Ok folks once again, this is WHY Congressman Kucinich is "pulling his stunt."

[nadinbrzezinski]

I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I know that in our cynical world taking this seriously is quaint, but some of us do take it seriously

We are in the hole we are for the following reasons

Ford PARDONS nixon

Clinton refuses to investigate Iran-Contra, et al

Until, we as a country, take a stance against law breaking in the name of empire... this law breaking will only get worst

[LakeSamish706]

1. Yep, Nail on Head! n/t

[drm604]

2. K&R

Very well said. :applause:

[Pooka Fey]

3. I'm left speechless on so many levels that I've lost count.

And I'm grateful beyond words for Dennis Kucinich.

[The Doctor.]

4. It will get worse.

I'm very concerned about the next seven months.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Absolutely, I EXPECT war with Iran

given the Somalia precedent.

And in my worst moments I don't expect them to go away. Nobody builds a police state to just simply walk away

[The Doctor.]

6. Forgive my ignorance...

But could you explain the 'Somalia precedent'?

Do you mean that the routing of 'terrorists'/'warlords' can be sufficiently argued as cause to send in troops?

If so, how do you think they could translate that into an outright bombing campaign/assault?

Nonetheless, I share your concern.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Bush senior sent the troops into Somalia

barely a couple months before Clinton took the oath, as part of the Humanitarian mission.

It tied down the democratic administration from the git go... and led to the Black Hawk Down incident which the Republicans blame on Clinton's lack of experience as CiC... they also blamed him for pulling out when he did

It was designed as a trap... and I can bet Iran will be a tad more difficult for Obama to extricate himself from

Oh and Bush Senior made similar statements

[The Doctor.]

22. Ah, now it all makes sense.

I've suspected the use of that tactic before; Leave a big fucking mess, drop it in the new administration's lap, make a big deal about how they're not making enough progress.

Thanks for the info.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. You welcome and Clinton managed to extricate himself

but Iran, will not be that easy

[frogcycle]

52. "Nobody builds a police state to just simply walk away"

you got THAT right

The general naiveté of the populace is astonishing. An increasingly-dwindling right supports the most egregious violations as "necessary" and in their best interest, while those who disapprove of the past seven years think voting in people who express disapproval thereof will actually make the perps go quietly into the night.

There IS a war on terror, but the enemy is not suicide bombers.

[The Wizard]

58. It's genetic (NT)

[pacalo]

7. As it stands now...

They are purposely evading their faith & allegiance to defend the Constitution of the United States from its domestic enemies, with (malicious) mental reservation...

...due to the fact that they don't want to lose an election.

Our forefathers, who spent blood against King George's British army before writing the Constitution, are spinning in their graves.

[tritsofme]

8. To prepare for his 2012 presidential campaign.

I wonder if they leave the year off his campaign signs so they can just reuse them next time?

[Raster]

18. Are you referring to Kucinich and if so, I sincerely hope-the-fuck you forgot your

:sarcasm: tag.

[Zodiak]

65. I think not

That DUer is an anti-progressive. There is no sarcasm intended.

[Joe Fields]

9. A lot of people here think that, if we ignore Bush's transgressions,

and focus on getting a Democrat in the White House, expand our majority in the House and gain a true majority in the Senate, then everything will be peachy keen. I would like to know what makes them think that Democratic politicians are above breaking the laws of the land? Logically, why should any administration worry itself about the constitutionality of any of its actions, given the precedence for ignoring the constitution by the Bush administration? The truth? Our Dem leadership has proven on numerous occasions that it is complicit, or at the very least given tacit approval of the Bush administration's criminal activity. If the dems are any better than the repubs, it is only by a matter of degrees. The dems just haven't been quite as brazen as the repubs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Because they see politics as a sport

nothing more, nothing less, so a foul here and there is part of the game

[truedelphi]

16. You must be forgetting how the Brave Democratic Senators

Held the oil execs' feet to the fire (Just last week) and now gas prices are plummetting!!

Oh wait a minute, that only happened in my dreams!!

[lonestarnot]

10. K & R!

[underseasurveyor]

11. keep on hammerin' nadin

knr
:yourock:

[Tatiana]

12. I just don't understand why people want to live in a culture of fear.

Dennis is presenting the truth. Facts. Our present reality. The utter disrespect for the rule of law the current administration has exhibited.

PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW.

Unlike most of us here, the general population remains, to this day, shamefully UNAWARE of the wide scope of crimes this administration has committed.

Dennis is performing an EDUCATIONAL SERVICE to those who are uninformed.

Yeah, this is an election year. And given what's at stake, we cannot afford to leave the choice for the next President of the United States up to a public that is not able to appreciate the significance of what a THIRD BUSH TERM would mean.

This is NEWS. BIG NEWS. We don't need to be afraid of the 28 percenters any longer. We are the MAJORITY.

Let Faux Noise smoke on that pipe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Believe you me, being afraid for some is familiar by now

and humans are very predictable, They hate to actually rock boats... and this is rocking boats

[Raster]

17. But...but...but... we have an election coming up...and we don't want to piss off the voters...

and...it's not my kid dieing in Iraq. This fucking, greedy, vanity war based ENTIRELY ON LIES will cost over 2 trillion dollars, has already cost over 4,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and still some argue that impeachment is not the correct course. Politically unpalatable is one term I've heard bandied about. I shudder in disgust.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. So do I, but humans are predictable, if you repeat a lie often enough

impeachment is not practical in this case, people buy it hook, line and sinker...

And it disgust me as well since the last poll, done over two years ago, showed that over half wanted it...

After all, we'd not want to find out that actually there is support for it, especially when everybody is running a CYA operation

[Raster]

21. And one has to wonder: why was the last reputable, national poll on impeachment done two years ago?

And that is so true. All the pertinent parties DON'T WANT TO KNOW HOW THE PUBLIC FEELS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. And God forbid, let's certainly not present any facts or give any opportunity to investigate. We may find something we may have to act upon. Yep, shudder in disgust just about covers it.

[Raksha]

26. I asked that same question on another impeachment thread.

And one has to wonder: why was the last reputable, national poll on impeachment done two years ago?

It's a good question, and should be asked over and over again until we get some kind of SENSIBLE answer. Or until the corporate media gives in and does a new impeachment poll.

You're right...they DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

But for us inquiring minds out here in Greater Blogistan, it's a different story.

[rucognizant]

41. Why don't we..........

ALL contact the big polling outfits and ask why there is no poll on impeachment. We keep calling our COngressmen...................
An MSNBC poll ( not a scientific slice of Americans...) and a USA Today poll, more of a cross section.....showed 89% & 83% respectively in FAVOR of impeachment.

[JDPriestly]

39. Dennis Kucinich looks so meek, but is really the most courageous

man in Congress. I am so grateful for bringing the impeachment resolution. The good news is that if Bush dares to invade Iran without the declaration of war by Congress, an impeachment resolution will already be in the Judiciary Committee and the House can move on it immediately.

[Swamp Rat]

19. k&r

[Hart2008]

23. K & R

[malaise]

24. Keep it real

100% correct.

[The Traveler]

25. Rule of law

"Rule of law" ... if it mattered when a President lied to us about getting his knob polished by an intern, it matters about a President deceiving us and Congress into a war that has costs god only knows how many lives, shattered futures, and billions of dollars.

Rule of law. You are either for it or against it. Declare and be known.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. K&R

[MisterHowdy]

28. k&r

)#||#(

[govegan]

30. Not the only reasons, of course,

But serious derelictions of duty, just the same.

[IndependentDem]

31. K&R

:applause:

[27inCali]

32. Sometimes you gotta stand on principle

and do what you're supposed to do, even when the timing is inconvenient and you know the outcome will mostly be symbolic rather than effective.

some people know that history will be looking back and some names will be honored more than others, and that many of the most honored names will belong to those who were standing on principle when everyone else was worried about playing only for immediate advantage.

[Creideiki]

33. Clinton didn't refuse to investigate Iran-Contra

Bush I gave pardons to everyone involved. The case evaporated once Casper Weinberger and the rest of the crew couldn't be subpoenaed.

I know that blaming Bill for everything is the new sport at DU, but let's try to be a little honest. He did plenty of things that we could reasonably be critical of, but this (like DADT--that's Sam Nunn (and just what is he doing nowadays?)) isn't a reasonable criticism.

In the meantime, Clinton did actively pursue, successfully, the big tobacco companies, balance the budget after a successful stand-off against the Republican Congress, and pursue, unsuccessfully, the anti-monopoly suit against Microsoft.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. That's not exactly all of it

he did state that we needed to put that behind for the good of the country

Constitutionally they could have gone after bush Senior, no problem and all those pardons become NA since they were given to hide a crime, assuming Senior faced the music

By the way, KERRY was ready to proceed with BCCI, and by the way, I will speak of the good, the bad and the ugly when it comes to bill's term

That was one of the ugly things...

[karynnj]

64. I didn't know that

Would the pardons really have become invalid if Bush senior were convicted? On a going forward basis, this becomes interesting as I think we ALL expect a huge torrent of pardons late this year. (Imagine Kerry, with a co-operative justice department heading an investigation - that would be spectacular. He does head the SFRC sub-committee that oversees Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc and I think - terrorism.)

[TahitiNut]

38. Did you know that a pardon makes a person MORE susceptible to a subpoena?

With a pardon, there's no Fifth Amendment incrimnation issues. Thus, refusal to testify is contempt. False testimony is perjury. Just sayin'.

[tomp]

75. a point that bears repeating. thank you.

and this is why pardons are not as bad as they look. bush can pardon everyone except himself. and the rest can be forced to testify against him. where there's a will, there's a way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. Bush didn't pardon himself.

There were plenty of little fish that remained to be swept up, and at the other end of the scale was Bush himself. If a lot of the players were already pardoned, that didn't mean they couldn't be subpoenaed to testify - and if they refused the subpoena, that would prompt a new, un-pardoned charge against them.

Even if pardoned of criminal acts, that does not mean they could not have been impeached - and that would keep them out of government office for the rest of their lives. Instead of showing up again in BushII, they'd be commentators on Faux News.

And for all his pains to 'get along' in the first two years, Clinton was rewarded with losing congress and facing unprecedented RW hostility for his entire term.

Clinton DID refuse to investigate, and we are paying the price of that today.

[karynnj]

63. It is true that the pardons would prevent convictions

but they did not preclude investigations into what happened. Doing that was still important and the people testifying would not be able to refuse to answer because it would incriminate them. I assume that they could be charged with lying to Congress if they did. The problem is that though text books (at least the 2 my kids used) did cover Iran/Contra, but they did not cover all the accusations. The cynicism of teh Reagan administration heralding their "Just say no to drugs" program reeks when you know that to fund the illegal arming of the Contras, they allowed cocaine to come unfettered into the country. (Kerry was called a conspiracy nut for his diligent, careful (and courageous) work to prove this.) This is still not generally known and the media attacks anyone (Gary Webb for instance) who speaks of it.

What was even move serious was that when Kerry lifted the BCCI rock, there were lots of snakes there - and he wrote a report listing 20 things that needed further investigation - when his committee ended. They included the activities of A. Q. Khan, who with BCCI funding built Pakistan's bomb. (Imagine that the Reagan/Bush justice department had helped Kerry, rather than stonewalled him.)

Clinton is NOT the villain, he simply followed in the path the US had taken since the 1960s - all these covert actions funding thugs to fight our battles has had major blow back. What is truer is that he did not have the courage or the strength to change these policies - or he like several previous Presidents thought this was the best course.

[Creideiki]

34. I should add on "pardoning"

That that actually was completely within his rights as President of the US. Nothing against it in the Constitution--the pardon is a Presidential prerogative. And Ford paid for it when he ran against Carter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. And again, he did it for the GOOD of the country

and we are still paying for it

[tomp]

76. and caroline kennedy praises him for it...

...in the book that bears her name. this is the same woman who is looking for obama's vp.

[Malidictus Maximus]

59. How many here

Think that pardons have done damn little good and much harm? As much as I love and respect the Constitution perhaps this part of it needs to go.

[zeos3]

37. K & R

[Norrin Radd]

40. kr

[stephinrome]

42. a bit late but K&R just the same! n/t

[elaineb]

43. K&R

Once again, you hit the nail right on the head.

[crickets]

44. Exactly.

:dem:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. This is a post that deserves 1000 recs

because you are exactly right. Thanks for putting my feelings into words.

[tom_paine]

46. K & R!

[freefall]

47. K&R

:kick:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

48. But don't ya know? "Politics" trumps the Constitution.

:sarcasm:

[OneGrassRoot]

49. Thank you. K&R n/t

[WillyT]

50. Spot On !!! - K & R !!!

:kick:

[quaker bill]

51. I recall

being a bit let down by the Nixon pardon, but not surprised, as I sort of assumend that this was part of the deal that removed Nixon and put Ford in place. I was happy to see Ford lose the next election over it, and enjoyed the spontaneous block party that arose over Nixon's resignation.

I was however deeply disappointed over Clinton's failure to go full bore on Iran-Contra. I had friends who were providing humanitarian relief to the victims of the Contra war. There was alot of very serious dirt swept under the carpet on that venture, much of it bearing close similarity to our current venture in Iraq. There is even some relationship to it.

We armed Iran at the same time we were arming Saddam. Many of the munitions we have now destroyed in Iraq has the "US" stamp on the side. Our tax dollars (agriculatural assistance grants) helped build the "dual use facilities" that Saddam employed to make chemical weapons under the ruse that the plants could/would be used to make pesticides.

All sorts of stuff, the Air America bit, why we actually invaded Panama, and on and on, were available to Bill Clinton. This stuff should have come out, one big reveal a month or so, through his entire first term. Done right, republicans would have been an endangered species a dozen years ago. This is one of the reasons I could never wrap my head around the image Clinton = fighter.

They only fought effectively when cornered on Lewinski and if not for Move On and Larry Flynt exposing congressmen, would not have gone the distance.

[mdmc]

53. 100th

r

[biermeister]

54. kick!

[rosesaylavee]

55. K & R

:kick:

[theFrankFactor]

56. A-Fu*kin'-Men! (eom)

[Echo In Light]

57. Zero action against these crooks sends a loud signal to the world and future admins

[George II]

60. Then find a better place to live, okay?

[redqueen]

62. What do you mean by that?

[George II]

69. Pretty obvious what I meant, but to clarify - there are three very simple options:

1. Propose a PRACTICAL solution
2. Stop Complaining
3. Find somewhere BETTER to live!*

*I doubt this exists

[redqueen]

71. 1. A practical solution - throw the corporatist bums out.

2. :rofl: Yeah, right, buddy.

3. :rofl:

Enjoy your stay.

[George II]

83. Predictable...

1 "throw the corporatist bums out." Practical? Hah!

OK, get off the internet and DO IT!

2. "yeah right, buddy" - not surprising that you don't plan on stopping your whining.

3. I'm satisfied to do things to CHANGE what I don't like in this country, you obviously aren't satisfied AND aren't willing to do anything but post on the internet to change anything.

I, and millions of other Americans, prefer my method.

:nopity:

[redqueen]

85. And your method is what?

Bitching at people with rightwing "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT" crap? :rofl:

Yeah, you know aaaaaallll about what I do, and what everyone in here does, don't ya?

Geniuses, all of ya. :rofl:

[George II]

88. I never said "love it or leave it"...what I said was:

DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE!

My LAST option, once you come to grips with the fact that you're not willing to work to change it, is to leave.

[redqueen]

89. Do you honestly think that everyone here does nothing but post?

You sure do make a lot of ASSumptions.

Nice attempt at backtrackin there.

Hope you're enjoying your stay! :hi:

[George II]

92. Well, outside of bitching about something that is totally out of their control...

and criticizing "fellow" Democrats, I don't see anything in this thread about what they're (you included) doing.

Backtracking? How so?

And I'm just LOVING my stay...have been for 2-1/2 years.

[redqueen]

93. I love how you expect people

to post all the things they're doing about the state of politics today... in a thread about the sad apparent necessity of reminding these people what they promised to do.

:rofl:

I saw your join date, thanks. :hi:

[Ignis]

77. John Birch, is that you? (nt)

[George II]

84. No, it's W. E. B. Dubois

look him up

[redqueen]

86. WE don't need to look him up.

:P

[Ignis]

94. Wow, YOU are W.E.B. DuBois? That'll surprise his descendents.

They'll also be surprised that such a powerful force for change is now being used as a figurehead for reactionary, "love it or leave it" Birchisms.

Of course, no one here on DU would ever know who DeBois is. Uh-uh, no sir. :eyes:

[George II]

96. So, where did I EVER say "love it or leave it"? That attribution alone....

....reeks of republican conservative extrapolation. Ironic that a neo-con tactic is being used to attack a progressive liberal.

[karynnj]

66. Or, consider that you have a "right and a responsibility to dissent"

when things are wrong - as said by John Kerry in his Dissent speech on the 35th anniversary of his Senate testimony. It is our country and we need to keep it on the right course - and for all of my adult life, we have almost consistently not lived up to our values.

[George II]

68. But all we see is whining, complaining, and criticism, no REAL practical solutions!!

[redqueen]

72. Then stop reading... cause we don't like *your* whining much either.

;)

[George II]

81. What is your solution for the "problems" presented then?

[redqueen]

87. "problems"

Explain that. Why is the word problems in quotes?

Please... explain.

[George II]

90. .....

:rofl:

[redqueen]

91. Uh huh... what I expected.

Keep postin!

[DesertRat]

67. Well said! k&r

[asjr]

70. I have begun to believe Dennis

Kucinich is the only Democrat in Congress to actually has balls.

[The Wielding Truth]

73. I bet if DU had it's own country, DK would be our President.

He would be the President of the United States if the media were honest, too.

[Swamp Rat]

74. From the time of Nixon to the present, the law-breaking HAS gotten worse.

[pleah]

78. K&R!

[Seldona]

79. Impeachment is not the problem, it is the remedy.

eom

[Ravy]

80. "Clinton refuses to investigate Iran-Contra"

It was two administrations before his administration. Key players had been pardoned by the adminstration before him. Where is the bitching about *that* administration.

What is it with some of you people and the Clinton bashing. You are essentially just promoting the impression that the last two times we had a Democratic president, things sucked just as much or worse than the republican administrations.

We used to laugh at freepers because of this. I hope some of my fellow DUers are laughing at shit like this just as much.

[karynnj]

95. The investigation stretched to the immediately preceding one

GHWB pardoned people in his last month in office.

I don't see the OP saying that Clinton was as bad or worse than Bush - what he specificly said is that he will write of both the ugly and the good. On the issue here - Clinton made a judgment which was not to support investigations of any of the scandals. Given that Kerry wanted Marc Rich investigated for BCCI related things - it may not have been complete altruism.

[spanone]

82. i agree

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours