|
Edited on Mon Apr-02-07 02:27 AM by Peace Patriot
She came out of the starting block, and popped that one off--"Impeachment is off the table"--AWFULLY FAST.
WHAT table? Did we all miss something? Where was this table? Who was sitting at it? And what ELSE was ON it?
Good Pelosi: Iran. So she's says to George Bush, "If you don't invade Iran, we won't impeach you." Is THAT what was on the table?
For the "Good Pelosi" scenario to work out, you have to figure something really big was happening behind the scenes. And there is reason to surmise that there was. Tip of the iceberg evidence: Rumsfeld's abrupt departure (and if you had any thoughts that it was because the Bushcons have respect for the American people and their votes, think again--so why WAS he pushed out?) Another scrap of evidence (something big was going down): Those old Republican pedophile scandals that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies were promulgating two weeks before the election. (I mean, huh? How many lies did they tell for the Bush Junta? How many horrible things did they cover up? And they're trotting THIS out? Doesn't add up.) One more thing: Plamegate. Something funny going on there, with Libby's defense set up for Rove as a hostile witness for the defense, then...nothing. His lawyers drop that defense and never call him. Also, Cheney could have bolstered Libby's defense, taken some blame on himself. Another no show.
So what does all this point to? It points to some kind of earthquake behind the hallowed walls of the "powers-that-be"--something coming out that was so-o-o bad, it had to be kept from the public (would crash the stock market, destabilize the country, cause riots in the streets, would so disgrace and discredit our government that we would never recover--or so they feared), but which HAD to be dealt with, in some fashion. Exit, Rumsfeld. Was it something he did? Re: Plamegate? (that is, the story behind the story--what-all was really going on there--did Plame catch him trying to PLANT nukes in Iraq?). Re: 9/11. (--where WAS he, when the planes were headed to DC, and NORAD stood down?) The Colombia paramilitary scandals? (--huge rightwing scandal in Colombia, at the top of Uribe's gov't--the head of the military--involving drug trafficking, mass murder of leftists and peasants, and a plot to assassinate Hugo Chavez--Bush/Rumsfeld was larding billions of dollars onto the Colombian military--were they planning a covert war against Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, that got foiled/exposed?)
There are many other possibilities. I'm dwelling on Rumsfeld because he's gone. He's the obvious choice for something REALLY bad that somebody got on him. Maybe fed up insider military or CIA or FBI. So amend what Pelosi says to Bush: "If you don't invade Iran, and you get rid of Rumsfeld, we won't impeach you."
If Pelosi traded impeachment for Iran, with Rumsfeld thrown into the bargain, I could forgive her.
That odd corporate newsstream thing, about Republican molestation of the pages, makes me favor this scenario. Because of its oddity. You see, I think the 5 billionaire CEOs who control all news and opinion in the corporate narration of our national life, like to keep control of that narrative, and so, if they got wind of some big putsch inside the government, combined with what their polls were showing them about the mood of the voters (very, very pissed off--likely to outvote the machines), this is just the sort of thing they would do: drag some irrelevant scandal out of the bottom draw, dust it off, and make it seem as if the voters were voting out of their disgust with child molestation, rather than their disgust with the war (and the media's part in selling it). It thus appears that these corporate news monopolies are, a) doing their job--exposing scandals; and b) are on top of things--are not behind the news curve. They also want to convey the impression that they can make or break ANYbody; that they can make scandals appear or go away. It enhances their power--or their egos. Or perhaps it's a little simpler: that they saw the antiwar vote coming, and tried to deflect the antiwar message with a sex scandal (--tried to put this interpretation on the vote), because they are, after all, war profiteers.
Anyway, it was a weird series of events. The Foley scandal just before the election. Then the big Dem win. Then Rumsfeld resigns (but with no change of policy in Iraq--very important). Then Pelosi's much too quick, "Impeachment is off the table."
----------------------------------
Bad Pelosi : "she's afraid of 'real democracy' and a creature of electoral politics." I'm not ready to make that judgment yet. There are other forgivable scenarios. And I don't yet know enough. One of the scenarios is that these guys are just too scary and too powerful. She's "holding the fort." She's keeping her eye on things. She's doing what she can. Maybe they've made threats. Maybe they're doing blackmail on all the Congress critters, with their spy apparatus. Maybe the worst is true. They did 9/11. They killed Paul Wellstone. They did the anthrax scare. And certain people, like Pelosi, know it. And so they are hedging them round as much as possible, and looking for the opportunity to disempower them.
Or, a more mundane scenario: Even though it's the Dem leadership's own fault, the Bushite corporate controlled voting machines screwed up the election again, and the Dems just don't have the votes in Congress to enforce the will of the people. Too many traitor 'Blue Dog' Dems, for one thing. (And, in the Senate, only 1/3 was up for reelection in '06, so it didn't change that much.) And not having the votes--to get an impeachment proceeding going, and/or to stop the war--makes things very tricky. If they really are aiming at impeachment, they need to do a lot of test votes first. See where they are, how things line up. Getting an impeachment proceeding shot down--for not enough votes--would probably be worse than if they didn't do it at all.
Anyway, I'm very "wait and see" on Pelosi. It's a very volatile and fluid situation. And it's still a young Congress. Three months into it. I don't trust the Dems on the war. Why should I? But Pelosi has been very strongly against the war from the beginning. And back in 2002, it was NOT a safe position to take in DC. Maybe it played well in San Francisco, but DC was a war zone, with real bastards in the White House. Ruthless. Arrogant. Capable of anything. Willing to slaughter a hundred thousand people to get their oil. Torturing prisoners. Shoving the Democrats into the basement like so much old furniture. So I have a lot of respect for her, for that. DC must have been a nightmare for anyone with feeling and a sense of ethics. To dissent on the war, back then, took courage. I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt.
The Dems who are afraid of 'real democracy' and are creatures of electoral politics, in my view, would first of all be the ones who voted for the war--people like Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry. I think they were hedging their bets. Putting their fingers in the wind. Dodd bears particular responsibility for colluding with Tom Delay and Bob Ney (the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress) on handing our election system over to Bushite corporations. Secondly, the old DNC crowd (Terry McAuliffe, et al). Real scumbags. I think they threw the 2004 election, not just because they wanted Bush's war, but to destroy the grass roots of the party, which had worked so hard and actually won that election. They didn't want to be beholden to the antiwar grass roots for winning the White House. It's actually more than fear of real democracy. It's hostility to democracy.
I do not put Pelosi in this category of Democrat. Not yet anyway. She's more genuine than that. Also, she has to be Speaker for all of them. It's not an easy position. And even to get the IDEA of a timeline on Iraq through the House was probably a significant achievement, for someone who opposed the war from the beginning, and who was probably silently screaming at some of them, inside. The Speaker has to work with consensus, or they get nothing done. It must be very hard for a left-leaning Dem like Pelosi. Previous great Speakers were more Machiavellian than she is, by nature. (My read on her.) She has more of a heart; and more conscience. And that must make compromising on vital issues, and sometimes with real slimebags, very difficult.
I am silently screaming right now, myself: WHY DON'T YOU IMPEACH THESE BASTARDS?!!! WHY DON'T YOU FIND THE WAY TO END THIS GODDAMNED WAR?!!! But I am not in a position to have to work with the "Blue Dog" Democrats, who want to cut spending for everything but war.
My final scream of the night: WHY AREN'T WE COUNTING THE VOTES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN A WAY THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE AND UNDERSTAND?!!! And I can find no excuse for ANY Democrat who doesn't agree with that.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
