderate on immigration, Jesse Helms is an enthusiastic supporter of Civil Rights next to him, Tom de Lay a vigorous supporter of judicial independence, Phyllis Schlafy a radical feminist. He’s all around scary.
This is someone who believes that everything wrong in America can be traced back to Brown vs. Board. With the exception of the one issue of the war he is to the right of the furthest right wing reaches of the Republican Party. You should note that he also sees Pinochet as a hero. You see, Allende and the variouis Chilean trade unionists and leftists posed a real threat, unlike Saddam, so torturing and murdering them was great.
The Paleos are a nasty bunch and Roberts is worse than average even for them.
One of my major complaints with the blogosphere in general is the inability of its participants to realistically view their role. The strength of the blogs is that we CAN say things that are untouchable by mainstream politicians. In so doing, we help drive the political discourse while allowing our Democratic leaders to keep their hands clean for the fights that they can win.
This is what the conservative blogs (and talk radio etc.) do to such great advantage. If major Republicans start claiming that the Downing Street Memos are fakes then they better have some facts to back it up, but Freepers or Limbaugh etc. can claim it and get the media to report it and change public perception.
Now, we all realize that Bush will not be impeached, but if all the talk about a Bush impeachment bounces around the lefty blogs enough than that becomes a story and hopefully public opinion will begin to shift. Part of moving the center (which we want to do) is to expand the positioning of the “reasonable” left. Politicians largely cannot do this (though many of us wish they would at least try), but it is easy and insignificant for us to do it.
In short, as long as the concerns are valid, discussing things such as impeachment we do our part to move the center. The key is that the arguments must be seen as reasonable. One can argue whether Diebold-level voter fraud is at that level but the high crimes suggested by the Downing Street memos certainly are.
Impeachment is richly deserved and would be emotionally satisfying, but ultimately is not the goal Americans should be working toward, IMO. This goal, which is to stop the Rwing from causing further damage to the country, can be achieved by other means.
IMO, the plan should be to discredit the Bush administration so thoroughly that the other Rs run for cover. They may not be able to run far and fast enough to escape retribution in the 2006 elections.
Why can’t impeachment talk be a part of that strategy? It may not be a likely goal at all, but it sure adds to the noise we can make against this administration.
As for 2006, many are already saying that many D gains are unlikely, so in a similar vein, should people just stop trying to get more Dems elected? (I’m not a political futurist, so I don’t really know what’s likely in 2006). My point is that we can go after them on all fronts and we owe it to the people to do that.
I think going after them on all fronts is spreading our forces way too thin, and the potential of backlash is too great.
Rs have provided a huge number of targets: the war, LYING, the budget deficit, Schiavo, stem cell research, etc. etc. etc. All gold mines for peel-offs or vote suppression. There are plenty of fronts.
The potential for backlash? People are not happy with the direction this country’s heading. I think Dems lose support if voters think a Dem majority in Congress will continue to ignore the real problems facing the nation and instead use their new power to launch an impeachment proceeding.
I’m not a political futurist, so I don’t really know what’s likely in 2006
Heh, me neither. However, the only strength in Dem weakness is that the incumbent backlash which seems likely will hurt the Rs far more than the Ds. I’m a big fan of playing to your strengths.
Attempting impeachment is a waste of time. First, because the reality based politicians like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are, you’ll notice, steering completely clear of the whole thing because they can see that it won’t happen. Second, because it’s a massive drain of energy away from the 2006 elections.
What should be happening is a careful review of the policies of the DNC to see whether the party continues to deserve the support of the progressive community. I don’t think it does, personally, but in any case the point needs to be considered. And if the conclusion is that the Democratic party is a money-driven power-hungry regressive institution, then the progressive community should confront that fact and get going on a third party.
Trying to impeach Bush is a head-banging-on-wall-in-frustration exercise. If you’re into that sort of thing, getting a third party movement would at least have some long-term value.
It does not matter whether or not chimpeachment is possible. What matters is whether or not this administration has committed high crimes and misdemeanors that are impeachable.
Yes or no?
If yes, then we have no course but to advocate impeachment with every fiber of our being. The ethics of advocating impeachment is not based on the likelihood of success, it’s based on taking the right course of action when you consider the facts to the best of your ability. We are bound to pursue the right course of action whether or not we think it will be successful. That is how history will judge us.
The truth about this administration is already out in the open for everyone to see it, so we can be sure that history will tell the tale of deceit and corruption with brutal honesty.
The truth about the Iraq war is already out in the open, so we can be sure that history will tell the tale about an illegal war and crimes against humanity with brutal honesty.
The truth about the hijacking of two presidential elections is already out in the open, so we can be sure that history will tell the tale about corporate sabotage of the American electoral process with brutal honesty.
Please do not doubt it! Even if you think they can prolong the cover up in American history books, this is not the only country where they teach the subject.
So, when history tells the tale, mythmother won’t be mentioned in it. But there will be mention of those who fought to get the truth out in the open and demanded a day of reckoning for the corrupt Bush administration, whether or not they thought that in the end they could be successful.
P.S. Armando is entitled to his opinion.
What is the right thing to do? We already know that failure to be bold only makes us lose more and more ground. So why even bother making that argument.
Brava/Bravo (whichever the case may be) mythmother!
Great post, mythmother.
The ethics of advocating impeachment is not based on the likelihood of success, it’s based on taking the right course of action when you consider the facts to the best of your ability.
That is the key for me. What do I want to pass on to my granddaughter and the grand-herb to be? A memory of a grandma who stood for her principles or one of a woman who kept quiet? That second version of grandma is not one they know now – nor will it ever be.
with you that impeachment is the right thing to do, and that those of us who believe that have no other moral choice but to pursue that end as aggressively and as vocally as possible.
I’m not sure if I agree with the inevitability of history telling the tale as we see it.
History is basically the propoganda of the winners. In order for this story to be told truthfully, we must be the winners in this battle for the American soul.
This is something I fervently hope, but do not necessarily see as inevitable.
Pshaw.
Passive/aggressiveness is for psychological bullies. It’s manipulative and dishonest and makes one untrustworthy. Anyone who’s ever taken or given assertiveness training can tell you that there are far more effective ways to express yourself and get what you want:
Ironically, from the same random article I Googled:
I just zipped through the comments in Armando’s diary and I can’t believe how many – actually most – people didn’t even talk about what passive-aggressiveness is! One would think – well, I would think, that if people are going to nod their heads and cheer on a proposed strategy, they’d at least make an effort to understand what that strategy actually means. Instead it’s “look at us! we’re all passive-aggressive and stuff”, as if it’s the cool new flavour of the month. C’mon people – I expect more than sheeple on our lefty or centrist or whatever blogs.
Whatever happened to just telling the truth clearly and as often as possible as a strategy? That, FYI, is not passive-aggressiveness. That is assertiveness.
the guts to play offense.
Near as I can tell, Armando just doesn’t know what the term means, or at least totally misused it. It should be dropped in relation to this discussion, because it has absolutely nothing to do with it. There’s nothing p-a about calling for impeachment OR calling for resignation OR calling for investigations OR saying nothing at all for the moment.
This seems like another tempest in a teapot. I think things are proceeding exactly right for once. There’s a minority calling for impeachment and thus introducing the idea even though they’re dissed by the “mainstream”. And then there’s the designated hitters, elected pols and party biggies taking a more statesmanlike, conservative, wait-and-see position. Both are necessary at this point if you want to start pushing the impeachment/resignation meme into the national awareness.
The either/or argument is just nonsense, and I don’t get why anybody would bring it up. It’s like arguing whether the Cubbies should have all batters or all pitchers. We need some of both, and more. So choose your role and play it. It’s that simple.
he misused it. I think some of you may be asking for the analogy to do more work than it is capable of doing.
The Passive part is a refusal to offer a positive agenda prematurely. The aggression is saying no to the GOP agenda.
He made a play on words, and I made a play on his play on words. It’s all good-natured jousting.
That’s not what passive-aggressiveness is though. That’s my point and Dave’s as well. That’s just political strategery. You can actively, rather than passively, refuse to show your cards/agenda while robustly opposing the GOP agenda.
Perhaps, for those of us with some psych training, the term implies something more than you and Armando realize. (?)
just a love of double entendres that is irritating you 🙂
He irritates me too, but he already knows that via the many e-mails I send him where we battle things out privately. 🙂
(emails with A.) that you and I share 🙂
We must keep him very, very busy!
. . . yet. Nothing like what took down Nixon, which was the president himself on tape discussing criminal actions. (In and around all the “expletives deleted”).
It took two years of investigation, from the break-in that was the beginning of the discovery of Watergate to the revelation of the tapes . . . and then the subpoena of the tapes and the refusal to turn them over and the firings of the Saturday Night Massacre and the rulings for Congress . . . and then the missing minutes and the president’s agreement to have them transcribed . . . and finally, what was on them — THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, not someone saying what he said.
But, that said, the impeachment discussion was building, building, building in those last few months, and the American people worked through that it wouldn’t be the end of the U.S. as we knew it, etc. So no problem in low-level talking about it.
Of course, it’s also true that the American people were weary of a war that had killed the first American almost thirty years before by then. . . .
somewhat hidden in your excellent historical comment, namely, the smoking gun was found AFTER the impeachment process had started. Indeed, it was the investigation associated with the impeachment process that “smoked out” the smoking gun.
We don’t need the smoking gun upfront. What we need — and have — is enough evidence to raise serious questions that require answers.
What the Dems need to do for ’06 is this: elect us and we’ll get the answers. Elect the Repugs, and they will continue hiding the information that you, as citizens of this democracy, have a right to know: what was the evidence that the Bush administration used to send our sons and daughters to kill and be killed in a foreign land.
might be to talk up the “high crimes and misdemeanors” committed by this administration for the next year and a half. There is no way that impeachment is currently possible. After the 2006 elections, if the Dems take back at least one of the houses, we might be able to actively talk about impeachment. Or, spend those two years until 2008 really solidifying a base to take the WH and retain on of the houses, if not take both.
George is a “Christian.” I am quite certain that he’ll be on the hot seat in the next life.
Given the fact that impeachment is politically untenable at this time due to the Repug control of the House and Senate, then the near term strategy for Dem leaders should be investigation.
There is now unrefuted evidence out there — seemingly unavailable at the time that previous investigations were undertaken (although we cognoscenti know better) — that seriously calls into question the motives and bases for the Iraq War, and the truthfulness of the statements made by the administration to Congress and the American people. This raises serious questions, that demand answers. ACCOUNTABILITY.
Part of the Dem strategy for ’06 should be this: The American people have the right to know why their sons and daughters have been sent to a foreign land to kill and be killed. Elect the Repugs, and they will continue to hide that information from you. Elect the Dems, and we will get the answers.
I am pure delighted with this diary, and also that the dialogue is open. That’s good. That’s healthy. That’s democracy.
I look forward to this debate being opened in the American media.
Thanks for the excellent job you have done here.
CAN I PUBLISH THIS DIARY IN AFTERDOWNINGSTREET DOT ORG AND ELSEWHERE???