Impeachment: Will Washington Force Members of Congress, As Factions, To Clash?
Ref When the American leadership refuses to enforce the law, much less ask a question about illegal activity, we no longer have a republic. That is not an option.
The States using the impeachment proclamations are compelling this US government to clearly state: Whether they view their legal requirements as standards or as discretionary. It's called democracy under a republic, as guaranteed in Our Constitution: Our Will as imposed through lawful threat of force to preserve, protect, and defend.
Members of Congress and the media must decide whether they are serious in awakening to We the People:
We the People have the power to compel the US government to guarantee an enforcement mechanism.
We the People may make adverse inferences and find new leaders who fail to answer their oath, and are marginally more interested in the rule of law. Indeed, that is worth bothering with and well worth the clash of factions.
Fact Check: Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA] reported to have said there have been only 38 hearsing on Iraq, not 72 as this Seattle Times reports.
WA Hearing Links
Ref Report from hearing; DNC says "zero" chance will reach the WA Senate. Bill did not reach legislative cutoff deadline: Ref
Ref 1 Mar 07 Hearing [Thurs, 1 Mar 2007] ( h/t )
Ref Action: Petition you can pas to your friends encouraging WA legislature to support State Impeachment Proclamation.
Ref That VP CHeney might become Presien with impeachment is good to know: It means there's a concern that Impeachment might work. ALl the more reason to press forward: The evience is there; refusing to impeach would be reckless. Besides, there's nothig stopping CHeney from being impeached first, and the Senate blocking a replacement until BUsh is impeached. Then Pelosi would be President.
Ref Statement: CA ASSEMBLYMAN PAUL KORETZ 42nd District
Ref Mayory Rocky Anderson Testimony [Ref Comments
Ref Ref David P. Lindoff Testimony
Ref David Swanson Testimony
Ref Testimony: World Can't Wait
Ref SLC, Utah Mayor Anderson to testify Thursday, 1 Mar 07 at Washington State Legislative Hearing [ Michael Moore ]
Ref State Proclamations To Impeach: Status of the State Impeachment Proclamations under House Rule 603. [Read about other states]
The Power of We the People: Measured by the Energy Used To Manipulate
Real power is when the GOP has to spend this much time and energy trying to Convince the DNC that it has no option. If there was "no option," then the GOP should be able to self-evidently let the "powerless" and "optionless" DNC flounder on its own without comment. Members of Congress, seeing themslves in this weakened state, are spending more time attempting to lobby We the People to not assert our power: Further evidence that Members of Congress know we the People have the power, and must be reckoned with.
It's important to notice the the DNC-GOP efforts to stifle action on impeachment: The issue is not what they are or are not doing; but the broad efforts they have jointly agreed to implement against We the People. This DNC-GOP combined effort is not leadership, or respresenative goverment, but unacceptable abuse of We the People. The Congress is putting their partisan agendas before their oath to the Constitution; then making exuses to absurdly justify their failre to put the Constitution, and its defense, first.
We dn't have to wait for an eelction; we canlawfully move to have these Members of Congress prosecuted. It is hardly defendable, in light of Title 28 and Title 50, for MEmbers of Cognress to block review and action on high crimes, war crimes, and other things which this leadership -- without a credible threat of impeachment -- are getting the green light to continue.
___ Propaganda, logic errors, cults: There is an option outside the DNC and GOP -- A New Third Party
Actions v. Words: It's interesting to contrast what Members of Congress are saying about the imepachment effort; and contrast this with what they are really doing.
Ref Committee Budgets: If DNC was really "concerned" about this, they could pass the appropriations. This is a phony "concern" by the DNC; they control the process; and could put attention on this issue to resolve it. DNC could easily direct the Appropriations COmmittee to resolve the issue, issue a payment. The DNC CMmittee chairman are openly calling for something that they have themselves to blame.
Congress calls for checkpoints; and Bush threatens to block good ideas; Bush was against dialog until he was for it with Iran and Syria; the North Koreans well, they're not as evil.
Congress Lobbying We the People: Notice the Attempted Role Reveral
Members of Congress are being manipulated to not fully do their job; then attempting to put pressure on We the People to back down. Time for We the People to send a real rebuke: More proclamations; and a credible threat of new leadership outside both the GOP and DNC. The Members of Congress have it backwards. The error is for Congress to talk about Change, not respond to the Public; but then reverse roles and act as if Members of Congress were lobbyists on We the People.
Members of Congress have a real problem when they avoid forcing on the President; but put their energy into lobbying we the people: It shows they are powerless, fearful, and have got things upside down: The framers intended for the "experts" to focus on leadership; not spending their time -- as they are doing -- trying to dissuade we the people from implementing an oversight plan against Congress. All the more reason to expand the oversight, broaden the Pressure on Members of Congress; compel the Congress to focus on the ruses/excuses this President is attempting to distrait Member of Congress attention from the President's war crimes.
Ref Reconsider the Criteria to oversee congress; and the Impeachment issues: The excuses Congress gives to "not impeach" are frivolous. Notice the shift in the excuses since 2006-election time frame: GOP has shifted the focus from the President (defensive) to "issues" (smokescreens, distractions).
___ An oversight system requires examining real data to determine whether the oversight plan is or isn't' working. How Can Members of Congress credibly argue they have  a "Presidential Oversight System"; or that there has been a  test of that oversight plan unless there is fact finding, reviews, and an understanding of what we are facing? [ Ref ]
Abusive Cult: Threats and Abuse of President Will Continue Unless Challenged, Ended
Ref The President threatens people to get them to do or not do things; then leaves people with the mess regardless their choice, and blames them for their "bad choice."
Irrelevant Excuse: Middle East
Ref All the nonsense about the" concerns with the middle east" are meaningless: US shows it can sit down with Syria and Iran on issues. The DNC can also do the same on impeachment -- reverse positing, confront and face acts. No reason to put "all the energy" into something that isn't make or break.
US GOP-White House-DoD saying that war is going to end in Oct 2008. Ref OK: Then DNC doesn't need to "spend time" attempt to "end" domsehting that is supposedlygoing to end. They can spend time on what will lawfully end ths Presidency: Impeachment.
Ref DNC excuses to do nothing on impeachment contradict reality in Iraq: Joint staff says six months until US will either get it right, or spiral into Vietnam-like disaster. It would be appropriate for the DNC "opposition" to accountaity face reality in Iraq: There's no reason to block impeachment when the Joint Staff, and Iraq time line are moving. It's not an either-or approach [no credible basis to say that "we can't have impeachment proclamations unless we have an end to war in Iraq." That's a non-sense argument; we can have both, working in parallel. It's appropriate to keep the Pressure on, test the DNC leadership, and evaluate whether they are or are not being responsive.
Ref Governors are "concerned" about President's bungling in Iraq; but refuse to seriously consider legal options to lawfully punish the President. How stupid is that of the Governors. When Federal Government stops telling We the People and states how do do things, we'll stop telling DC How to do things. The US government has been a distraction when it comes to the US Constitution.
Quantum Focus Doctrine: Bush Distraction Doctrine
Using Focus on One As An argument Against Focus On Another; Pretending that blocked focon on one means that the DNC will continue going after what is blocked; [Can't, shouldn't; then changes to "focus on what is blocked" to argue the reverse: "don't have the time to focus on the other." The opposite is true: If POTUS will not let Congress review Iraq, then there's nothing stopping focus on impeachment.]
GOP Propaganda To Stifle Action: Notice the Convoluted Logic:
- Distract: What is blocked is desirable;
- Block: What is needed must be blocked;
- Excuse: What is blocked is a distraction;
- Discredit: The distraction is a priority from what is needed.
Ref Public needs to remind House: The President is attempting to take both sides of the argument on oversight:  Say that Congress can't do something (oversee); then saying  Oversight will be a distraction. It's impossible for something that isn't happening to be a distraction. House should take the President's charge at face value: "If you won't let us do our job,then we will do our job on impeachment." Once the President says that "impeachment can't be considered", then there's no reason for Congress not to review Iraq -- there's no distraction of Iraq if Iraq can't be discussed. [President' is pointing to each situation [Iraq and Impeachment; saying people can't do something with the other] as a distraction from him.
Republicans Are Making Excuses to Keep Evidence out of Court, stifle review, and not cooperate with oversight or fact finding. The Goal of the GOP is to pretend that all DNC action will be a threat to the DNC [Orwell: "Leadership is defeat"; Cheney: Defeat is leadership"]; and that all DNC progress is bad [Owellian: "Progress is defeat"; Cheney:"Defeat is progress"]; and all audits/reviews cannot be done [illusory benefits of ignorance "Ignorance is strength"]: That should be the debate: What explanation does the GOP plan to share as to their concern with having focus on the issues?
Notice the Common Pattern: Pretending On Going Abuse Will End if No Action
Ref Pattern of speculative threats to dissuade inquiry: Comparing the threats against the EU [not to investigate rendition, or lose support] with the effort in Pakistan [to respond to phony threats of Member of Congress funding cuts]. Threats are the subsequent lines of evidndence of the GOP concern with fact finding. We have the same result [When they are enabled, they will continued to abuse; if they are not stopped and examined, they threaten to abuse]; there's nothing to suggest the abuse is going to stop unless we confront the President; threats of more abuse [what is already happening] isn't a credible reason to stop, or take another option -- the consequence is not contingent upon or action or inaction on impeachment.
Flawed GOP Positions
Ref Contrast the GOP action in NM (running away from hearing) with that in Washington State. Looks as though the GOP response to the impeachment proclamations is related to their 2008 election goals: Induce DNC to block progress and debate when GOP position is strong; cut and run when the GOP opposition would backfire, or the locals are GOP is fearful any association with the President will backfire. [Analyzing the GOP response to the impeachment proclamation as a proxy for what they view as vulnerable; how can their arguments be turned on their head; and what do their arguments tell us abort what they fear, and what can be publicly discredited.]
Ref Senate Republican Leader Mike Hewitt appears to be retarded, claiming this is "good news." Sure: If it was "good news," the GOP would have done this a long time ago. The US Federal Government has failed. The States may lawfully request Congress to investiate. Hewitt doesn't appear to be able to read: House Rule 603 Permits a proclamation. Washington isn't impeaching, just passing a resolution. This is proof Republicans are stupid.
Ref DNC talking points to slow roll impeachment proclamation. Using same excuses of distraction that RNC is using to protect the President; Compare to the lessons from Vermont
Ref: It started with one blog, and won't end until the President is lawfully removed from office. There are fifty states; Ref The President can be impeached fifty [ 50 ] times. If the senate refuses to lawfully remove him from office for the crimes, then the GOP will have given up their claim to be called competent. We the People expect change, not excuses to block what is needed: Accountability.
Ref Indicators of a backlash against Both DNC and GOP; their party emerging on American landscape. Both DNC and GOP leadership are in a no-win situation in refusing to confront the President.
Thank you for your coverage in the Seattle Times of the House Rule 603 Resolution. I agree with you that impeachment is a corrosive effect: It should be. It forces the factions to clash.
This American government with the enabling media has refused to do its job: Face reality.
It can hardly be said that reviewing evidence of war crimes is a bad thing. It might inspire some support for the American government among the insurgency: "Wow, those lazy Americans are finally doing what we've been trying to do -- hold them accountable."
Combat is serious business. You either win, or you may lose your life. America is limping along, pretending its government is functioning, but oblivious to the feedback of combat: Things need to change. There have been war crimes. The way forward is to fix what is broken.
What other Members of Congress may or may not fear about impeachment is irrelevant. This Congress, despite "winning" the Voter Mandate, refuses to force the President t account with impeachment. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have much to be concerned with: The American public realizes the choice is not between the absurdity of the DNC: or the war crimes of the GOP.
The choice is between the rule of law, or a New Constitution that shall, through lawful threat of force, impose the rule of law.
It cannot be said that we have no choice. The choice is simple: Whether we will face what is happening; or whether we will force the government, with a New Constitution to face it.
Some have suggested that a conflict will produce bad results. This implies that the conflict is unreasonable; or for a bad purpose.
The lazy Congressional leadership has avoided what the Framers intended: A clash of factions.
Indeed, some who recklessly wasted time on what they call "trivial legal issues" may think that to assert the rule of law is dangerous. Indeed, there will be a loser.
The conflict between the Constitution was one this President illegally started. How American citizens, seeing this Congress react or not react, choose to assert themselves and run for office is secondary.
Even if there is a setback for one party's agenda, the turnover in Congress will eventually get things right. Or so we thought.
The American media has been complicit with this recklessness. Rather than reporting on the illegality, they’ve cowered in the corner pretending they were the messenger of truth. No, they provided us with excuses for inaction.
It is meaningless to say that because someone opposed one "trivial legal issue" that that all other legal issues are trivial or should be opposed.
Contrary to speculation that impeachment "might" paralyze Congress, this Congress is paralyzed. There is no impeachment. Yet.
Impeachment, as the states propose it, will compel the House to vote -- up or down -- whether they do or do not want to investigate. That is the first test. If the DNC chooses to refuse to investigate, there will be more bills. There are fifty states. There are potentially fifty rounds of impeachment.
This Congress is wasting time. There are war crimes. The impeachment will force the House to throw the Senate into disarray, and then compel them to be silent as they hear the evidence.
If the Senators refuse to remove, another impeachment may start it again; with more calls for Senators to be prosecuted for having not prevented war crimes. The evidence is overwhelming. The issue before is if the GOP Senators refuse to remove the President, then the GOP will, in all likelihood, be lawfully destroyed at the ballot box. There is nothing in the Constitution which makes permanent a particular party; nor is there a mandate to compel We the People to assent to dysfunctional government. To ask such, would have us believe the Iraqis are entitled to more competent leadership in Iraq than the US government can provide at home. Absurd. The GOP leadership knows this. They are concerned. They know they must rely on sense to win; that strategy failed November 2006. They have not changed, but block accountability. Not to mention the DNC.
If impeachment will “not happen,” then let Members of Congress choose, on the record, to do nothing. Then there will be no debate of what they might have done; the issue is what we will do.
American citizens, military, and children have seen enough. The evidence is clear. The voters rejected this President, this leadership, and this recklessness.
The error is for the DNC to refuse to confront this President. The state proclamations force the DNC to assert their oath. If they are not serious, then they -- as with the GOP poodles in the Senate -- cannot be sure they will remain in office, much less retain power. Ever.
There are alternatives.
We the people have the power. We the people woke up. We the People sent a clear signal in November 2006: We support fact finding, reasonable plans, and change. Change can only be credible if we know where we are, how we got here, and what needs to be done. Change means keeping all the options on the table. Then providing leadership.
Sadly, this leadership must be told what to do; and how to do its job. If they refuse to listen, we will find new people who are willing to respond to We the People. Change isn't a single mandate to talk about change once, but ignore We the People, or the requirement to explore the basis for change. real change means changing: Listening to We the People on a daily, if not hourly basis -- where do we stand; what feedback do we have.
Real leaders would use their leadership to lead; not delegate that responsibly to We the People. The proclamations do not demand removal; but if the evidence is as high as it appears, there is no credible basis to defend this President.
The voters, regardless their party loyalty will have the chance to see whether their state and federal leaders are or are not serous about asserting their oath. Refusing to face reality is hardly prudent. Enlightened people can reasonably expected enlightened leaders: Ones how lead on the back of facts, not denial.
It is appropriate to force the Congress to show whether it does "bother" with the Constitution. They have no choice; and may be legally prosecuted for having failed to defend what cannot fall into disrepair. Assent to lawlessness is not permitted, but has been illegally permitted.
It is an error to say that the President is all powerful, or he is above the law. It is also incorrect to say that people who want accountability are against America.
American combat troops need leadership. They also need to know their orders are lawful.
The DOJ Staff is concerned. They privately worry they could be convinced for war crimes.
Never confuse being "For the Constitution" with being against America. That is a fatal error of the media.
Regardless whether the House chooses to investigate or not, the question is whether We the People will support or oppose this Congress. The voters are in support of accountability. The facts will lead us where we find them.
It is absurd to suggest that fact finding will force the voters to support the President. A needed inquiry is neutral. If it is unfair, then shame on those who unfairly do their job.
It is circular to argue we benefit by avoiding reality. If the war is just and lawful, then this man will be vindicated; if the war should be supported, then this President has nothing to fear. The facts will be on his side.
However, if the evidence shows the war was illegal; or that the facts are not on his side, it can hardly be argued that determining that fact is a bad thing. It is required.
We cannot prospectively say that something is or isn't worth doing, when it is mandatory: To find the truth, then decide what must be done, if anything. Asserting, without facts or any inquiry, that nothing should be done is circular.
War will end when America is forced to confront reality: we will either do what is required to win; or we will accept we are not willing to accept our defeat. The GOP is not willing to accept its complicity.
Whether the President did or did not lie is secondary than whether he has no has not committed crimes warranting removal. The place to start is where we are: Starting, reviewing, and examining what should be done.
It has been the lazy Congress, unruffled by We the People, which has assented to this illegal warfare. The Founders expected factions to clash.
The "needs of the DNC or GOP" are secondary to their requirement to clash, find facts, and have this showdown this President illegally started. It has been the refusal of the Members of Congress to clash that has enabled this President.
If Congress, despite the lessons of Nixon, Jackson, and Clinton spirals into a mess, then let that mess be one We the People openly see, and resolve to clean up.
There is nothing to fear if we examine what is going on, and resolve to fix it.
Speculative fears of "how this might be like something else" is meaningless. This President, unlike the honorable, waged illegal warfare; this Congress has treated the Constitution as if it were meaningless. They miscalculated.
War is not the national agenda. The agenda is the Constitution. Indeed, if there has been 72 oversight hearings, but not challenged, we can hardly argue that holding hearings is sufficient.
It's time to couch the information in terms of evidence: Is there, or is there not, a basis to charge the President with a crime?
This Congress refuses to consider the question. The states have the power to make them confront that issue: Is there, or is there not, a basis to charge the leadership with a crime; and what should be done to punish those who have?
This isn’t just about the President, but all other Constitutional officers in all parties: Have they or have they not fully asserted their oath.
Fact Check: Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA] reported to have said that there have been 38 hearings on Iraq, not 72 as Seattle Post reports.
Iraq is a separate issue. The question isn't whether the President should or should not be overseen -- he shall be -- or whether he should or should not change course -- he must -- but whether this President should or should not remain in office.
Some suggest its "only two more years" as an excuse to do nothing. The correct approach is the opposite: Until this Congress chooses not to remove this President, We the People shall compel the Congress to clash, find facts, and explain themselves to We the People: Who are they to say "not to bother" -- refuse to ask a question of criminal activity, not to mention removing them from office -- when the question will not get asked: What is the basis for them to say "it's not worth it"? Without inquiry, that excuse for inaction is meaningless, frivolous, and an embarrassment to those who offer it.
The problem isn't just the President’s war crimes, but the complicity Members of Congress hoping to thwart We the People from examining the real question: Who didn't do their job when they should have to end this illegal abuse of power earlier?
The results are bad for the GOP and DNC. Not for We the People. Reckless leaders, enabled by toady parties, must be lawfully removed from the political stage. The error is to suggest the incompetent are the only choice we have; or that the choice is between unacceptable choices.
Competence is possible. It is linked with fact finding, and developing a plan to move forward. Things are changeable. One can make a difference.
The very fact that the DNC don't want this is the very reason to make it happen: And force the DNC to confront what they see as an "acceptable" excuse not to find facts.
That which the GOP and DNC jointly agree must be avoided is meaningless. This President has confronted it: The Constitution. The question is who and what will dare protect the Constitution.
Not the Congress or the Media. But the States and We the People.
The Congress has stonewalled on the war. That impeachment "might be a new issue" isn't going to interfere with anything: Congress has chosen to embrace war crimes as a "justified" excuse to interfere with their oath.
Some suggest there is going to be a partisan battle if there is impeachment. Fine. What took so long?
Let the factions clash. Let the leadership show whether they are serious about facing reality. If the DNC leadership is, as they said on the even of the November 2006 election, the "right leader," then let them rise to the occasion, lead, and fully assert their oath.
Stop talking about change. Protect the Document with the required clash of factions.
It is fear mongering of the poodles in the DNC and GOP when they say that things might get locked down. That lockdown is with us, not speculative, and has illegally been permitted to continue putting all American Constructional protections behind this abuse of power. That is an impressible deterioration of the document and defies the oath of office.
The assertion of the rule of law by We the People is Our Mandate through the Constitution. This Congress refuses to do their jobs.
We the People deserve this. The President has chosen to defy his oath, and this Congress refuses to honor its commitments. They have chosen poorly.
Free people sent a clear signal in November: We do not support the DNC over the GOP; we support sending new signals that things will change, regardless who our champions are.
Let the DNC and GOP spiral or rise as they choose. The problem for We the People is if the DNC and GOP agree to hide their disagreement, and leave Our Constitution unprotected. That is impermissible.
It is the test of combat and political confrontation that forces the best to succeed; and the losers to surrender. America has ignored this lesson, permitting the losing President to abuse, while destroying the best. This shall end.
It is arrogant for any Members of Congress to argue what is or is not "important." That is not debatable: It is the Constitution.
To suggest that "something else" is important misses the focus and binding requirement of the oath of office.
It is non-sense to pretend that asserting the rule of law is something about feelings. It is about one thing: We the People asserting raw power to compel the Congress to protect the Constitution. All other things -- including the oath -- have not inspired this Congress to do what they promised, before God, that they would do: Protect the Constitution.
This Constitution is what we have. There is no other option, other than the New Constitution. It is ready.
We cannot end what is debatable; we can debate what should end.
The error is to equate a challenge with a loss. The factions shall either rise or fall as they choose to act. We the People will be able to observe form the sidelines: Who do we want to lead: Leaders, or poodles?
This leadership makes excuses to avoid reality; and not have the needed factional clash. That is not leadership but denial.
Some might suggest that facing reality might cripple an Institution: IF so, let the Constitution guide us to repair what is self-evidently lame: A reckless US government.
We the People are not required to debate or justify. The debate was resolved in 1789: We have but one Constitution.
Congress, if it will not face this issue, should not be permitted to face any other issue: Will they or will they not face the Constitution, and the threats to that document.
It is frivolous fear mongering to talk about what might happen when the certain things have not been examined, as required. Certain illegality has not been sufficient to cripple this Congress; surely facing the reality of that crippled institution is nothing to fear. It might inspire some to believe that change is possible, not something that is prattled as a slogan then discarded like a lame mule.
Americans will get the chance to see whether their leaders are or are not competent; and whether the media is or is not willing to face facts.
It is mockingly amusing -- ironic -- for the media to call for silence on issue of facts. Perhaps the media has an explanation why they do not want to "bother" facing reality: Is this Government willing to face facts or not? The media doesn’t think its prudent. No wonder the media is seen less than relevant, and more as what needs to be lawfully transformed.
It is less important what the leaders claim to know, that what the people have been deprived from knowing: Whether this leadership will or will not, when forced, do its job.
We the People have the right to demand, and require, Members of Congress to commit to whether they are for or against fact finding and accountability.
We the People owe our Constitution to the sacrifice of or Founders and the leaders since 1789. It was the clash of factions, even during the civil war, which compelled the leadership to confront what cannot stand; and stand by what would prevail in those confrontations. As the Northern Armies marched, Congress debated.
Surely this Congress can discuss.
There is no doubt the American public supports change and fact finding: We voted for it. If the DNC and GOP leadership make an error, We the People have the time to find new leaders. If not now, then soon; if not by this election, the next one.
It's time to start and ask the question: What kind of leaders do we really want; and what does it take to get them to do what we want? We the People have learned it takes too much work to do what is right; and there are not enough barriers to prevent what is wrong.
American leaders will have to make their case each day that they deserve support. Fortunately, the Founders required elections every 2, 4, and 6 years. There is nothing to fear if we dare to face the truth. The problem is when, as the media has asked us to incorrectly believe, that We the People should give up.
No, the media should give up its illegal rebellion; the media should withdraw its support for the insurrection; and the media should be reminded who the are responsible to: We the People -- the shareholders in America -- the ones who have the power. Markets can be made or destroyed in minutes. Lives linked with capital can be turned upside down in seconds.
The media will have to decide how long they are willing to go, as they illegally did with the Iraq WMD issues, to incite illegal warfare, or drown the voices of We the People.
We have been through a great challenge. This government unsuccessfully attempted to beat Americans into silence at the RNC Demonstrations; the GOP lawyers failed.
The American government attempted t hide the truth about WMD and continue illegal warfare. We the People voted and could not be silenced. Rove and the President failed.
Now it is Congress' turn: Will they, or will they not attempt to do what the President, Senate, and GOP have failed -- to silence Americans and compel them to think one way or the other.
Danny Westneat, it is arrogant for you as a columnist for the Seattle Times to pretend that the "way forward" is to not find out; and permit the Congress to lazily pretend they can get away with more nonsense. It was only when We the People forced this media and government to account that we go the real answers; then we made informed decisions.
"Don’t bother" isn't the right answer. That's pathetic. Danny Westneat, why do you bother doing your job as a professional reporter if you're thinking "Not finding out" is the "right answer"? You're not being clear or consistent.
___ How do you argue that your job is to communicate, when you advocate not finding out what is material information?
___ Who are you, as a member of the media supposedly bringing us information to we can make informed decisions, calling for We the People to put up with "not bothering" to find out?
Our Constitution is based on the clash of factions; and the idea of an adversarial system of debate and justice. If the truth is there has been no crime, then let the DNC blame the Voters for "daring" to make the DNC do its job.
Nobody is saying the DNC, without evidence, should do something that is reckless. They are required to do something that is required: Hold the leadership to account for war crimes, and confront facts.
Danny Westneat, it is irresponsible for you, especially as a member of the "media" to call for people to put up with not finding out the truth.
___ Which facts are you deciding we should "not confront"?
___ Without confronting the facts, much less raise the question of the potential legal problem, who is the media to suggest that they are part of the process to support Americans?
___ In the absence of facts, what is the basis for you to argue that "not finding facts" is the more optimal choice?
You have no credibility in your argument; or if you are serious, you are not credible in your profession. This is alone for you to cure.
We the People are busy at work. We do not have time to do your job. But it is absurd rubbish, Danny Westneat, for you to suggest that you should be paid to report in the media; but you openly advocate not finding facts. That does not reconcile.
___ How do you explain your hypocrisy?
___ Why should we the people bother with the likes of Danny Westneat when they say that we should "not bother' finding out?
The issue before is whether the nation will or will not face reality. That is change. Up until now, the poodles in the media have been complicit with denying reality, suppressing facts, and pretending war crimes were something of another era.
___ How can the media credibly argue, in the absence of facts, that a line of questioning is or isn't appropriate?
That is absurd. We can only know whether the confrontation is or is not reasonable when the President, media, GOP, Senate, and American public decide: Who do we want to be our leaders?
The Voters through the states have denied the President, Senate, and GOP an input. The power is with we the People and the States to delegate to the House.
We may permit the House to do something, knowing it will reject what is required; this forms the needed catalyst to replace it with something that submit to Our Will, not the irresponsible will of "don't bother looking at that".
Leaders don't point to secondary agendas as primary;
Leaders don’t talk about democracy, but tell We the People to go away;
Leaders don't preach about the benefits of the rule of law, but remain complicit with illegal warfare;
Leaders don’t preach about the benefits of an informed citizenry, but then say that citizenry should be denied the truth.
We can't argue to the Iraqis that democracy is great, so long as it isn't practiced. We the People shall be informed; or make adverse inferences about those who attempt to thwart informed decision making.
"Don't bother" isn’t an argument. It's not a position. It's un-American. It's disgustingly lazy. Hardly something that will inspire leadership, confidence, or faith.
The rude reality for the DNC will be "What really happened"?
___ How did we the people make our decision?
___ What did we know?
___ What did We the People dare to face, and make adverse inferences?
___ Did We the People learn something new, unknown to the DNC, and are waiting to spring that upon the media?
The way forward is to trust your media training, Danny Westneat. When the citizenry is informed, we can make adverse inferences whether the leaders are or are not suitable for office.
Rather than avoid the issues, the needed push back against this President’s illegal confrontation, is a measure of whether the leaders, not just we the People, are serious about the rule of law. There is no choice.
The rule of law isn't an idea. It is a notion that reason prevail. It applies in combat. Those who refuse to face reality, and poorly plan, are defeated.
When the US government ignores the rule of law, but wages reckless, illegal warfare, the laws of war permit retaliation. Anything this US government has illegally permitted, other nations may legally do to the United States. That is an unacceptable descent into barbarism which the American leadership has impermissibly allowed.
These are not separate issue of law or combat, but connected to the same principle: Prudence.
The question isn't whether the media or Congress will confront the issues; but, if they refuse, what will foreign fighters have the lawful right to do?
They may engage in like abuses f the laws of war. That is hardly something not to be "bothered with." If this Congress chooses to "not bother" with war crimes, other nations may legally -- as this Congress has illegally done -- retaliate for illegal violations of Geneva.
___ Members of the Media, alleged complicity with war crimes, can be abused in secret without prospect of a public trial.
There are not sufficient combat forces to defend all Americans. The United Sates if militarily vulnerable. We've seen the problem in Louisiana, Iraq, Afghanistan, and with 9-11. Yet, in 2007, in a weakened state, and facing an enemy that is legally justified in committing abuses, the Congress would have us believe "not bathing" is they way to go.
No. The way forward is to face the illegal activity; resolve the punish the wrong doers; and make it clear to foreign fighters: We are committed to fully enforcing Geneva. Whether the enemy chooses to ignore or not is irrelevant; anything that they do which is an illegal violation -- based on fact finding -- is the basis for the world to tilt away from the insurgents to We the People.
Surely, the world would support what is prudent, especially if it could discredit the weak. Not America. It has power, but abuses it; and once had moral authority, but squandered it. It's appropriate for We the People to bother because this reckless leadership has not.
Iran may legally engage in support for the Insurgency in Iraq. Whether they are or are not doing so is secondary to the right, they have, under Geneva, to lawfully oppose the US war of aggression. No one in the media can credibly argue that America’s enemies are in the wrong, when the real enemies -- the arrogant, lazy, and stupid Members of Congress and the media -- refuse to do what Geneva requires: Bothering.
But enough of generalities, Danny Westneat. Let's get specific with your excuses not to do your job.
___ Who cares about what Clinton did or didn't do?
___ Why is that relevant on a separate case with war crimes?
No answer. These are distractions and irrelevant to the 2007 issue confronting this Congress: The Constitution.
___ Why should anyone care if Congress remains paralyzed during impeachment?
We're not getting anything but excuses; more paralysis is evidence the Congress and media refuse to adjust to reality. Put this paralysis on the political stage and let We the People see it for what it is -- reckless contempt for their oath; and evidence they are unfit for office. They've started a defeated 2008 campaign; and their opponents only need argue, "I won't be stupid like this leadership.” That’s good news for We the People.
We can find new leaders, and people in the media who aren't as marginally obnoxious as people working for the Seattle Times who say, "Don't bother" when it comes to fact finding, oversight, and finding the truth. This Congress, if it requires more defeats on the battlefield, is well positioned to endure the same. The people getting killed are your neighbors. That's why you should bother.
It is incorrect to link the [a] action on Impeachment with [b] the position of the war. The two are separate. We the People, as demonstrated with the November 2006 election, are able to distinguish the two. War is not the same as a legal showdown in Congress. If the media has to be lectured to, then go to Iraq where you can get an earful: Arrogant leaders and lazy members of the media get to learn the hard way what happens when people "don’t bother" to face reality: The enemy is inspired to prevail, and expand combat. That is folly.
Your article, Danny Westneat, doesn't do much to give a reason why "not knowing" is a good thing. It is of little interest that someone in the Legislature is afraid of reality. Their problem is that they are afraid of their future: Accountability.
We the People have been told, not asked, by the American media, Danny Westneat, to put up with claptrap about WMD; then given non-sense why we should "not bother" with illegal warfare.
It is foolish for Inslee to direct, as a cause-effect relationship, the idea that [a] finding facts; and [b] making a decision about the President; is going to [c] "Help" the President. If that were true -- that "accountability" is good -- then the GOP was doing what didn't help: Avoiding accountability.
Inslee has a major problem. He's been cited in your column, and he's used non-sense logic to make the case that a needed action -- which has not been done -- would be good if avoided; but he can't explain why this "good thing for the President" wasn't fully asserted by the GOP.
That is the problem with Inslee, and your column. You have accepted as true the absurd argument which, when examined -- as you say we should "not bother" doing -- shows the absurdity.
Inslee's argument is non-sense, as is our mindless repetition of that argument. You could have challenged it or rebuked it. Perhaps you have a plausible reason not included in your column. It is a GOP ruse and DNC fear tactic to pretend that WE the People -- informed to make decisions --are going to get it wrong. Informed voters got it right November 2006. No, when the GOP lied, we voted to endorse what should have been rejected. We learned the hard way.
The next problem is for Inslee to argue that "things that the GOP didn't do" -- engage in oversight -- will be good; then pretend that the "needed things which the GOP didn't do" will be good; and that all things bad will happen.
Utterly non-sense arguments, especially when suggesting that "Activists" are doing something in response. No, it's "We the People." We're voters. We're the people who buy your newspaper and cancel subscriptions.
The issue isn't whether the president did or didn't violate he law. The issue is whether this US government will or will not examine the question. Answer the question on the record; and we the People shall make judgments.
It should not take this long, and this much effort, for the US Congress -- with this much evidence of illegal activity, misadministration, and incompetence -- to fully protect the Constitution.
Hostility is needed. Confrontation is required. The clash of factions will answer one thing: Did this President meet or not meet his oath of office requirements. The error is for the media and Members of Congress to, despite not asking that question, to say that we are better off if we didn't bother asking the question.
No, the right answer is: If they refuse to do their jobs, why should we bother supporting either the DNC or the GOP?
A new party can be created to trump both the DNC and GOP; and a New Constitution can be crated to compel what this media and Congress says is good to "not bother" doing -- protecting the Constitution. Oaths haven't worked. We the People need to find out what a solution is; it can only start if we dare to focus on the facts, have an open debate, and compel -- on the Records -- the Members of Congress, all 535 of them -- to vote [a] where to they stand on the rule of law; and [b] what level of evidence and reality is required to awaken them to their legal obligations they freely assented to with their oath.
It is absurd that it takes, above and beyond the lazy media that says "don’t bother" for We the People to have to do the work of congress; rally the nation; and direct leadership. Members of Congress freely took an oath to provide the leadership and set the agenda. They refuse.
Our Agenda: The Constitution -- is the document by which We the People delegate that power to the Members of Congress to do their job. They reuse. The way forward is to find out what is really going on, and how do we adjust:
A. Do we delegate more or less power to the States;
B. What is the remedy to prevent this abuse of power from recurring; and
C. Who is or is not getting in the way of what is needed?
The majority of Americans want to find out reality – they voted November 2006 to lead based on reality, not myth. If the truth says that things are fine, fine; that may be evidence that someone isn’t doing their job and blocking an investigation.
Bring on the hostile GOP. Make them really scream without thinking. God knows when their rage reveals their stupidity. If they won't get on the elevators together, fine: That's their choice. Let We the People ride the elevators while the DNC and GOP leadership refuse to put aside their differences and focus on the Constitution.
If they say their political agenda is more important than the Constitution, then they are not important. We the People can find someone marginally more interested in the Constitution to do their job.
Let the world see the dysfunctional mess this media has not reported; the nonsense this Congress has permitted.
There is nothing to fear if, given more information, We the People make a decision to lawfully transition to a New Constitution, and something that is marginally more responsive than this mess which enables war crimes.
Oaths of office, when they do not mean anything, no longer become a credible basis to believe that the US leaders are going to do their job. The important issue is whether this country will dare to ask the questions; how we answer those questions is secondary.
___ Why is the media afraid of reality?
___ What is the "good or bad thing" that is going to happen if the President is forced to account?
___ Have the DNC claims about the President -- which supplied carried the DNC to power -- been proven untrue?
All the more reason to find out: Was the election of November 2006 about change, or about repeating more on-sense on the back of illusions. The media's response: "Don’t' bother." What a load of non-sense.
Saying something is "obviously" more important is speculative. We the People get to decide what is important. If the Congress refuses to confront the President and focus on what We the People deem is important -- The Constitution -- then the issue changes form priorities, to whether the Congress can be trusted to establishing the priorities.
Some suggest we've had 72 hearings on Iraq; and the President, GOP, and Senate refuse to allow progress or adjustment. This is illusory. Nothing can stop the House, except the House. The President, GOP, and Senate are powerless to prevent the House from withholding funds for illegal warfare. That's not oversight, but more stonewalling.
Contrary to bills which the GOP, Senate, and President can block, and impeachment is something the President, Senate, and GOP have no input: It is an issue of power. No voters by the GOP is going to block this. It's up to the House and the DNC:
___ Are they, are they mot going to face reality.
___ How much misadministration is required?
___ Why should Americans accept "put up with having a bad employee for two years"?
___ Has the promise of change meant real change, or more excuses?
After the test we can better evaluate who talks about change, and who provides leadership.
If any American were to act this way on their job, they would be fired. This President is no different. He's a clerk. His only power is Article II power: Execute. Read it again -- singular, not plural: He has only one power: To enforce the laws, and see that they are faithfully discharged.
This clerk can't/wont'/refuses to do that simple job.
There are 300 Million Americans who know show to follow rules: This President is not among them. Hardly anyone can claim that the Voters are going to look favorably on this President. He’s a contemptible creature of the Constitution, unworthy of respect, and brings discredit upon himself.
Inslees "big plan" to vote on the war is meaningless. Let the DNC leadership dare to blame we the People for returning to this President what he started.
That blame shall be thrown back at the DNC and GOP with a fierce rebuke, and new calls for more alternatives: Real parties, New Constitutions, and other ways of organizing the American government.
We are loyal only to the Constitution, not to excuses to "not bother" fixing what remains broken but unexamined.
This Constitution is the agenda now, not later. There is no time to "get around, maybe later" to the Constitution. This Iraq war is a symptom of the illusions before Congress.
If Inslee, despite his oath, is willing to spiral into partisanship on impeachment, then let the voters decide if they want to have them as his leader. No need for the media to screen out information related to Inslees' unprofessionalism. Let the other Members of congress tempt fate if they recklessly conduct themselves when failing to assert their oath. It remains to be seen, and is a speculative threat: Irrelevant and without force. Inslee is going to have to work for the votes.
We the People do not workforce the President, Congress, media, but most of all the clowns like Inslee.
___ Does Inslee let "impeachment" guide his conduct?
___ Despite his oath, does Inslee freely choose to act in an unprofessional manner?
___ Despite his Constitutional duties as a Member of Congress, does Inslee -- or anyone -- dare to speak on the record and be contemptible before We the People?
Fine. We the People may choose to vote him out of office; or leave him there as a play toy. He is a buffoon.
Isnlee and Danny Westneat are full of hot air. They claim to be on the side of the public, but they show their true colors: When they claim they want to find facts and contribute, there they are -- making excuses not to bother; getting caught up in distractions; and failing to confront the real problem driving the symptoms of Iraq: This President.
It should not take this much effort to compel the US government to do what it promised: To provide the states with an enforcement mechanism. We the People woke up before November 2006. The DNC and GOP, along with the media, is still asleep: We the People have the power; and if the US government leadership -- in either party -- refuses to face reality or ask the question, We the People can find new leadership, for new parities, and enact a New Constitution.
Why? Because we can, and the rule of law is more than something that is "worth it." It's worth bothering with: There's no alternative. This leadership cannot be trusted to end anything that is illegal until it is forced to accept that it has no option but confront it.
The media, GOP, Congress, and President are powerless to stop We the People.
They wished this.