Impeachment proponents in Congress have been bolstered by a memorandum by the Congressional Research Service on Jan. 6. CRS, which is the research arm of Congress, asserted in a report by national security specialist Alfred Cumming that the amended 1947 law requires the president to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of a domestic surveillance effort. It was the second CRS report in less than a month that questioned the administration's domestic surveillance program.There's a Lawrence of Arabia quote for every occasion -- and right now, I'm thinking of the scene where Anthony Quinn tells Omar Sharif "This is a new trick!"
The latest CRS report said Mr. Bush should have briefed the intelligence committees in the House and Senate. The report said covert programs must be reported to House and Senate leaders as well as the chairs of the intelligence panels, termed the "Gang of Eight."
The question is not "Should Bush be impeached?" but "Why is Moon pushing the idea now?" After all, the Korean Khrist has long been close to Dubya's daddy. Brother Neil has been tagging along with the Moon roadshow for some time. And W himself even gave a televised "thumbs up" to Moon's "Tear Down the Cross Day" rally. (How our Fearless Leader managed to avoid paying a political price for that endorsement remains a mystery.)
So...what's really going on here?
Possibility numero uno: The Bushies know they done wrong and they would rather face impeachment proceedings now, rather than later -- when the Dems control one or both houses.
Possibility numero duo: Maybe Moon is pissed. Maybe he wanted W to make a personal appearance at the "Tear Down the Cross" thing in 2003. Or maybe Moon has been demanding an unabashed declaraton of his Messiah-hood from the Smirking One. The Korean Khrist is just nutty enough, and just arrogant enough, to issue such a demand and to add an "or else." UPI -- another Moon outfit -- has published a flurry or reports surprisingly critical of the administration.
Possibility numero three-o: Perhaps the Bush forces want Dems to mount an impeachment drive based on illegal wiretapping -- because the Bushies know that a certain nuclear event will occur later this year. "We could have prevented this tragedy, but the Democrats weakened our security." A carefully-planned propaganda barrage on that theme -- in the wake of a national tragedy -- would destroy all opposition to Republican one-party rule.
UPDATE: Bob Fertik has more on this. It's must-read material.
7 comments:
I hate to say it, but #3 seems the most likely.
yes, I agree with Scenario #3.
I think a nuclear explosion in the US is coming up later this year to a town near you. Then the Republican thug curtain will come down and really turn this country into a modified version of Hitler's Third Reich.
Where? my guess is that it will be on the west coast to take out either the northern california or southern california bastion of liberalism. they have been trying for on and off over a period of 15 years (1989-2004) to destroy the SF Bay Area anyway using old friends in the SouthEast Asia drug corridor to do their dirty work. But those "friends" no longer exist so they'll have to do this one inhouse instead of outsourcing.
The right wing republican thugs hate hate hate California lawmakers Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and I believe have been frothing at the mouth to take one or all of them out.
My suggestion is that they never travel all three of them together, this would be too much of a tempting target for which the new unpublished EMF pulse beam technology would do the trick of jamming the electrical system of their plane and then blaming the plane crash as with Senator Wellstone's plane crash on pilot error and poor weather conditions. bull shit! The NTSB role has been nothing more than to do expensive cover-ups of plane crashes of high profile liberals/politicians such as with Wellstone and even JFK Jr.
Getting back to topic: when would this nuclear event happen? just before actual impeachment proceedings result in Bush's removal. These folks will never ever give up power. The pendulum has permanently swung over to the far right and the these thugs in office will never let go without a fight.
Work on getting your exit visas and work permits for other countries in order over the next year.
I agree that number three looks likely, but there is a fourth possibility. You are assuming that the Bushies are monolithic, but I'm not sure that that is so. Moon is a Bush senior supporter and there is a split between the father's and the son's camps (or so it seems) Could this be Moon throwing his support behind the father? I admit that this is a rosy scenario in these dark times, but this possibility should at least be considered.
Bear in mind, it was the monied elite which drove out Nixon, not "liberals". Much the same thing could be happening here -- these people love their tax cuts, but they will tolerate only so much misrule and incompetence which (after all) threatens their broader interests.
A worthless dollar and a collapsed military are not in the interests of the ruling classes of America. And while these interests are perfectly happy to see a candidate run on religion, they don't want religious nuts controlling the government.
As for the nuclear scenario -- Bush & Co. are certainly capable of it, but the chance of such a thing happening would seem very slight, as the consequences would be disastrous for the U.S. economy. They'll never get the okay for it from Wall Street. Mere contemplation of the idea would likely get Bush assasinated or impeached.
This was a pre-emptive move from the Bush Administration. They believe they can win in the court of public opinion.
Flash back to the late 80's. What was the only newspaper to cover the story about the gay prostitution ring (and Craig Spence)in Washington touring the White House at night? The Washington Times. A commentor on another BLOG (or maybe it was this Joseph's BLOG - I read so many) theorized a while back that the Times running that story may have been a warning to the Bush I administration that it had information it could/would publish if the administration didn't play ball. I think that's the most viable theory here. The article is a veiled warning. Just an opinion.
For so many reasons, I'm actually going with possibility number two. For now. Sort of. I think one explanation for the article is more like a combination of possibilities two and three. The neocons know the end is coming and they'd like to push for it happening via impeachment, so they can demonize the Democrats for the effort as much as possible.
Anon 3:41, does your comment mean that you think that if an impeachment happened soon, Bush's people believe he would survive it? Even I don't necessarily believe that.
Post a Comment