Ellsberg has said that Obama should be impeached (updated)

[ProSense]

Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 12:24 PM - Edit history (3)

Now, this is less than a month into his second term after winning re-election by a landslide.

Daniel Ellsberg: NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision is Part of "Systematic Assault on Constitution"

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, as a law, it’s unprecedented, but as a practice—what we’ve seen for the last 10 years is a systematic assault on the Constitution of the United States in every aspect—in the aspects of the illegal surveillance, the warrantless surveillance, which was conducted against me 40 years ago by President Nixon and then led to his impeachment proceedings, but is now regarded as legal. That’s the way the law has changed. Efforts to assault me or kill me on the steps of the Capitol on May 3rd, 1972, a presidential hit squad of the kind that the president now takes pride in proclaiming that he runs all over the world.

<...>

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, 40 years ago, I was on trial for the same offense, essentially, as Bradley Manning, though he was in the military. As a former civilian official, I released 7,000 pages of top-secret documents demonstrating lies, crimes, treaty violations by the American government that had lied us into a wrongful and hopeless war and were killing Americans and others at a great rate as it went on. For that, I was facing 115 years in prison, just as Bradley Manning is now facing life charges, essentially the same. In my case, the crime—the then-crimes against me of illegal surveillance, warrantless surveillance, the use of the CIA against me, now legal under the PATRIOT Act, and a hit squad against me, now allegedly legal by the president, all those things figured in impeachment proceedings against President Nixon.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_detention_provision

Yeah, Nixon trying to kill you "on the steps of the Capitol" is the same as going after Osama bin Laden and other terrorists.

Updated to remove the reference to Nixon. I read it wrong.

[Californeeway]

1. Am I allowed to respect someone for something they did in the past

while not slavishly agreeing with every statement they make today?

Am I allowed to have different opinions than this person, without being told I'm throwing him under the bus?

I wonder..........

I guess in DU's world of black and white moral clarity I have to choose between love and hate and if I experience something in between those two lazy extremes what do I do?

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

2. If some of these infallible characters they worship were ever elected to office

It wouldn't take long for them to be hated.

[Californeeway]

7. You nailed it. People yearn for infallible heroes to follow without question

Lefties do it just as bad as any other group.

It's easy to write opinion pieces and give interviews, espouse the wisdom of your ideas without those ideas ever being tested by being put in practice.

And it's easy to ascribe brilliance and heroism to someone who's writings and behavior confirm your biases.


very little critical thinking involved in any of it.

[loyalsister]

14. "two lazy extremes"

Excellent phrase. This is a big political problem for the administration and all that may be possible with a 2014 congress. Climate change is front and center and any movement is probably endlessly stalled.

I'm not suggesting that those who are outraged by what Snowden has done are wrong.
I am suggesting that ignoring the political consequences may be so damaging that the rest of Obama's turn would be a squandered opportunity.

But, I do believe that exploring the possibility that damage it is doing to and agenda that includes climate change, dealing with the initiating the health care, budget issues, the sequester - that is still in place.

[Californeeway]

62. No political issue exists in a vacuum

Remember how Obama traded off raising taxes on the rich so he could get DADT overturned. That was a very visible example but there are more that are less obvious.

Al these issues are tied together whether advocates like it or not.

If you tear down a political leader because you disagree strongly with a handful of policy positions, you are also weakening chances that said political leader will achieve successes on the other policy issues where you do agree. Few people think it through to that level.

Obama has done a ton of stuff I don't agree with, but I have to weigh that against what he has done that I agree with and what he could do.......

[Left_Is_Right]

128. Obama traded off raising taxes on the rich so he could get DADT overturned....NOT!

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

No disrespect...but if I remember correctly...and I could be wrong because I'm old and forgetful sometimes...but I think I remember that the right held the unemployed hostage. Obama traded increasing taxes so that MILLIONS who would have been cut off...would contine to receive unemployment benefits. The sad part was that the 99ers...those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own...and were unable to find employment within 99 weeks...STILL FOUND NO EMPLOYMENT and there were no benefits in the agreement for them...This burned my toast to no end!

Obama has made a lot of promises...many of which he couldn't, or really had no intention of keeping. I voted for him twice, and unfortunately, I'm VERY close to regretting it. Couple that with the dysfunction of congress and the spinelessness of the democrats to do the right thing...even if it may mean their job come next election...I am under no delusion that what they do is easy, however, I don't see them doing much....and the more I look...and I mean REALLY look...the worse I like it... of course...it would help if we had someone with spine leading the way in congress....

I am loathe to ponder what actions will require to actually change America...and I shudder at the possibilities...

[loyalsister]

146. Exactly

I think ending DADT might have been part of the deal. But definitely extending unemployment was the primary goal. I remember how relieved one of my friends was because she was worried she wasn't going to be able to buy Christmas gifts for her kids otherwise.

[aquart]

57. Sure. Like Ralph Nader.

[Californeeway]

83. Good Example

[boston bean]

98. With 33 posts what do you know about "DU's world of black and white moral clarity"?

You just joined DU yesterday.

[Le Taz Hot]

134. Correction:

This isn't "DU's World," it's a FEW vocal, very prolific posters who dominate the board and make it seem as though there's is the majority opinion. Look a little closer, keep reading others' posts and you'll find that most are rational, thoughtful and address the issues without the cult of personality attached to it.

And welcome to DU.

[Luminous Animal]

3. How dare he. Obama is pure at heart when he bombs people.

[dkf]

27. Okay I had to lol...

[aquart]

61. No man ever reached the presidency in a state of grace. --Jimmy Breslin

YES, A NATIONAL LEADER BOMBS PEOPLE. As long as we have troops in the region, we will be KILLING the people of that region. Or did you think our suicidal soldiers were making daisy chains?

What did you think he was going to do? Hand out daisy chains? Seriously?

If being a citizen of a super power makes you uncomfortable, vote Republican. They are turning us third world as fast as they can. And then other countries will bomb us when they're annoyed.

[galileoreloaded]

4. what do you think? nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. Perhaps you should look beyond the messanger and focus on the message.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Nixon won every state except Massachusetts in 1972.

Not quite a landslide, but enough to ensure that he couldn't be impeached in his second term.

Q.E.D.

If Ellsberg had been politically active back then, he'd know his history better!

[Demeter]

53. What are you talking about?

The only reason Nixon WASN'T impeached is that the GOP Senators convinced him to resign so they wouldn't have to vote for impeachment, and Ford immediately pardoned him before anybody could start any other proceedings.

He should have gone to jail. But a Presidential Pardon covers a lot of sins.

[NuclearDem]

73. Oh Manny!

[Left_Is_Right]

131. Manny...I like your banner...here's one for ya:}

[MannyGoldstein]

132. I like that a lot!

Thanks!

[JaneyVee]

8. Impeached? How about everyone calm down and start focusing on jobs again.

People out there struggling who give absolutely zero fucks about people's pet issues. They want to put food on their families table.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. Don't forget choco rations. I understand that they are

going up.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. the Constitution is such a ridiculous pet issue - why is ANYONE the least bit bothered about it?

[geek tragedy]

100. As if the nutty impeachniks these days are about

the constitution as opposed to a rigid, vindictive, intolerant brand of extremism.

[Waiting For Everyman]

22. The folks stealing food off the table are the ones Ellsberg and others here are attacking.

Obama is empowering the folks stealing food off the table. And empowerment happens via our "pet issues". Get it now? There's linkage there.

[JaneyVee]

23. The last thing we need are impeachment hearings. The notion is ridiculous.

[noise]

25. Exactly

Presidents are kings. Ellsberg is a traitor who has openly defied the king.

[JaneyVee]

30. Ellsberg can defy whoever he wants. That's not my concern or care.

[Scurrilous]

31. Not a traitor. Just someone who throws the word 'impeach' around too loosely. n/t

[noise]

38. What do you expect from Ellsberg?

He has a problem with government abuse of power. He called for Bush's impeachment. Do you really expect him to be so awed by President Obama that he would throw his principles away?

[Amonester]

80. He can talk all he wants, if the repukes can't get a super-majority in Congress next year

it's not gonna happen, and even if they try, not sure they will succeed (unless they can spin some facts, which they are famous for).

The Obama/Biden bashers would celebrate their victory then. Not sure if they would celebrate for very long if oRangeman/turtleman gets the ticket.

[Waiting For Everyman]

37. Then maybe POTUS should do the right thing for a change.

'Cos those people with the empty tables, who you brought up, are getting hungry.

[JaneyVee]

40. Congress controls the purse strings.

[Waiting For Everyman]

41. NSA is in the Executive Branch (so is DoD, DoJ, CIA, FBI etc.)

Remind me, who is the Chief Executive?

It has nothing to do with funding. It has everything to do with oversight and leadership... his job and his responsibility.

[JaneyVee]

44. We were talking about hungry families, not the NSA.

[noise]

45. Why not use the billions

of dollars propping up the surveillance/intelligence industry to help struggling citizens instead?

[JaneyVee]

46. Because congress would have to unauthorize NSA spending and

Re appropriate it to food aid programs. Have you seen our opposition lately? Heartless, nihilistic, extremists.

[Skidmore]

99. May I recommend courses in government, civics, and public administration so

you can learn a little bit about how our government works? If that is too time consuming for you, YouTube has School House Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law" for your convenience.

[Left_Is_Right]

133. "Why not use the billions"

Apparently...that's too much like the right thing to do...Here's my take on how to fix America...a little over the top for some...but I've never been known to be anything else...and I'm too old to change now...

[Waiting For Everyman]

50. And now we're back to my first comment to you again.

Nevermind.

[JaneyVee]

56. I already answered. Congress controls spending.

[NickB79]

48. And don't forget making sure the trains run on time.

We must not lose sight of our top priorities, after all.

[JaneyVee]

51. Not a top priority.

[NickB79]

60. That particular line went right over your head, huh?

Pity.

[DevonRex]

90. LOL, she ignored your stupid Nazi reference. Out of kindness. Or pity.

Perhaps both. But perpetual victims don't need kindness and I certainly feel no pity for you. Maybe you should visit a holocaust memorial. It'll cure you of throwing out stupid Hitler comparisons.

[NickB79]

91. It was a Mussolini reference, FYI

Another one steps up to the plate, swings and misses. What a shame.

[bahrbearian]

113. LOL right on

[geek tragedy]

116. Okay, you idiotically compared Obama to Mussolini instead or moronically

comparing him to Hitler. Feel special?

[DevonRex]

147. "Mussolini sent Jews to die in Nazi camps"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/1481992/Mussolini-sent-Jews-to-die-in-Nazi-camps.html

"Fascist Italy's reputation for being far less evil than Nazi Germany may have to be revised after a new book accused Benito Mussolini of being an enthusiastic accomplice in the slaughter of Europe's Jews.

Rather than being a reluctant participant in the Holocaust, The Shoah of Italy argues that "Il Duce" forged a secret deal with Hitler to hand Jews to the SS and was far more anti-semitic than once thought.

Mussolini was voicing anti-semitic views as early as 1936 and his Racial Laws of 1938 reflected the regime's "biological racism", the book's author, Michele Sarfatti, claims.

Until now, the passing of the laws that made Jews second-class citizens has been written off as an attempt to curry favour with the Führer."

So my point about throwing references around stands. Go visit a holocaust museum.

[backwoodsbob]

75. you are right..but it isn't us who needs to focus

how about all the asses in DC quit worrying about what web sites we visit and who we are calling and get the fuck to work helping us

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. Here is Ellsberg in his own voice.

This link is Ellsberg talking about the issue of Obama and impeachable offenses. See him explain himself and you be the judge. Cheers!

Here is Ellsberg on the subject:

[ProSense]

11. "Daniel Ellsberg On Why President Obama Should Be Impeached "

Thanks for the clip.

[Waiting For Everyman]

39. That's funny, all I see is Edward Snowden speaking.

Ah, I see it was noticed and changed.

[geek tragedy]

117. Nice Tea Party image. Ellsberg really has fallen in with a bad crowd. nt

[polichick]

127. Fascinating what he says about Dems deciding not to impeach Bush...

because they feared that a Dem couldn't then be elected in 2008 with Republicans flocking to the polls in protest. Had not heard that before.

On both sides, what's considered constitutional has been stretched so far that this country has become unrecognizable.

Thanks for the clip Vinnie!

[Marr]

10. I've been wondering when you'd get around to demonizing Ellsberg ever since

he expressed admiration for Edward Snowden.

Shameful, and shamefully predictable.

[ProSense]

13. How is

"I've been wondering when you'd get around to demonizing Ellsberg ever since he expressed admiration for Edward Snowden."

...pointing out what he said "demonizing" him? He owns his point of view.

I have already expressed disagreement with his points about Snowden.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023196874#post3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023198589

[Marr]

16. Uh-huh. /nt

[ProSense]

17. "Uh-huh," what? n/t

[markpkessinger]

29. Oh, good grief!

At least be honest about what you're trying to do here!

[ProSense]

32. What

"At least be honest about what you're trying to do here!"

...do you think I'm "trying to do here"? If you think I'm "trying to" criticize Ellsberg, you'd be right. Honestly, it's pretty clear.

[Union Scribe]

12. So many characters to smear, so little time!

How does one get around to them all. Pesky whistleblowers and their confederates.

[Bonobo]

19. He brought up reasons...

That are certainly valid enough to be discussed.

If you were a serious person, you would discuss them.

Shall we or is it just preferable to smear in a kind of surface way? As if NO possible reason to discuss the issue should even be entertained.

I'll follow your lead.

[ProSense]

21. Extreme hyperbole is

"If you were a serious person, you would discuss them. "

...not a good discussion starter. Like I said, I have already expressed disagreement with his points about Snowden.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023196874#post3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023198589

[Bonobo]

35. I don't follow self-referential links for your information.

The fact remains that your OP is content-free and empty.

That YOU declare it to be hyperbole without any justification for arguing so speaks volumes about your seriousness or lack thereof.

[ProSense]

42. No, that's

"The fact remains that your OP is content-free and empty. "

...not a fact. The OP includes "content."

"That YOU declare it to be hyperbole without any justification for arguing so speaks volumes about your seriousness or lack thereof."

I think "worse than Nixon" is hyperbole. What do you think?

[Bonobo]

52. I do too.

Have their been any impeachable offenses? Obviously you think no, but do you even CARE what Ellsberg's argument was? Nope. Because that would require a serious examination of issues that are complex as opposed to a knock-off OP trying to light some flames under an American hero.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. Those are not the links you're looking for

Your OP is about Ellsberg discussing the NDAA, and indefinite detention without trial (plus, for no apparent reason, James Goodale talking about press freedom). Your links are about Snowden. And your OP is not about Snowden, is it?

I'll help you out - here's the transcript of what he said:

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yes. Well, as an American citizen, I’m really almost whipsawed by emotions this morning. On the one hand, I’m here to attend the court hearing at the circuit court on Wednesday at the Federal Court Building, where I expect to see the Obama administration color itself with shame in arguing that an American citizen can be detained indefinitely in military custody without charges, indefinitely, violating really the core principles of law that go back to the Magna Carta. On the other hand, I was up late last night reading the 112-page document of Katherine B. Forrest, and I have to say, at the end of that—

The judgment, again, granting an injunction, saying that these provisions of the law that will be argued and defended by—shamefully, by the Obama administration and by three U.S. senators, who will be claiming that the detention is constitutional and legal—her argument was that it was facially unconstitutional. And when I read her detailed argument, 112, taking each point of the prosecution over a period now of nearly a year—their evidence, their lack of evidence, their argument—taking each argument that this was constitutional and smashing it on this, I felt pride as an American. I thought, this is the American citizen that I fought for as a marine. This is a constitutional order, a rule of law, a judge, appointed by Obama, who’s willing to say that her boss was mistaken in claiming that this rule is compatible with our rule of law.

It really says to me, at last, I think, that President Obama, who was a constitutional teacher, like Professor John Yoo, Y-O-O, of Berkeley, who authored most of these torture memos in the first place—I think that, like Yoo, Obama has to be seen as either a rotten constitutional lawyer or a man who, like Yoo, believes that the Constitution simply does not bound an American prisoner in any way in an indefinite law of torture. And either way, I believe we have here impeachable offenses by all of the people arguing this case, including the three senators—McCain, others—who will be arguing today on this. We should be looking at Brennan and the other people connected with the torture program not in terms of confirmation hearings, but in terms of impeachment hearings and convictions.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_detention_provision

This is this case: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002695332 As you pointed out then (proudly?), Forrest was appointed by Obama.

[geek tragedy]

112. Ellsberg should really learn the constitution before advocating

impeachment for violating it.

See, e.g., advocating the impeachment of Senators (strike 1) for exercising free speech rights (strike 2) without a violation of the law (strike three).

Remarkable demonstration of hypocrisy and idiocy. The man is rather careless with his language.

[geek tragedy]

102. No serious person proposes a Congressional coup to

reverse the 2012 elections. That's Bachmann/Gohmert/Stockman nuttiness.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. Two things: When did 51.1% become a "landslide", and why do you make this about President Obama?

[Scurrilous]

24. Obama 332 electoral votes, Romney 206. Landslide. n/t

[ProSense]

26. Well,

Two things: When did 51.1% become a "landslide", and why do you make this about President Obama?

...it was a landslide and saying Obama is worse that Nixon and should be impeached is about Obama, don't you think?

Obama’s Re-Election Formally Certified By Joint Session Of Congress

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were formally re-elected on Friday by a joint session of Congress with a margin of 332 electoral votes to that of 206 for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obamas-re-election-formally-certified-by-joint-session

“Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice, according to a revised vote count in New York eight weeks after the Nov. 6 election,” Bloomberg writes, adding, “The president nationally won 65.9 million votes -- or 51.1 percent -- against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who took 60.9 million votes and 47.2 percent of the total cast, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 percent mark in two elections since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four consecutive White House races. Roosevelt received 53.4 percent of the vote -- his lowest -- in his last race in 1944.”

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16348268-obama-agenda-first-since-ike-to-win-51-back-to-back

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. You didn't post this because you're worried a whit about what Daniel Ellsberg thinks and you know it

You're worried about how Edward Snowden (which is what brings Daniel Ellsberg into the mix IN THE FIRST PLACE) makes President Obama look.

Mr. Leser gave up the game earlier tonight. He STARTED a post about Daniel Ellsberg by claiming "creds" in that he "criticized" President Obama earlier (three times even!). It's not about Ellsberg, it's not about Edward Snowden... for y'all it's ALL ABOUT how President Obama looks in the context of NSA information gathering.

When you mention Daniel Ellsberg, you're doing it in an effort to protect President Obama from some perceived slight. We're NOT stupid.

As I said earlier tonight in an attempted compliment, at least you're consistent.

[ProSense]

54. Oh please, I said I disagree with Ellsberg. That's not a secret. n/t

[geek tragedy]

105. Advocating a Congressional coup against Obama is per se about Obama.

Of course, those who want him impeached are thankfully powerless and irrelevant.

[burnodo]

114. I think it was a landslide

Especially considering how the Pukes would have characterized it if they'd won by the same or even a lesser margin.

[noise]

28. You are so right

This should be a popularity contest.

[ProSense]

33. No,

"You are so right...This should be a popularity contest. "

...it's apparently a hyperbole "contest."

[NuclearDem]

77. Dodging the topic again.

Obama winning by a landslide has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Was nice for you to slip that completely irrelevant piece of information in there though. I always love logical fallacies.

[ProSense]

79. It

"Obama winning by a landslide has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. "

...most certainly does. I mean, do you think people who voted for the President after following the campaign are going to buy the argument that Obama is worse than Nixon and should be impeached because he signed a bill into law?

Ridiculous.

[NuclearDem]

81. I love me some ad populums!

Because 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong!

Nixon, who won by an actual landslide, was forced to resign because the media reported on Watergate. If we actually had a competent media (not to mention fewer hardline partisans who'll defend Obama at all costs), the NDAA could very well have had the same effect.

[ProSense]

82. Yeah,

"Nixon, who won by an actual landslide, was forced to resign because the media reported on Watergate. If we actually had a competent media (not to mention fewer hardline partisans who'll defend Obama at all costs), the NDAA could very well have had the same effect."

...Watergate and signing NDAA are the same thing.

Ludicrous.

[NuclearDem]

84. Actually, you're right

A little abuse of Executive power and corruption in the election has nothing on signing the habeas corpus butchering NDAA into law.

[ProSense]

85. Yes, I'm right. The comparison is ludicrous. n/t

[NuclearDem]

86. Oh? Care to enlighten me?

Or are you just going to dodge this topic as well?

[ProSense]

88. Sure

"Oh? Care to enlighten me?"

Watergate and signing NDAA aren't remotely similar. The comparison is ludicrous.

[NuclearDem]

89. Incredible

I had no idea it was that simple!

So, what, nothing?

[geek tragedy]

124. Nixon broke the law. Signing a statute into law is not a fucking crime.

Lesson over.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. So you *are* saying it's a popularity contest; and that a popular pres can get away with illegality

because he won a landslide. Why else would you, when discussing a court case against Obama, emphasise that he won re-election handily while the court case was going on?

[geek tragedy]

106. Alleged illegality. Seeking the reversal of the people's choice

of President should require showings of actual criminality, not disagreements over constitutional interpretation (wherein the President is in alignment with the other two branches).

Ellsberg's argument is akin to seeking Obama's impeachment over Obamacare.

[geek tragedy]

101. Democracies generally are. Of course, the extreme left's fantasy of coup by

impeachment is just as pathetic as the right's.

[think]

36. The Carlyle Group & Halliburton agrees with all of you either way. Thank you

We appreciate your business...

[hrmjustin]

43. I don't agree with impeachment at all. My 2 cents!

[bobduca]

47. WOW 5 whole RECS

[ProSense]

58. I know,

"WOW 5 whole RECS"

...it's embarrassing. I mean, the Obama deserves to be dumped thread before the election got nearly more than 150 votes, and he won re-election by a landslide.

Here I am nursing "5 whole RECS"

[Jamaal510]

59. Shows how much DU represents Democrats and liberals in general.

[AZ Progressive]

49. Talking about having an Axe to Grind...

[The Straight Story]

55. I am more disturbed that Obama didn't go after bush for his crimes and locked out single payer folks

from discussions.

But none of that means other things he has done should be washed away.

I am guessing if we don't agree with someone on something everything they say is therefore false and wrong? Maybe if that is all we have to fall back on during a discussion....

[noise]

63. I get it now

We had our accountability moment and Ellsberg is pretending this isn't true. He is so out of line.

What a government official does between elections is not up for review.

Besides impeachment is so divisive. Oddly enough in the government effort to apprehend Snowden the issue of divisiveness does not appear to be a factor.

[ProSense]

66. No,

"I get it now We had our accountability moment and Ellsberg is pretending this isn't true. He is so out of line.

What a government official does between elections is not up for review. "

...saying Obama is worse than Nixon would still be hyperbole if uttered last summer. Calling for his impeachment would still be ridiculous.

[geek tragedy]

115. Impeaching Obama is divisive in that it

divides the insane shitheads from the sane segments of society.

[alp227]

64. THE IRONY? This senile man won't go to jail for his dissent!

I'm not the biggest Obama apologist, but c'mon what happened to Ellsberg? Has he been listening to a lot of right wing talk radio or infowars lately?

[noise]

67. Why

do you assume Ellsberg's criticism is coming from a right wing perspective?

[rug]

65. Nixon won 49 states in his reelection. Then the shit hit the fan.

You have to work on your comparisons.

[ProSense]

68. I'm

"Nixon won 49 states in his reelection. Then the shit hit the fan. You have to work on your comparisons."

...not the one making the "comparisons." Still, has "shit hit the fan" or are you anticipating that it will?

[rug]

69. Yes, you are.

Now, this is less than a month into his second term after winning re-election by a landslide.

And yes, I do think the shit will hit the fan, but not in a Nixonian way. Starting in Afghanistan.

[ProSense]

72. No, that

Now, this is less than a month into his second term after winning re-election by a landslide.

And yes, I do think the shit will hit the fan, but not in a Nixonian way. Starting in Afghanistan.

...was a valid point in terms of the timing, especially since I think the point is ridiculous.

[backwoodsbob]

70. looks like people are tired of the propaganda

just let it go ProSense.

We are tired of being lied to and the rah rah crap and trying to kill the messenger crap aint working

[bobduca]

71. Pros' gotta eat too

[backwoodsbob]

78. true dat

guess everyone has to make a living

[ucrdem]

74. Thanks ProSense, you always shine!

To those who can't fathom Ellsberg garnering a breath of criticism: the simple fact is that we know much more today than we did in 1971, when the Pentagon Papers were handed to the NYT and released in dribs and drabs, like Wikileaks, and since 1996, when they were declassified. And although ProSense is not suggesting this, it is my very strong suspicion that Ellsberg is not at all what he's been sold to us as, and that his latest anti-Obama campaign is entirely in keeping with his earlier MO. Think Woodward.

[byeya]

125. No, you can't polish a turd

[DevonRex]

76. Looks like most of DU wants Obama to be impeached, too. If this thread

is anything to go by, anyway. I'm not surprised in the least. Are you?

[geek tragedy]

107. The impeachniks are the loudest, but still a minority.

A nasty, stupid, loud minority, but a minority.

[Walk away]

118. The day thay most of DU wants to impeach President Obama is the day I pack up my gold star and...

go home. I'd rather support Democrats running for office.

[davidpdx]

123. Not a majoirty

But there does seem to be a loud minority that thinks he should.

[DevonRex]

145. It's a constant barrage.

This place has naught to do with promoting Democrats anymore. Tearing them down, yes. Worse than any Republican or Libertarian site out there. That's my opinion.

[railsback]

87. And some here are wondering why Ellsberg is getting flamed

Take your meds, grab a fishing pole and chill. You earned your retirement already. Now retire.

[grahamhgreen]

92. President Biden.

[HooptieWagon]

93. Nixon spied on DNC Hq and lied about it.

He was forced to resign.

Obama is illegally spying on every US citizen and lying about it. Congress doesn't bat an eye.

[geek tragedy]

103. "Illegally spying on every citizen,"

Multiple lies, but hey don't let that get in the way of your hatred.

[JoePhilly]

109. wow, 5 words and 3 lies ... that might be a record!

Illegally ... lie.

spying ... lie.

every citizen ... lie.

But hey, to be fair ... the word "on" was used correctly.

[geek tragedy]

110. Like arguing with Birthers, who also claim it's all about the constitution. nt

[JoePhilly]

119. Impeach!!! Police State!!! nt

[geek tragedy]

120. Usurper! nt

[JDPriestly]

94. K&R.

I wonder these days how government is being taught in our schools.

I have a paper I wrote on the Constitution when I was a senior in high school. I could have passed a bar exam in California with it.

Americans are so ignorant about the Constitution. It's pitiful.

And he is right. Nixon was impeached for things a liberal president and a good man is now doing as a matter of course. How the mighty have fallen. I feel really sad about the condition of my country. And Obama is basically a good man. But what happened to the things we learned in high school in the years following WWII. The Constitution was interpreted liberally by the Supreme Court between Roosevelt and Reagan -- and now?????

Where are we going as a nation?

This is sad.

I know someone who graduated from one of the top universities in the US and who took a government course at that university. At a dinner table, she was talking about some political issue and could not remember what the terms were for senators and representatives or exactly what they did.

The sad state of civic education shows on DU, I'm afraid. Good heavens. How can we claim to be a democracy when there is so much ignorance about how our government is supposed to work and what rights we are supposed to have?

The Supreme court is narrowing our rights, reducing our freedom on a regular basis, especially with regard to search and seizure and the rights of defendants in criminal cases. No one seems to understand. No one seems to care.

[ucrdem]

95. Obama ordered his "plumbers" to break into DNC headquarters and then lied about it?

Fascinating.

[geek tragedy]

111. Isn't it amazing how the Impeach Obama nutjobs are completely

ignorant of history, the constitution, and basic legal principles?

[geek tragedy]

108. You are either ignorant or dishonest in stating that Nixon was impeached

Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 08:28 AM - Edit history (1)

for things Obama is doing.

Nixon broke the fucking law. Obama hasn't. And, no, disagreeing with Glenn Greenwald on presidential authority is not a fucking crime.

And, Nixon wasn't impeached.

[OilemFirchen]

122. "The sad state of civic education shows on DU"

"Nixon was impeached"

Thanks for the morning guffaw!

[geek tragedy]

104. K&R--the Obama haters are really hating this post.

They've gone from denying that they hate Obama so much they want him impeached to defending their support of a Congressional coup to overturn the free and fair elections of 2012.

Fuck the people that want him impeached, they're all as insane and worthless as the worst of the Teabaggers.

[Thinkingabout]

126. K & R

For those who follow people like Ellsberg makes your decisions suspect, this is not a nation of a few and we should not even follow suggestions of Ellsberg. It would be like going to the prison system to have prisoners enact laws.

[SidDithers]

121. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Hubert Flottz]

129. It was all fine and dandy when Bush was doing it.

The Repubs had every chance in the world, to repeal the "Patriot Act," or to just let it expire, but never a chirp, as long as Bush and Cheney were in the cat bird's seat.

[Dawgs]

130. He's worse than Nixon, but impeach is a bit extreme. n/t

[ProSense]

135. Yeah,

"He's worse than Nixon, but impeach is a bit extreme."

...that's not hyperbole.

Nixon’s Counsel Says Obama Is No Nixon

The current slate of controversies consuming the White Hosue has some people comparing President Barack Obama to former President Richard Nixon, but a former top Nixon aide thinks that's ridiculous.

John Dean, who served as White House counsel under the disgraced former president, said that anyone applying the Nixonian label to Obama due is "challenged in their understanding of history." There's no legitimate comparison, Dean argued, between the Internal Revenue Service's improper targeting of conservative groups, the Department of Justice's subpoena of Associated Press phone records or the investigation into the dealy attack in Benghazi, Libya and the scandals that ultimately led to Nixon's undoing.

“There are no comparisons. They’re not comparable with any of the burgeoning scandals,” Dean told the Boston Globe.

Dean was present in the Oval Office when Nixon suggested using the IRS to target his foes.

Obama on Thursday urged people to "read the history" and decide for themselves if the Nixon comparison is approrpiate. Famed journalist Bob Woodward on Friday said that it's premature to compare the IRS scandal to Watergate, but he invoked Nixon's name when discussing Benghazi.

- more -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/nixons-counsel-says-obama-is-no-nixon

Both as a rhetorical question and a real question I’m curious just what Ellsberg means by that. His basic argument is that he was able to stay out on bail and that wouldn’t have been an option for Snowden. On the other hand, the White House at the time was running a special operations team against Ellsberg out of the White House, including breaking into his psychiatrist’s office and at least some discussions of having him killed. So I’m not sure we can call those the glory days.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023198589

[Dawgs]

138. I didn't say Obama was Nixon. I said he was worse.

Your blue links are irrelevant.

[treestar]

136. Nixon wasn't limited by the FISA

That was not the law then.

Count me sick of Ellsberg at this point.

[HooptieWagon]

143. Neither is Obama.

Every single warrant approved. Every twisted legal interpretation approved.

[Zorra]

137. "I believe we have impeachable offenses by all of the people arguing this case."

He may be correct. They probably are impeachable offenses.

Or, I should say, they would probably be impeachable offenses in a democracy.

[Marr]

139. Is there any way to see who Rec'd this thread without doing so myself?

This is such an unusually disgusting, deceitful post-- even for this poster-- that I figure the Rec list would form a veritable roster of people better left ignored.

Oh, and nice job removing the reference to Nixon, OP. Since the smear backfired so badly, I suppose you might as well pull it out now and make the subsequent spanking you got seem less deserved, right? Some might say there'd be at least a degree of integrity in leaving it in, and only adding an apology for making such an idiotic accusation, but then, who can waste time on things like integrity when there are so many critics to smear, amirite?

[DesMoinesDem]

140. click on the rec number.

[Marr]

141. Thank you kindly. /nt

[HardTimes99]

142. Um, I think your OP's title is mising at least one word. It doesn't

make sense as currently written. Either that, or you have a very unclear pronoun reference ("that&quot .

Am I missing some 11th-dimensional working over of grammar and usage?

[ProSense]

144. Corrected. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

148. Kick and recommended.

I appreciate the fact that you started a discussion about Ellsberg.
People have to know who he is and what he stands for before they start marching lockstep behind him.