House Judiciary Panel Hearings on ‘Imperial Presidency’

Spurred by Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s calls for impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings today on the “Imperial Presidency.”

This hearing was broadcast on CSPAN and is archived here:

Part 1
Part 2

Witnesses includes former representatives Bob Barr and Elizabeth Holtzman, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, former Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, and Elliot Adams of Veterans for Peace.

78 thoughts on “House Judiciary Panel Hearings on ‘Imperial Presidency’”

  1. Wow, Sparky Anderson is going to be there? Wow! Why-oh-why are they dancing around the obvious? Impeach Bush/Cheney and SAVE the American Republic. Do NOT pass go, do NOT collect $200 dollars, and just get on with it!

  2. Maybe somebody will ask Barr whether he signed a check paying for the abortion his ex-wife reports that she had. Bob’s been rather shy about dealing with this question, preferring to answer questions he hasn’t been asked when faced with them. But don’t get mad at Bob, he’s still “pro-life”, see. We just wonder if he’s “prolife” for everybody or just others.

    1. This “pro-life” stance from the “pro-death” (by the way of the War on the World) makes my so sick.

      I’m just having a 2 year old baby now, and I also have dog and cats. Objectively, human baby gets to the level of dog or cat by the age of about 8 months after his birth.

      At birth, human baby is less intelligent and has less “soul” then a chicken.

      Of course, since chicken is not of our species and human baby is – we treat them differently. So we should.

      But to compare the killing of a non-born baby to killing fully grown up ARAB or JEW or NEGRO – well – however YOU or SOME OTHER GROUPS may think that they are lesser human (or not human at all) then YOU (OR OTHER GROUPS) are, they are still got ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more SOUL then the unborn baby.

      Now, why people that LOVE killing half million of Japanese INSTANTLY and millions of Vietnamese (slowly) – why are the so obsessed about killing unborn embryos?

      Granted, abortion IS bad, there are so many means of contraception, starting with VERY simple and reliable – condome, there is no justification for unwanted pregnancies whatsoever. I completely despise man and woman that do that. But – the importance of not killing people at Middle East (and East in general, include Russia there ;-) and the importance of not killing embryos – is not even close.

  3. Award for the dumbest Republican on the panel goes to Rep Trent Frank, reading a speech by Bin Laden to justify the Iraq war, these republicans don’t know when to quit with the “Iraq-Al Qeada” phony links.

  4. Lowell… I hope the McCain campaign is paying you well to post comments like that on every blog that will publish them. Good luck.

  5. Hi there waldorf,

    Well, I’d always thought that folks that objected to murder from the air also should object to murder in the womb, but there I go shoulding all over myself. But does Bob have to be this unexpressive? Pro-life is as pro-life does, you know, and if Bob doesn’t really deserve
    the moniker, why worry about McCain? He wouldn’t either. Sorry, guy, Bob’s going to have to earn this one. Friends don’t allow friends to vote for kid killers.

    1. What has that got to do with Bush’s imperial presidency? But that’s the larger point now is it not? Keep this tripe to the pro-life websites.

      1. It has what I think it ought to have to do with Bush’s imperial presidency, slug. And isn’t that even a larger point yet? Keep your noxious mind filth to the murder websites.

        1. John Lowell said:
          It has what I think it ought to have to do with Bush’s imperial presidency, slug. And isn’t that even a larger point yet? Keep your noxious mind filth to the murder websites.

          I say:
          Okay — so what is it you think it ought to have to do with Bush’s imperial presidency? Also, could you direct me to the “murder websites” you refer to here? (-:

        2. John Lowell,

          Are you really suggesting that the two cells in Mama Bush’s womb were exactly the demon the George W. Bush is right now? If that is what you believe, then you are truly insane.

        3. Phillbin,

          You hadn’t read the post to which you were replying? Fascinating. Lets see if you can explain how that’s done before we take you on to anything more sinister.

  6. Good ol’ democrat Nancy Pelosi took your redress for government away from you and YOU JUST LET HER DO IT ! Want Bush and Cheney impeached? Talk to those spineless democrats. Harry Reid is also standing in your way of being able to bring the gas to your pump.

    Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and all those members of congress are collecting 60 cents off every dollar you spend and they do absolutely nothing for it.

    The Oil Companies go out there and explore for the oil, they drill for it, they refine it, AND they bring it to your gas station so you can put gas in your car. Know what they make? 8 cents off every gallon. And all of your fellow Americans who are out in those oil fields baking in the hot sun, are working their tails off for us and all some people can do is whine.

    Wise up America

  7. Thank you very much for posting this, Eric Garris.

    Impeachment is the heart of the matter structurally and constitutionally.

    Dennis Kucinich and the few others understand that, and it has far more to do with structure and rule of law than any ideology.

    It is simple–either the Congress does its sworn duty to impeach criminals in office, including in the offices of President and Vice President, or there is not much of a “Congress” or “Constitution” to speak of.

    Except for Congressman Paul, whose acknowledgment that impeachment is called for has been at best lukewarm, one sees no Republicans or “conservatives” in Congress of any stripe, many of whom crowed so much about the “Constitution” under Clinton, doing their sworn duty in regard to the criminals of their own Party who happen to head the Executive Branch.

    The coming election is of minimal importance by comparison.

    Congressman Kucinich, and a few Democrats, have done their duty . The rest don’t matter, whatever ideology and political slogans they mouth when it is convenient.

  8. Too little too late…just stringing everyone along 'til the next act in this preprogrammed play begins! Nothing will come of Kucinich’s calls for impeachment or these hearings…smoke and mirrors!

    1. I have to agree with litle guy on this one. It is too little too late. If this doesn’t show that the whole system has become a farce I don’t know what will. I couldn’t stand Clinton either but the least of his crimes was where he put his penis. Bush and Cheney have broken so many laws that if they can’t be impeached who could be?

      Eugene is correct that impeachment is “the heart of the matter structurally and constitutionally”. Without impeachment we have a dictatorship. So here we are one step closer to true fascism.

      John, John back to your old tricks I see. What exactly is your adjenda, other than coming off as a pompous jerk? We know you hate all politicians and the better they are the more you hate. There are very few politicains worth a half a squirt of p@ss and you seem to spend all your time complaining about the few that are at least half way decent.

      Yes, I also get it. Even the decent ones like Kucinich, Paul, McKinney and Barr take part in this farce, but at least it gives us someone to root for. For all the good it will do us.

      Our only real hope for saving our nation is to put the facts out there and hope the sheeple wake up. When that happens if that ever happens we could possibly end up with four candidates running for President, Kucinch vs. Paul vs. Barr vs. McKinney! Now wouldn’t that be something? I know, I know I’m dreaming but a mans gotta dream don’t he?


      1. I agree with you and little guy; too little, too late, and nothing will become of it. In my view we’re already deep into Fascism. The signs are: Powerful and Continuing Nationalism; Disdain for human rights; Identification of enemies as a unifying cause; supremacy of the military; rampant sexism; controlled mass media; obsession with national security; religion and government intertwined; corporate power protected; labor power suppressed; disdain for intellectuals and the arts; obsession with crime and punishment; rampant cronyism and corruption; fraudulent elections. Going throug this list and recalling the last eight years of what’s been going on here we are g uilty of every one of those items on the list.

  9. …..Maybe somebody will ask Barr whether he signed a check paying for the abortion his ex-wife reports that she had…..

    To John Lowell,

    This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand here. Bob Barr is indeed a sinner but SO ARE YOU AND SO AM I AND SO IS EVERYONE ELSE HERE. There are no degrees of sin as “all sin and fall short from the grace of God”. How many times do you need to hear this ?

    In addition to being irrelevant, your comments are divisive, cause people to fall away from learning about God and actually help the McCain and Obama campaigns. You are no better than anyone else so get used to it and keep your personal comments to yourself as you are indeed assisting the enemies of freedom.

    I am personally opposed to abortion. But as a political issue, it is nothig but a divisive circle jerk that politicians use to enslave us all.

    1. Ah, yes, Corkey, our resident relevance expert.

      “Bob Barr is indeed a sinner”

      You know something about the check, Corkey? :-)

      1. Y’know what, John? Much as I disagree with Corkey ( and YOU and Bob Barr) on abortion, Corkey is absolutely right about your ridiculous attitude. The fact that all you can do is make some silly remark inquiring if Corkey knows about that check tells me all I need to determine that your advice on the subject of Bob Barr is worthless. At a time when our republic is in grave danger from the War Party, you choose to make abortion your litmus test issue? I disagree with Barr AND the Libertarians on many issues, and at this point I plan to vote for him. Why? Because while I don’t relish an Obama presidency, I think the best thing we can do is be an effective spoiler for the Republicans, as they have been the more aggressive faction of the War Party. I want to see the Republicans rail and gnash their teeth at the Libertarians, the way the Democrats did at Nader in 2000, and not just for “symmetry.” The Republican Party needs to be forced to reassess it’s role in US politics. Now, getting Republicans to self-examine is even harder than with Democrats, but it’s worth the effort, if only to do some damage to that party. I don’t expect the Libs to fold the way the Greens did, under “mainstream” criticism. The political fallout alone would make the effort worthwhile. Forget about actually electing a Libertarian president this year – just vote strategically, with malicious intent.

        Now as for abortion — well, what is so “libertarian” about opposing it? Or is it really just about “life,” thereby overriding the question of “freedom?” In other words, even if a zygote can be defined as “human life” – a point I concede readily – why should I assign it legal “personhood?” Is it simply a matter of having DNA, and a biological tendency to become a baby? Well, tempting as that position might seem, the anti-abortion view forgets that this is also a unique situation, in which this zygote “human life” is physically entirely contained within another “human life,” called a woman – remember her? Does she also have a “right,” not only to “life,” but also to her very bodily integrity, as do we all? And if the “life” within her has an absolute “right” to life, does this not automatically imply, in practical terms, that the mother in question has less of a “right,” not only to “life”, but to her own bodily integrity, an absolute requirement of any kind of self-ownership? Think about it.

        1. A most curious segue, Philbin. First, I’m declared much too silly in my judgments to be taken seriously, only to be followed by a quite serious invitation to help resolve some of your confusions regarding the nature of human life. Strike you as odd, perhaps? It does me.

        2. You’re not smart enough to “resolve” any of what you believe are my alleged “confusions.” What you seem to be good at is attempting to spread “confusions” about what our priorities in this election should be. What strikes me as truly “odd” is your being unable to tell us what abortion has to do with Bush’s imperial presidency, the actual subject of the article. But please do tell us all what is it you “think it (abortion) ought to have to do with Bush’s imperial presidency.” I’m sure you could supply us with great amusement.

        3. John L, you have my agreement re: infanticide, but we are so steeped in the culture of death in the US that we have to build coalitions wherever we can. At least our fellow posters here are pro-life to the extent that they fully oppose the US centgov mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan. All too many of the people who claim to be ‘pro-life’ re:abortion are either neutral about, or four-square behind, the US imperial destruction in the mid-east. ST

        4. Yeah, how dare me spread “confusion” that way! That’s just dastardly, isn’t it, and particularly so when the instructions we received from headquarters were so unambiguous. By this time, every party operative should be absolutely clear “about what our priorities in this election should be”. Why there’s a name for someone so full of themselves as to imagine an intrinsic connection between abortion and the violence of the Bush war presidency when the party wants to keep things simple and that name is “wrecker”, that’s what it is, “wrecker”! Only a wrecker or a saboteur would embellish the party line like that and, you know, I just hate myself for it. The cause is bigger than any one of us, isn’t it, AG? And I forgot that. I thought that something of mine had importance when all that ever mattered was “us” and staying on focus and listening to friends like you. Will you let me say I’m sorry? Please?

        5. Ah, yes, my friend, Simon.

          You say:

          “John L, you have my agreement re: infanticide, but we are so steeped in the culture of death in the US that we have to build coalitions wherever we can. At least our fellow posters here are pro-life to the extent that they fully oppose the US centgov mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan. All too many of the people who claim to be ‘pro-life’ re:abortion are either neutral about, or four-square behind, the US imperial destruction in the mid-east. ST”

          I’m more concerned with the simple truth of things than anything else, Simon. I’m not sure that it is necessary or even desirable to “build coalitions wherever we can”. After all, the basis for my and, I suspect, your concern is non-ideological anyway so the requirement to market anything here is clearly obviated. And while you are quite right to say that many that hold themselves out as life-concerned are mysteriously life-apathetic when it comes to the matters of, say, pre-emptive war and capital crime, those here fortunately sensitive to these questions frequently lack any basis for understanding the deeper reasons why these questions are all of a piece and therefore bring to the discussion little more than the proscribed perspective of the private opinion. I have little patience with either any more.

        6. John Lowell, it is the US culture of death that leads to a million acts of infanticide a year in America and an imperial death cult roving abroad that are part of the Scylla and Charybdis of American society. Need to build Rothbardian alliances with folks such as at this site who share at least part of your goals. I find myself in league with pro-abortion pro-gun rightists as well as anti-gun pro-lifers. Ironic that abortion is rarely called infanticide and the mass murder in Mesopotamia is called a ‘war on terror’.

        7. John L, your last comment is thougt-provoking as usual. What tactical and strategic compromises are necessary and morally justifiable (if any) in order to help reduce the death toll (and even more spiritually deadly soul-rot) home and abroad? I soiled my spirit in voting (Mencken’s advance auction in stolen goods principle) for Ron Paul in the hope that a victory for him might do something to stem the bloody, infernal tide. Broken promise to self to never engage in the electoral process (made in 2000) and predictable voting results for Paul. If I had not voted, perhaps I would have retained the moral high ground, if only to myself and One Other. Regards. ST

        8. Simon,

          “I had not voted, perhaps I would have retained the moral high ground, if only to myself and One Other.”

          Well, in a strict sense, voting for Paul, given the intentions that you had at the time, was certainly not culpable in any way from the standpoint of moral theology. Paul, in and of himself, was both pro-life and against the war, so there would have been no question of even a remote complicity in evil in voting for him. Not so in the cases of McCain (stem-cells and pre-emptive war), Obama (abortion and stem-cells), or Nader (abortion and stem cells) where remote complicity would, in fact, be involved. In those cases, a vote for any one of them also would require the presence of so-called “proportionate reasons”, a condition not very easily satisfied. Barr is a kind of problem case in that he won’t deny his own formal complicity in his wife’s abortion. I could never vote for him because of the lack of certainty. But in a strict sense, in voting for Paul, there was absolutely no moral problem. I think I understand what you have in mind when you point to the “moral highground”, however.

          “What tactical and strategic compromises are necessary and morally justifiable (if any) in order to help reduce the death toll (and even more spiritually deadly soul-rot) home and abroad?”

          Here it depends upon the circumstances. Would it be moral to accept a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq over a period of time rather than to insist upon an immediate cessation of hostilities and achieve nothing, let’s suppose? Yes, absolutely, if that were the best you could negotiate. What’s problematic here is this “best-you-can-do” business. In a nation where abortion is legal, for example, the vote of a legislator to accept an exception for, say, the life of the mother, is moral when the certainty of passage of a proposed law banning the practice outright is at stake. It is never moral to vote for a resolution in support of pre-emptive war or a bill introducing abortion where it had not previously existed.

        9. John Lowell said:
          Yeah, how dare me spread “confusion” that way! That’s just dastardly, isn’t it, and particularly so when the instructions we received from headquarters were so unambiguous. By this time, every party operative should be absolutely clear “about what our priorities in this election should be”. Why there’s a name for someone so full of themselves as to imagine an intrinsic connection between abortion and the violence of the Bush war presidency when the party wants to keep things simple and that name is “wrecker”, that’s what it is, “wrecker”! Only a wrecker or a saboteur would embellish the party line like that and, you know, I just hate myself for it. The cause is bigger than any one of us, isn’t it, AG? And I forgot that. I thought that something of mine had importance when all that ever mattered was “us” and staying on focus and listening to friends like you. Will you let me say I’m sorry? Please?

          Lowell, there is so much self-righteous garbage contained in your answer it would probably take too long to dissect it all, but I’ll give it a shot. In the first place, “wrecker” is YOUR term, not mine, and its YOUR party, not mine. I’m just along for the ride. As far as this supposed “intrinsic connection” between “the violence of the Bush war presidency” and “abortion,” BULLS**T — and dogmatic, doctrinaire bulls**t at that. Explain how virtually every Republican politician, including Bush himself, is anti-abortion and in favor of the war, if that connection is so obvious. Your arguments are worthy of PETA and other animal rights groups, who would no doubt tell us that the violence involved in killing animals for food and profit is “intrinsically connect(ed)” to Bush’s warmongering. Maybe you and the animal rightsers are right, philosophically, but I’ve got news for you — you have no more chance of convincing most opponents of the war to oppose abortion than you would have of converting them to vegetarianism. You will never sell most people on the concept zygote = blastula = embryo = fetus = baby, which is what is required of them to even “get” your “intrinsic connection.” You will never get an agreement on when human PERSONHOOD should begin, even if you could get agreement on human (or animal) life beginning at conception. Or do you have some grand plan to convince us of all this before the November elections? After all, what kind of dedicated, doctrinaire pro-lifer would you be if you hadn’t developed such a plan, whose completion is of course a thousand times more important than stopping the present spate of warmongering? Nahh, your right, John — let’s strive to make ourselves pure of heart and mind before we deign to use the electoral process to throw a monkey wrench into the system. Let’s never vote for anyone who doesn’t agree with the enlightened vanguard on the all-important issue of abortion.

        10. Phillbin,

          Is it really going to be necessary for me to explain to you that that entire earlier post of mine was nothing if not a riot of mocking and sarcasm? And you weren’t able to grasp that? You really are rather dull and limited aren’t you? That established, I’d want you to understand that I have no interest in conducting a dialogue with you.

        11. John Lowell yammered:
          Is it really going to be necessary for me to explain to you that that entire earlier post of mine was nothing if not a riot of mocking and sarcasm? And you weren’t able to grasp that? You really are rather dull and limited aren’t you? That established, I’d want you to understand that I have no interest in conducting a dialogue with you.

          I say:
          If you mean the post I had just answered, yeah, DUHHH, I knew it was “mocking and sarcasm.” That “mocking and sarcasm” seemed to me, and I’m sure to others here, as an expression of self-righteous frustration on your part, even if you were staging a “riot.” Of course, if by the “entire earlier post” you meant one of the one’s in which you expressed your views regarding Bob Barr and/or abortion, well then, I sincerely and abjectly apologize for not having the subtlety to see the “riot”ous humor. Apparently, neither did anyone else. I guess everyone here is just “too dull and limited” to dialog with such a master wordsmith as yourself, who makes his meaning and attitude so crystal clear. I found your incredible ability to logically explain that zygote = blastula = embryo = fetus = baby equation quite fascinating, even though I realize you haven’t even gotten around to attempting it. I’m sure when you’re finished “riot”ing, you will amaze us all with your debating and logic skills. In the meantime, please accept my sincere and humble apology for not cringing and fleeing under the “riot”ously devastating blows of “mocking and sarcasm” that you have directed at me, making me unfit to “dialog” with the brilliant you.

        12. AG:
          Thank you for helping to pop the big swollen balloon of gas that is John Lowell. While he often makes good points, just as often he shoe-horns the abortion debate into every post. Often these are in the form of a slogan, which is type of truncated thought. Whenever there’s a complex question at hand, John can simplify it into a slogan and then dish out invective at anyone who does not pass his litmus test by falling into line. But be patient, AG. John has not yet shoe-horned into the conversation his misunderstandings of Aquinas, about whom he is just as much a slogan factory — missing the detail, but who cares (he says) since the only purpose of bringing it in is to intimidate with heavy hitters who may not recognize him.

        13. Ah, yes, Lawrence. How about these little cuties, Lawrence:

          Thomists Bar Barr In 2008

          Barr Launches Check Writers Anonymous

          Admittedly, these have more of the feel of headlines or captions than slogans, but I won’t kvetch if you start turning out tee shirts with this text on front or back. Catchy, eh?

          And as for phillbin, leave ’em alone, he’s happy.

  10. Notice the media has kept the impeachment out of sight? Real question, ought to be, why and what interest does media have in the cover-up. Ron Paul played chicken in the 2004 election( Repug Primary) and again on impeachment. Shame on Conyers,another Colin Powell,both house servents of the Whitehouse.He insisted that no-one could speak the word impeachment–What the @@@@!

  11. We’ve had Imperial Presidency for nearly two generations. Now Bush has gone beyond, to the Autocratic Presidency.

    Lester Ness

  12. Has President Bush overstepped his authority and gone too far at times? Sure. But in case people have forgotton, there is a war on. The Islamic terrorists have declared war on us.

    And by the way, is Bush any different than previous Presidents?

    Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus on his own authority and without the consent of Congress. He jailed newspaper editors and anyone who went against the war effort.

    Woodrow Wilson ordered his attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, to round up and deport thousands of innocent people.

    Franklin Roosevelt forcibly jailed Japanese American citizens by the thousands.

    But somehow Bush is made out the be the greated villain in history.

    1. Tim, citing past criminal activity by former presidents is no way to defend our current President. By the way, I still think Lincoln was the worst President, but Bush is giving him a run for his money. You may have an arguement if you say that he actually feels that he is doing the best he can for the US. I think he is wrong but that at least would make more sense. As for the Islamic Terrorist, I don’t think even you could find a link between Iraq and 9-11. Yes they can be barbarick, and no we don’t seem to have a grasp at all on what motivates them. But why promote more hatred towards the US. Unless your true objective is that of the Zionist, I don’t see how any of this has been for the good of the US.

      The people of the US should worry a lot more about the state of our nation and a lot less about the state of Israel. I think that at this point Israel can take care of itself without our help or hindrance. In fact they may well be better off if we were out of the way.

      I in no way feel that violence on either side is correct. We are both equally wrong. We bomb them they bomb us. When will it end?


    2. Tim said:
      Has President Bush overstepped his authority and gone too far at times? Sure. But in case people have forgotton, there is a war on. The Islamic terrorists have declared war on us.

      I say:
      In case YOU have forgotten, no WAR has been declared, just an “authorization to use force” against a country (Iraq) that never attacked the US, and had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9-11. Learn that stubborn fact, and tattoo it on the inside of your skull. And exactly who are “the Islamic terrorists,” and when did they all get together and decide this? Was it at the last “Islamic terror” convention? Or is Al Qaeda a stand-in for all people who might fit the description? When will you get it through your rather thick skull that the “war on terror” is a slogan or metaphor, not a war? The “war on terror” gives President Bush no more authority than the “war on poverty” gave Lyndon Johnson. Congress never even tried to declare such a “war” on the amorphous entity known as “terror.” Next, you’ll be gibbering seriously about a “war on ennui!”

      1. A.G. Philbin,

        I know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but the fact still remains we are at war with radical Islam. Even if this stupid war in Iraq never happned the Islamo terrorists would still be after us. The sad thing is that the only thing that will wake america up to this threat is when you wake up one morning and find instead of CNN, the Emergency Broadcast System has been activated cuz there is now a mushroom cloud over what used to be an American city. Or perpaps 350,000 americans are dead from airborne anthrax.
        Don’t you get it? These Muslims are fanatics and they would kill you and me and every one else on this list serve in two seconds? If we pull out of Iraq lock stock and barrel tomorrow you think that will change how they feel?

        We are not dealing with normal people. We are dealing with sick and depraved people that literally DANCED in the strees when the Twin Towers came down.

        1. You STILL don’t get it, Timmy boy — we are NOT at war with “radical Islam,” since no such war has been declared under the Constitution, only out of the mouths of neocon pundits trying to clarify the Executive Branch’s equally mindless “war on terror.” I realize that your level of paranoia cannot be treated in this forum, but you are proving just how easily you have been suckered by the government and their media lapdogs into accepting anything the state does, so long as they mouth the phrase “war on terror.” Not one “Islamic terrorist” was involved in the anthrax incidents; the only suspect the FBI ever came up with was a right wing laboratory technician. Here’s a clue for you, Timmy boy: neither Bush, Cheney, nor anyone in their cabinet, nor ANY Republican legislator ever received a package of anthrax; only Democrats. Care to explain how an “Islamic terrorist” would also be a partisan Republican? And this is just one example of how the mind rot has penetrated your skull. You’re still whining about ANTHRAX!!! And mouthing Condi Rice’s lie about the reason to invade Iraq, transferring it to the “war on terror!”

          As for the people who danced in the streets after 9-11, I’ve got news for you: those ARE normal people. They are normal people who know how the US bombed Baghdad into rubble during Gulf War 1, and how the US has backed Israel in everything it has done. In other words, they weren’t dancing for Islam; they were dancing against America, because of American policy. Get used to it as long as you continue to think as sloppily as you do.

        2. And I’ve seen written, that the film of Arabs dancing in the street, was actually not connected to 9/11, but was about another unrelated event, and used by Zionist media to inflame us Americans, unjustly, against them, as an out and out lie, a make-believe event, by a corrupt media. UGH!

        3. Anti-neocon/anti-neolib,
          I agree 100%. I remember being glued to the TV that day and trying to piece it altogether in my mind. The attacks were at around 9 to 10 AM, and early in the afternoon, here comes this video of Palestinian children (toddlers actually) dancing around holding tiny Palestinian flags. And I had to ask myself several questions:
          1. These children are dancing in bright sunlight; there is a time difference of at least 7 hours between New York City and Palestine, it is after sundown there, this can’t be real time, it had to be pre-recorded, therefore, what has it to do with unfolding news?
          2. With all that is going, the newsrooms must be chaotic; how is it possible that someone could convince people in charge to switch to some unverifiable video of kids dancing, unless this fits into a very important agenda?
          Several days later, I read that some clever fellow in Israel (handing out candy)had taken that video previously and now seeing the great propaganda opportunity, convinced an Israeli news source with strong ties to American national news of this opportunity and connections were made. The clever fellow bragged of his accomplishment. And as a follow-up, we as a TV audience soon got to hear outraged comments from folks like Sen Trent Lott. Of course, no-one in the national news ever (or ever will) tie it all together in some “And now, the rest of the story”—.

        4. @ anti-neocon/anti-neolib and @ richard vajs:

          What are your sources regarding this alleged faking of people dancing in the street in Palestine? And please, no more “I read somewhere that some clever kike did thus and such” unattributed nonsense: source, please. And while you’re at it, was it a video of an unrelated event as a-n/a-n says, or a video staged by a clever candy bearing Israeli, as RV asserts? Source those claims as well, please. RV, can you give us the exact time you saw the video of the dancing Palestinians in sunlight? Are you aware that 7 hours after “between 9am and 10am” New York time is the same as between 4pm and 5pm Jerusalem time (yes, I checked)? Even in Palestine, the sun does not go down in the afternoon in early September, so your speculation that it couldn’t have happened that very day is simply wrong. In fact, sundown in Cairo, Egypt on that very day was 7:05pm. Can we assume that it isn’t that different in Palestine? Right now, you’ve got the credibility of the 9-11 Troofers/Loose Changers in their quest for a pleasing scenario that blames only their already chosen enemies.

        5. Tim R:
          I see you’re at it again. You can always be depended upon to show up with your neo-con talking points. “Sure he oversteps a litte…” Yeah, like killing up to 1.2 million Iraqis is a mere overstep and the killing of tens of thousands of uninvolved innocent Afghanis is likewise merely an overstep. The collectivism of the Bush supporters is no better than the collectivism of the most extreme terrorist, and the fact is that U.S.-sponsored terrorists-in-uniform have precipitated all of this by starting (yes starting) the conflict and by inflicting even more “collateral damage” on the people in Islamic countries than they have ever accomplished by means of their collectivist retaliations. Tim R seems to want us to “assume” that the U.S. government has been minding its own business for the past 50 years instead of fomenting death, destruction, and upheaval around the globe since the end of WW2. I sure hope that nobody in my neighborhood ever commits a crime that results in the death of someone Tim R knows and loves. If that happens, he will authorize the bombing of my entire city to show us who is boss and to restore all that is right. Tim is a collectivist to his bones and cannot see the tree for the forest.

        6. A G Philbin,
          What are my sources? – simply my own memory and an ingrained habit of telling the truth as I see it. Your hectoring and artificial timeline doesn’t make me doubt myself. What you are demanding is ridiculous. On 9-11, it was hours after the crashes before anyone in America even knew what was going on let alone some Palestinians who mostly likely had no access to TV let alone American national news programming. So, if you think that right after 10AM EST, some Palestinian kids without access to breaking news managed to digest the events, interpret them as good for Palestine and then convince someone to tape them dancing and then get an international feed into New York and convince some news executive that it was worth interrupting the biggest news event since Pearl Harbor, to show a homemade video of Palestinian kids celebrating “the Great Satan’s downfall; well I guess you probably buy the whole 9-11 schmeer. Including a passport of one of the hijackers floating down through the inferno to land safely in some FBI agent’s hands.
          Sorry, I am not going to spend the time tracking this down to give you names, etc. I have presented my memories and my reasoning. If I thought that you were truly open to the truth, it might be worth it, but people like you are not really interested in the truth, you are just trying to bully your way around. “Clever kikes” – do you use that kind of talk at home?

        7. A G Philbin,
          I said that I wouldn’t bother researching this Palestinians dancing on 9-11, but you annoyed me so with your hostility, that I invested some time. Actually there were several films of Palestinians dancing on 9-11. The later films were from outfits like Reuters, etc that had established credible documentation. After the World digested that the attacks were co-ordinated terrorism, reaction from around the World was aired – some Palestinians rejoiced, some like Arafat expressed sorrow (it is even claimed that he wanted to donate blood). Iranians were said to show sympathy; Israelis like Netanyahou were happy because they had America hating the Arabs.
          If you look on the internet, you find many sites that debunk the “fraudulent film” story, but they are curveballs – what they address is theories that try to say that ALL films of Palestinians dancing on 9-11 were faked. What they don’t address is the early film that CNN released within several hours showing Palestinian children celebrating America’s downfall. I maintain that one was a fake – filmed out of context
          strictly from an agenda to promote rage and hatred against the Palestinians. But don’t take my word for it. Matt Taibbi, contributing reporter for “Real Time with Bill Mahr” wrote an article describing this junk video “Gone in 30 Seconds” ( The “marxists” bit comes from his reporting career in Russia and Central Asia. If you read it, you will note that CNN refused to comment upon the whole incident when questioned.
          I further remember NPR airing the truth about the film and the Israeli chap who was so clever. Hopefully I can get transcripts from ATC or Morning Edition for the week after 9-11. However, after the takeover of NPR by the Bush operatives, that may be difficult.
          Anyway, the point is that American media is slanted towards Israel. And they have no professional ethics against lying, covering up, or distorting the truth to attack Israel’s enemies

    3. Sorry Brad, it’s not a war, never was. It was an illegal invasion of a country who did nothing to provoke our actions. The continuing foreign military presence is an occupation. Bush has gone a little too far at times? CAN YOU SAY UNDERSTATEMENT??? Yes, Bush is different. He has made one terrible judgment after another. He has listened to no one. Our country has never been in more dire circumstances and the great tragedy and stupidity is that none of it was necessary. Bush is made out to be the greatest villain in history because he is.

  13. No Timmy, no one has declared war on the USA. Some people are fighting the USA’s imperial tyranny. It is the imperial presidency that has declared war.

    That other presidents have transgressed their constitutional powers is irrelevant to the current situation. If it has any bearing at all, it is only to make it more important to create a precedent to demonstrate that future presidents are not above the law.

    1. Strauss prepared the ground well, and had an instinct for the icons which must be first undermined and then, perversely emptied of any other lessons, used toward Neo-Con ends.

      He succeeded because of the incompetence of the elite and the ultimate emptiness of the American project in the Twentieth Century.

      Ledeen’s abuse of Macchiavellii is part of the story.

      Safire’s work on Lincoln, though far superior to anything of Ledeen, is of the same thrust.

      It is interesting that, as icons, Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt provide a useful trinity to the Neo-Conservatives.

      Lincoln, dictator and engineer of civil war, who provoked the Southrons into making (very stupidly) the first hostile move, and then justified his unconstitutional autocracy on the illusion of “union”, is the model for unlimited domestic executive power over citizens during “war”.

      His supposed “morality” in regard to slavery (which was non-existent in fact–like most Illinoisians he was an exclusionist) is the cover for any usurpation.

      Wilson, naturally, is the man who was going to make the world “safe for democracy”, and provides the mythical and messianic cover under which the Project for the New American Century subjugates and rearranges the Near East.

      Roosevelt’s (and Warren’s) treatment of the Japanese–ah yes, the supposed validity of isolating an ethnic group, whether guilty or innocent as individuals, as a potential Fifth Column, thus liable to being stripped of all civil rights, despite their status as citizens, just as the Neo-Cons wish to do with all Arabs who are Americans, and now all Muslims.

      One is surprised these same fellows usually overlook as one of their precedents the treatment of ethnically German Americans–some of the oldest ethnic and linguistic stock in the United States, in Pennsylvania and Ohio and Kentucky during World War I.

      Chertoff’s wall is also an item in systematic psychological warfare. With it, the immigration issue pertaining to other Americans from the south, especially Mexico, and the “English Only” nonsense become useful political tools as well.

      Many Israelis, of course, are English-speakers, and they and the domestic Zionists are quite adept at making the Neo-Know Nothings forget not only their own Constitution and history, if they ever progressed beyond myth in the first place, but simple facts of geography, such as that both Canada and Mexico are America, and that Mexico is even a part of NORTH America.

      The absurdity may take years to unfold–including the contradiction of a greedy and stupid world empire operating at the behest of a Zionist theocratic state halfway across the world walling itself in–literally–from the very North America that is its neighborhood.

      A Foucault perhaps, or a Crane Brinton, might at this point be prepared to talk of the image of Mega-Ghetto, imposed on the dog by the tail.

      Is that not exactly what the Neo-Cons and others were trying to sell door to door after 9-11, to wit “We–Americans–are all Israelis now.”

      1. Eugene, One of the things I try not to do is call myself an “American” as if only we in the US are American. Isn’t it funny how we think we have a monopoly on that term. We forget that North America, Central America, and South America are all part of “America”. When I spent time is Central America I was reminded more than once that they are also “American” Surprise, Surprise the rest of America is filled with Americans (thats if they choose to label themselves as we insist on doing). How we ended up with an American state in the middle east is another story. Well mabey another story is how we became a state of Israel.


      2. Another outstanding EC comment. Looking forward to your next post or news scoop. ST

  14. The reason you have an imperial presidency is because other branches of government – especially the congress – have abandoned their responsibilities and the presidency has filled the ensuing vaccuum. Not once since December 1941 has congress declared war. Has this stopped America from fighting wars all over the world? If congress won’t force presidents to accept their authority what can you do?

  15. Well maybe another story is how we became a state of Israel….

    There is an answer to that question, if it is a question, but it is a story with many plots and sub-plots and will not be exhausted in a paragraph, even the most finely crafted.

    There are two strands one might emphasize that one might not see in any present history or newspaper or magazine column.

    First, the Zionists in the United States were preceded by the British.

    Second, a main node is the War in the Philippines.

    Saying only that will strike many as enigmatic, but this is only an index of how much they do not know.

    In any instance, in the same context, one might mention the coinage and the contexts of certain words, such as “Anglo-Saxon” and “Judaio-Christian”.

    But that too is much more complex an essay than how one spent one’s summer vacation and it too may sound enigmatic.

    H.L. Mencken on Anglo-Saxons is required reading as background. Likewise anything and everything writ by Mark Twain.

    Most critics of American literature, for example, have no idea that A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court is, under it all, roman a clef on the War Between North and South, as the Chinese call it. It has no key to specific historical figures naturally, but is coded according to region, culture, class-and most important–myth.

    1. Could you please elaborate a little more on these 2 ‘strands’, especially the Filipino connection. And that’s coming from someone who thought he knew.

      1. A little more might be a few signposts, if it is permitted to be starkly indicative.

        Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power on History is a sloppy, ill-researched work historically but formed the myth behind the new “Anglo-American” Imperialism and world domination, and largely set the table for its strategy.

        Mahan himself, if he actually did not coin, was the first to popularize the term “Middle East”, in specific reference to the Persian Gulf nicely enough.

        What has that got to do with the War in the Philippines, the Boer War, and Zionism?

        Look at a map.

        The very penetrating will also notice Hongkong and Shanghai.

        The very, very subtle will add Argentina.

        1. Myths die hard. A little more than a generation ago, the old Anglo-American Empire, including the Middle East, lived in a course at Harvard popularly called “boats” and in the person of a certain Robert Albion.

          The scuttlebutt was the course was easy, “a gut”. It was-but only if one accepted the myth.

          If one did not, things might go very hard indeed, no matter what scholarship was advanced.

          At any rate, the Russians, the Chinese, and even the Iranians are well schooled in the subject indeed.

  16. As long as Rahm Emanuel and the Zionists he represents are in charge of the Democratically-controlled Congress, it will never impeach or do anything to get rid of the criminal group that has taken control of our government and is looting our country. They will never impeach Bish or Cheney.

  17. Unfortunately, of the 435 House seats, less than 10% are ever competitive. Only when one goes against Israel do they lose (for example, Earl Hilliard & Cynthia McKinney). They are all so constitutionally illiterate that it doesn’t matter anyway. They seem not to realize that one branch of the federal government can’t transfer their enumerated constitutional power to another branch (authorization to use force in Iraq). And if the Supreme Court was as “supreme” as the morons seem to think, then any citizen should have the “standing” to get an immediate hearing on the issue. But just keep in mind that the court is made up of nine political lawyers, could you find a more corrupt bunch? Hardly! The fix is in — the empire will get very nasty in the next few years.

    1. …the empire will get very nasty in the next few years.

      True. The silver lining to this is that this nastiness will represent the Empire in its death throes. While one could certainly argue that what will follow the Empire’s collapse will be, at least in the short term, just as ugly and destructive as the Empire itself, if not more so, there still remains the possibility that some seeds of sanity will be planted amid the chaos. It just might be that a healthy respect for the nation’s constitutional past –or, better yet, a jettisoning of the Constitution and a return to the Articles of Confederation or something like them– will emerge as the realization sinks in that Soviet-style centralization is untenable.

  18. My list of worse presidents FDR, Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, LBJ, GWBush, Clinton, and GHWBush in whatever order you like.

    1. Woodrow Wilson was worse then all the others added together. He caused incalculable damage to the world.

  19. @ Tim R.: The only people I heard were dancing in the streets after 9/11 were a group of Israelis! The people of the Middle-East – most notably: Iran – held candle light vigils morned with us!

    1. This just goes to show us: some people on OUR side of the argument are pretty ill-informed. You need to get a clue almost as much as Timmy boy does.

      1. Which part are you ill-informed about Phillbin? The five Israelis who were arrested after numerous people complained that they were dancing and jumping for joy and while video taping the events of 9/11? Or the candle-light vigils held in Tehran just after 9/11?

  20. In mainland China, as I recall, there was cheering on 9/11. At some point there were even plans for a video game celebrating the event, though the government was more restrained.

    “America is a bully, so when someone small hits them back, it feels good,” one mainlander was quoted as saying.

    One will also recall that the US had recently attacked the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo.

    1. It is true that some Chinese students did cheer when the 9/11 attacks occurred. This was just two years AFTER the U.S. bombing of Serbia, which I consider as illegal and immoral as the attack on Iraq. In that dubious campaign the U.S. air force caused a lot of “collateral damage”. The Chinese embassy was bombed and a number of Chinese nationals were killed and injured. From my own personal experience I saw a number of Serb workers cheering when the 9/11 attacks happened. What goes around, comes around.

    2. “One will also recall that the US had recently attacked the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo.”

      Ha-ha, I thought that E. Costa is a well educated guy. Embassy was in Belgrade, the capitol of Serbia, our ally in two world wars, and Kosovo(“kos” Serbian word for the blackbird) and Metohija(“metoh” Greek word for land of churches) is a Serbian province.

  21. The facts are simple: Bush and Cheney purposely lied about WMD to start a war in Iraq. It’s all about oil and war profits. And the Democrats are too spineless to impeach these thugs.

  22. I’ve watched the hearings twice. Each time I am moved by the words of many of the individuals who testified. Thanks to those of you who did and who had the courage to utter the words “impeachment”. These hearings moved me to tears. Indeed, the impeachment process must begin, even if it is not concluded. Please, please, do what you are elected to do. Uphold and protect the Constitution. If it doesn’t happen, we will never realize the greatness to which this country may have been destined. Nothing else you do will matter if our Constitution is allowed to be ignored.

    1. “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” George W. Bush

      Hmmm…we got to where we are right now with the Constitution functioning as well as it could, right? I better not say anymore…*snip!*

  23. Whether they are aware of it or not, every Member of Congress, who has refused to take a stand against the crimes of the Bush/Cheney regime, has just been trapped by the exposure of those crimes at The House Panel Hearings on the Imperial Presidency last Friday.

    Those members who say they “didn’t know,” are totally incompetent and too dumb and stupid to be a Congressman or Senator. Or they are lying, which means they are too unethical to represent decent citizens.

    Those members who now say they “did know, but refused to act” are co-conspirators with the regime, and are thus guilty of violating their oath of office.

    Both groups should be impeached, prosecuted and removed from office. Their hands are as bloody as the Bush/Cheney gang because they have protected, covered-up, and facilitated the regime’s crimes.

    Public opinion can make these things happen, if we raise enough hell. Let’s do it. Let’s take our Country back.

  24. Lamar Smith's opening remarks are so illogical, immoral, stupid, and partisan, that it is almost impossible to imagine that someone could have the total lack of character necessary to utter them.

Comments are closed.