Calling Dr. Fielding! Daniel Ellsberg, whom I admire -- or used to admire -- needs help. In his Cindy Sheehan endorsement speech, Ellsberg indicates that a head gasket may have burst in the machineries of his mind.
In the first place, he is supporting the candidacy of a fool who has no business in Congress. I am sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss, but she's a big girl with a big audience, and she must take responsibility the far-right crapola she has been peddling lately. She has given mouth service to false claims that the income tax is unconstitutional and that the Democrats started World Wars I and II. Not long ago, only John Birchers and neo-Nazis mouthed such ludicrous sentiments.
Speaking of ludicrous sentiments, let's take a closer look at what Ellsberg has to say:
"One essential demand is for Pelosi to encourage, rather than to block, Congressional investigations of past and ongoing Administration deception, unwisdom, illegality, and unconstitutionality in pursuing an aggressive war and in curtailing our rights."
Pelosi has blocked investigations? Gosh. I don't know where Ellsberg has been vacationing, but here on planet Earth, I've noted quite a few.
I want to see more, obviously. But let's face some uncomfortable facts: The Bush administration is making slow but sure headway with their repeated claim that Congress has spent too much time investigating and not enough time making law.
According to the most recent Rasmussen poll on the subject, 32% believe that there have been too many investigations, and 39% believe that there have been too few. The numbers still favor holding Bushco accountable -- thank God -- but I consider them too close for comfort. Things look grimmer in a Los Angeles Times poll which found that a whopping 63% of the public feel that Congressional investigations of Walter Reed and the U.S. Attorney scandal were conducted to gain political advantage, not for the good of the country.
Do I think investigations should stop? Hell no! I want more, more, more. And still more. I'm just pointing out that the ice beneath your feet is thinner than you think.
So just which investigation has Pelosi actively blocked? That was the word you used, Daniel. Care to humor us with a few specifics?
Then we have the comment about "outrageous legislation purporting to legalize warrantless wiretaps and data mining." Let me restate what I've proven in several long posts. S1927 was indeed bad legislation. I support Pelosi's expressed desire to fix the problems after the recess is over. But the minimization procedures built into the law forbid data mining on American citizens. I don't know what Ellsberg has been reading, but I'll bet that he hasn't fastened his eyeballs on a single text containing the words "minimization procedures." And I'll bet he has not read the actual law.
Okay, here is where it gets really loopy:
"If we can induce her to do that, then a year from now, Cindy Sheehan should be running for an open seat, or against a brand-new incumbent appointed by our Republican governor. Nancy Pelosi, third in line for succession when Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed, will be in the White House. That will, as it happens, leave an open field for Cindy.
"So you see, it's nothing personal for us. After all, as representatives of big business go, Nancy Pelosi is better than most. We don't aim to kick her out of politics; we aim to kick her upstairs. And there's a bonus: President Pelosi as a write-in candidate in November."
In other words: We want Pelosi for Prez so much that we are going to run against her and weaken her politically.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The moment Pelosi says that she wants Dick-and-Dubya to leave town, the national storyline changes. Say goodbye to the script titled "Bush: Idiot in Charge." The new script will be "Nancy: Portrait of a Coup-Plotter." She'll be the butt of jokes on Leno and Letterman for months.
I've repeatedly asked the readers of my blog to tell me what Pelosi has done on impeachment that differs in any substantial way from what her predecessor Carl Albert did in 1974. The responses amounted to nothing more than evasions, subject-switching and puerile insult. Nobody has offered any historical answers to an historical question.
Daniel, you recall that history. You were there. You lived it. Maybe you might have a go at answering my question?
And maybe you could explain to Democrats why you support someone who says that FDR -- not Hitler or Tojo -- started WWII? Maybe you could explain to everyone why you support someone who spouts right-wing crap about the Federal Reserve and the "unconstitutional" federal income tax?
Let me tell you, Daniel -- if you really believe that nonsense, then -- well, I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. You need a shrink.
6 comments:
I hope I’m not splitting hairs
or cracking teeth here,
But Pelosi has got to be sincere
& finally make clear that
WTC7 was “pulled” while
Israelis dance and cheer,
and Bernard Lewis’ Grand Chaos
draw’d near..
I don’t mean to sound cavaliere
But this war’ll go on for a few more year, no matter how many sheen or sheehan crocodile tears.
Ask Zibignew in the corner,
Crying in his beer.
And now so mines have been alaid
Throughout the political sphere
How to exit? who to hate?
it all seems so unclear.
In this new “arena” we sip
cocktails on the belvedere
“she isn’t going far enough!”
Yeah, war’s a bitch, my dear.
..but seriously, maybe Pelosi could pull it off. We do all know that she will be seen as the coup leader shebitch... so yeah, she ought to reclaim that image! Dress like Ilssa, and smoke cigars, and everytime Bush walks out of the room, she should tell people she can still smell the sulphur... no, seriously, didn't that work with Warren Beatty in Bulworth? We can call her Comandante Flowerchild ! That will work, I swear. She just has to learn how to rap freestyle!
If you had not chosen an interesting rhyme scheme, your comment would have been SO canceled.
But I really would have been impressed if you had come up with a rhyme for "Chaos."
The "historical" answer you are seeking is quite simple. This is not 1974 and the circumstances now are but tenuously comparable to then at best.
We have nothing to "investigate" here. As the regime fully admits their actions and simply "defends" them as lawful and non-impeachable by rationalization of "Unitary" monarchical power. Their Geneva and FISA violations are already a part of the public record.
There is no "smoking gun" waiting to be found. Just chuckling neofascists laughing at the oldest GOP joke in DC:
"Gosh, for a minute there I thought they might actually DO something."
The irony of course is that impeachment is literally the only thing the DC Dems can actually DO. They can voice objection in the name of the American People for atrocities committed in their name, but without their proper consent. They can get what's left of our once-great nation "off the hook" -- in the eyes of the world, of our children, and for history.
Carl Albert also did not have a decades-long perception of weakness that could be expunged with a single act of substantive defiance. I suspect he'd not have missed such an opportunity.
(Note: If anyone wants to deal with "having the votes," "no time," or anything with "Clinton" in it, I'm happy to oblige.)
A lesson of 1974 that should be taken is the simple one of dealing with cheney first, thus allowing appointment of a caretaker VP-2B-POTUS which will be approved by the entire Congress (more irony in that he -- Danforth or Warner -- would actually hold the "consent of the governed" that's been absent since Jan. 6, 2001).
You see, no "coup" charges to fear. Really nothing to fear. Not even the 30% "all of the time" fooled. Because as David Brooks told us last week: Republicans hate bushcheney.
Now as to Sheehan and Ellsberg, I agree -- foolish too. A primary opponent is what is called for here. Preferably one that could project the power of the netroots by "Lamonting" Pelosi for her failure to impeach. My suggestion would be to bring Matt Gonzalez back into the Dem fold as he seems ideally suited for the purpose.
In fact, your blog just might be "big enough" to get something like this off the ground.
No way. In fact, you and I are in opposition.
Nancy Pelosi is the most liberal individual ever to hold her office. And any Democrat holding the office would have the same damn problem: Any attempt to get rid of both Bush and Cheney would look like a coup, like a personal bid for power.
As I've said many times, you don't care about anything Nancy has ever done -- because she has not blocked ANYTHING. You just want her to say the magic words.
At any rate, I've looked at the mechanism for getting rid of a Speaker. Guess what? Practically speaking, there ain't none. Speakers have been known to resign if caught in scandal, but there's no way to force them out before the next election. I guess the full House could have a new vote, but how likely is that?
So you are stuck with Nancy throughout the rest of the Bush years.
Personally, I would like to see her do a stint as president. Like HELL I'm going to support a primary challenger.
I think your historical arguments are specious -- they amount to special pleading.
Like it or not, impeachment falls to the Judiciary Committee -- to Conyers. He has earned my trust and I will defer to his judgment. (I do not trust easily, but I do trust him.) He may understand that there simply is no support for such a move.
Or -- a thought that occurs to me with greater frequency -- maybe he knows something about the future. A impending economic downturn. A serious worldwide recession.
If a meltdown is inevitable -- and it may well be -- better it happens on Bush's watch. Not only would impeachment be much more feasible, it would destroy the conservative philosophy for a generation.
Yes, I admit I am speculating. But the idea haunts me.
Of course, if disaster happens, the left will blame Nancy Pelosi -- and the right will blame Bill Clinton.
After that, my great fear is that everyone will say that Congress doesn't work; we need a Big Daddy.
You mentioned fascism. Well, that is how REAL fascism begins.
Boy, that's a lot of fears.
You're certainly a member of the "In Beltway We Trust" club.
Sorry to spook you with the "I-word."
FWIW, you might want to reexamine the definition of "special pleading."
--
Post a Comment