Home

What Are We Waiting For?

Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-04-10 03:24.
»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Spoken like a man who knows they won't listen.

Submitted by willyloman on Thu, 2008-04-10 04:10.

I would like to know where Dennis is on impeachment these days, David.

I mean, if he has given up, what the hell are we doing?

Any ideas as to why he didn't submit those 61 articles on the day of the State of the Union Address?

You said it was not about Pelosi and AIPAC, so... what do you think keeps him silent these days?

»

I did not say

Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-04-10 04:21.

it was not about Pelosi or not about AIPAC or otherwise say what it was. I said the a particular third-hand report of a specific meeting of pelosi's staff and aipac reps with kucinich was bogus, that no such meeting occured.

»

Thank you for clearing that up...

Submitted by willyloman on Thu, 2008-04-10 04:44.

Any ideas on the last part of my question? I mean you probably know as much about the impechment process's progress in the capitol as anybody.

Why would impeachments strongest and clearest advocate just go silent on the subject?

Well, maybe people should read the whole story themselves. It started with new Jersey impeachment Group, if I am not mistaken.

And though the author of that original story did say one source still confirms it, another has denied it... so he retracted the story (and gives credit to David in he retraction article).

he says "Aim your blame at Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Leadership Council, and at an arrogant elite that considers itself entitled to enslave humanity." Stuart Hutchenson

Imagine that; the DLC... aren't Clinton and Obama DLC?

Didn't Conyers say he wouldn't impeach because it would hurt Obama's chances?

hm.

http://www.impeachthem.com/?q=node/1736

»

Obama is NOT DLC

Submitted by Darwin26 on Thu, 2008-04-10 07:24.

First: the DLC would not find it propitious to pit two DLC Titans ... one is not DLC, guess which one ? =
2nd i don't feel that Obama would be attracted to the ugliness of James Carvelles, although it's entirely likely there'd be simularities in various positions...but in some entirely different or at least enough to draw line. Like Obama's luke warm Fair Trade stance and Free Market Fundamentalism of the DLC.

Darwin26
Viet Nam drafted Combat Veteran WIA '68
Co-State Coordinator PDA Montana
Billings Peace Seeker, member
MPFI, partner
PDA Fair Trade & Impeachment Teams
www.pdamontana.org
www.williamsstudiogallery.com

»

from the DLC website...

Submitted by willyloman on Thu, 2008-04-10 12:01.

"In 2003, with Obama's permission, the DLC anointed the then-Illinois state senator as one of its 100 rising stars. From said that Obama attended DLC-sponsored events in Chicago, although the organization doesn't try to claim him as a Third Way acolyte. In fact, Obama emphasized in a letter to The Black Commentator weekly in 2003 that he did not endorse the DLC platform or consider himself a member. "I think the general thrust of the message that made him soar -- the magic of Obama -- wasn't even part of the lexicon of the party before the DLC: opportunity, responsibility, hope," From said. "At least thematically, it's ironic that a lot of it is not that different from some of the things [Bill] Clinton did in '92."

Obama also talks about working with political opposites, and that's part of the DLC gospel, too."

Just because he is not a member, does not mean they do not support his "centrists", business freindly views. Not does that mean they donot support his candidacy.

Just like major corporations hedge their bets with republican and democratic candidates, so does the DLC as long as both candidates will reflect their stated goals.

and clearly the DLC says here, that he does.

»

really?

Submitted by willyloman on Thu, 2008-04-10 12:18.

"Like Obama's luke warm Fair Trade stance and Free Market Fundamentalism of the DLC."

Really?
I guess that means the Obama is the "populus candidate"? And has been so throughout the primary process? Wow. All this time I thought it was Gravel, Kucinich, and Edwards... jeez, I must be daft.

Lets see what the CFR says about Obama's positions on TRADE:

"Sen. Obama (D-IL) generally supports free trade policies, though like many of his fellow Democratic candidates, he has expressed concern about free trade agreements that do not include labor and environmental protections."

" in February 2008, Obama said he does not think "it's realistic for us to repeal NAFTA," because that could lead to "more job loss ... than job gains." (ABC)"

"Obama voted to approve the 2006 FTA with Oman."

" Obama did not vote on the 2007 Peru FTA, but expressed support for the deal (AP)."

Well, that's luke warm, kinda... How about those Fake populus candidates that aren't still in the race, and somehow the DLC got confused with Obama?

Edwards

"Sen. Edwards (D-NC) has been increasingly critical of free trade policies, arguing that they have diminished protections for labor and the environment. In October 2007, Edwards spoke against the FTA with Peru, which he says is simply an attempt to expand NAFTA. Upon that FTA's November 2007 passage in the House, Edwards said he was "disappointed," and criticized Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) for supporting the legislation."

"Edwards voted against the implementation of the FTA with Chile in 2003, and against the Africa Free Trade bill in 1999."

Kucinich

"Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) has been one of the most adamant congressional critics of free trade, saying it is responsible for lost jobs in the United States and abusive working conditions abroad. He voted against the creation of FTAs with Oman, Singapore, and Chile, and against the Trade Act of 2002. He says if elected, he will withdraw the United States from NAFTA immediately. In November 2007, Kucinich voted against legislation authorizing an FTA with Peru"

"Kucinich also voted against the CAFTA Implementation Bill in 2005, saying, “trade agreements are seeking cheaper labor where they can go to countries where the labor is cheap, but they are not selling American goods there. So we are seeing that we are not finding new markets for our goods; yet, we are finding markets for cheap labor. That is what these trade agreements do.”

"Kucinich voted in favor of a 2005 House resolution proposing U.S. withdrawal from the WTO. Although that resolution failed, he continues to advocate withdrawal. He also voted against the Africa Free Trade bill."

Hmmmmm.....

Yes, I see your point. The pro-business pro-free-trade DLC wouldn't have any stake in seeing the field narrowed to Clinton and Obama...

I mean, Obama's record on free-trade is almost identical to that the of other populus candidates...

almost.

»

Let's Not Wait Any Longer

Submitted by LanceCiepiela on Thu, 2008-04-10 16:49.

In one minute Dennis made the case. Why wait for things to get worse? Why believe those testifying that we have to wait, things might get better? Let's cut off the funds, redeploy our troops home safely and promptly, and let's move on. Heads up Congress. Get to work.

»

To End The War: Our Coalition Must Threaten Dem's House Majority

Submitted by John H Kennedy ... on Thu, 2008-04-10 21:13.

The Iraq War will go on for years regardless of which Democrat wins the White House...unless we quickly start playing hard ball with Democratic Congressmen.

We helped give the Democrats their majority control of the US House and as a reward, the House Democrats have ignored us on our two key issues, stopping the war by stopping the funding and on stopping the war by impeachment.

Their reasons for stonewalling the start of impeachment hearings are well known and all are bogus.

I think that our unwillingness to take a big risk, is the reason that we "don't scare the Dems in the least".

I think that we need to identify those Congressmen in "tight races" in every state and oppose them solely on the basis of not protecting the Constitution and honoring their oath. I think that if Pelosi's Speakership position is at risk and/or that the huge hoped for increase in their majority seems at risk, that the House Democrats will possibly support impeachment.

In Colorado none of our Congressmen are opposed for re-election or have light opposition.

Our Rep. DeGette won re-election by a wide margin and ignores us when we speak of impeachment. Going to her for impeachment is wasted as she supports Pelosi's off the table edict.

The real vulnerbility for the House Leadership in Colorado is Congressman Udall.

According to a poll there is only 2.6 % between him and his Republican opponent Schaffer. We are opposing Udall for elevation to the Senate because he didn't honor his oath in the House and protect the Constitution by supporting impeachment hearings. We've been very noisy about doing so. Every time there is an article in the Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News we comment on Udall and his failure to protect the Constitution.

We have been protesting his public events, his campaign headquarters and other events with signs that say "Is Udall a Traitor to his oath?" and "If Udall won't protect the Constitution he won't protect you", and others of similar verbiage. We seem to be having the desired effect. The Dem elites here are furious.

We are getting feedback that suggests we can make a difference in the election results. We only have to change it 1.31 percent. We believe either Udall will support impeachment or some other "safe" Colorado Congressman will do so to take the heat off of Udall.

I think that once each week, United for Peace And justice, World Can't Wait and all others should put away our anti-war signs and go out and loudly oppose vulnerable Democratic candidates with impeachment related signs instead.

We're not going to stop the Iraq War in less than a couple of years without impeachment. Make them impeach and you will have power over them.

My op-ed at OpedNews.org "Time to Quit Playing Impeach Games with Conyers & Pelosi" explains my theory that we can stop the war (by impeachment) IF we start to loudly and publicly oppose Democratic Congressmen who are running for re-election, or for the Senate.

The congressmen aren't playing nice with us, so why are we playing nice with them?

My op-ed: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_ken_080404_time_to_quit_pla...

John H Kennedy, Denver CO, organizer
Impeach group website: http://ImpeachCO.com
The Colorado Impeach Coalition

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.