Skip to main content


Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

Watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Feingold's censure resolution, I am struck, ONCE AGAIN, by the abysmal lack of integrity of the Republicans in Congress.

They have made their stand, behind the most criminal, deceitful and incompetent President in the history of the United States of America -- and they will not be moved. Not by facts, not by arguments, not by the very Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.

In this execrable display of mindless partisanship, the Republicans in Congress neither uphold nor defend that Constitution. It is patently clear that the Republicans hold partisanship above all else -- above truth, above country, above the Constitution.

They are traitors. They are GUILTY OF TREASON AGAINST THEIR COUNTRY.

Let's see what "treason" is, shall we?

treason
 1: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2: A betrayal of trust or confidence.
3: a crime that undermines the offender's government [syn: high treason, lese majesty]
4: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior [syn: subversiveness, traitorousness]
5: an act of deliberate betrayal [syn: treachery, betrayal, perfidy]

The despicable, defiant and partisan way in which Congressional Republicans persist in defending, rationalising and putatively justifying the ILLEGAL ACTIONS of the President of the United States qualifies them under virtually every definition of the word "TREASON."

In persistently insisting that the President committed no crime, when it is a prima facie FACT that he did, the Republicans are now COMPLICIT in the President's crime, which did, indeed, undermine the government, by virtue of the fact that the CONSTITUTION Is our government.

They have displayed DISLOYALTY to that Constitution, to the government, by their willingness to place partisan defense of a crime above upholding and defending that Constitution. This is SUBVERSIVE, specifically of the Constitution itself.

They have committed and ARE PRESENTLY COMMITTING an act of betrayal against their country by their defiance of the Constitution.

Finally, the Republicans of Congress have betrayed the trust and confidence of the American People, by this systematic undermining of the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.

We are now witness to the most egregious and shameful act of treason against the United States Constitution in its history, whereby the very people who hold the trust and confidence of the people who elected them to office are mindfully abusing the powers conferred upon them by those people, all in the service of their own personal agenda - preserving their own power and that of their Party and the criminal who holds the office of President of the United States.

TREASON is being committed right now, in the hearing room where Senator Russell Feingold's resolution to censure the President now stands as the sole act of courage and patriotism to contrast against the contemptible behaviour and speech of a gathering of Republican TRAITORS.

ONE MORE THING:

We are NOT in a "time of war." If they INSIST that such a "time of war" exists to confer extra powers on the President, then they ought to DECLARE that war, instead of abdicating their Constitutional duty to be the ones to declare war. Further proof of their treason, imnsho. And another thing:

Where were Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden, Schumer and Durbin? ABSENT.


Originally posted to My Left Wing on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:52 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Treason. Traitors. (247+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, felix19, wozzle, Alumbrados, MichaelPH, Angie in WA State, zzyzx, Alfred E Newman, Go Vegetarian, Marek, pb, Peanut, Severian, Dr Van Nostrand, nolalily, taylormattd, eugene, vivacia, MrHinkyDink, tiggers thotful spot, pq, TrueBlueMajority, saraswati, wytcld, RickWn, Lahdee, surfbird007, tomathawl, littlesky, Shockwave, wu ming, joby, Tom P, waytac, rhubarb, dji, bawbie, frsbdg, polecat, jsmdlawyer, chicagochristianleft, dash888, caliberal, Luam, RFK Lives, Carnacki, Matilda, grndrush, Ahianne, exNYinTX, bostonjay, perro amarillo, RubDMC, maggiemae, vinifera, rasbobbo, DemInGeorgia, Disgusted in St Louis, bronte17, alysheba, rktect, wonkydonkey, SamSinister, guyute16, elveta, nyceve, understandinglife, MD patriot, bedobe, HippyWitch, ask, metal prophet, biscobosco, als10, AlyoshaKaramazov, buckeyekarl, boilerman10, Patricia Taylor, ZanderOC, mrblifil, high5, AndyT, The Ice Cream Man, cognitive dissonance, Fe, dchill, ethans mom, jjhalpin, Terre, ThatsNotFunny, Jesterfox, high uintas, CocoaLove, bato, Eddie C, IM, Ludi, WeatherDem, Dube, milofischi, sockpuppet, Revel, NewDirection, NYC Sophia, Dallasdoc, f furney, Chamonix, StuartZ, kdrivel, homo neurotic, GN1927, Oy the Billybumbler, The Termite, rockhound, lecsmith, horsewithnoname, Blackstar, Pohjola, walkshills, Donna in Rome, Noisy Democrat, parkslopper50, Tasini, Hillbilly Dem, OrangeClouds115, Deward Hastings, bablhous, Grahamdubya, homogenius, Schwede, Scout Finch, Mikecan1978, Hari Rothstein, Sassy, FlawedAI, Ed J, wolverinethad, MichDeb, leolabeth, Skennet Boch, chumley, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, 3goldens, deano, Treg, SpecialEFX, Skaje, Rick Oliver, See you out there, Alegre, rimstalker, irate, PBen, wizardkitten, corvo, offred, KnotIookin, Alien Abductee, Newton Snookers, clammyc, drewfromct, Kdoug, amRadioHed, Brooke In Seattle, KiaRioGrl79, dj angst, Ranting Roland, Jared Lash, Arken, lefty lucy, curtadams, majcmb1, Pam from Calif, Karmafish, Mr X, jimreyn, GreyHawk, eaglecries, QuickSilver, sick of it all, Phil S 33, mozlover, Joy Busey, paxpdx, ord avg guy, Cecile, Yamara, Cannabis, neroden, dazed in pa, panmandan, trojanrabbit, Unduna, proudprogressiveCA, psyched, Krusty, viscerality, jay23, Reality Bites Back, berko, Cletus from Canuckistan, taracar, kovie, esquimaux, keefer55, trashablanca, BobzCat, tommymet, DrSpalding, Opakapaka, leo joad, Yellow Canary, darthstar, turning blue, Truza, buhdydharma, Wary, ejbr, akasha, blueoasis, jlove1982, DarkestHour, TalkieToaster, birdbrain64, paiges, Lashe, Rachel in Vista, Eupraxsophist, UEtech, Anfractuosity, imabluemerkin, condoleaser, AmberJane, Wbythebay, ER Doc, sharilynn, Balzac, Blue in VA, MacheteJames, fiddlingnero, lightyearsfromhome, wiscow, chgobob, pissedpatriot, James 438, Puppets R You

    Now THERE'S a fucking meme.

      •  Bush violated his oath of office (30+ / 0-)

        Bush and his fellow Bushite scum have all violated their oath of office to ". . preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

        Yes, that's the oath that the Unitary Dictator swore to, but of course he also wasn't elected per the constitution, so it's no surprise that he has worked to shred the constitution every day.

        But let's check out Section 4 of Article II:

        The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

        Bush did the crime, now he should do the time- IMPEACH

        •  while we're quoting the constitution ... (29+ / 0-)

          MaryScott uses a dictionary definition of treason that was explicitly rejected by the Founding Fathers.  The reason was that they were breaking away from a monarchy, and trying to establish a free country.  The charge of treason was widely abused to refer to acts of dissent or other acts of opposition that should be permitted in a free society.

          On treason, the Constitution states:

          Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

          As can clearly be seen, the Republicans have not committed treason by backing Bush's violations of the Constitution. What they have done is to violate their oaths of office.  The violations are serious enough in my view to be impeachable offenses.

          But I strongly object to the hurling around of the word "treason" in this way.  It is something that the authoritarian right does. To a monarchist, criticizing the king is treason, and they consider Bush a king.

          •  Hmm. (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AlanF, Matilda, elveta, wader, epcraig, drewfromct

            Adhering to the Enemies of the United States, giving them Aid and Comfort.

            Very vague that.

            I indeed agree that rather than calling it treason -- it could simply be noted that they have broken their oaths of office, failed to uphold the Constitution, and are committing repeated felonies, while violating the Constitution.

          •  Amen. (9+ / 1-)

            Republicans are pond scum, dishonest, and more, but not guilty of treason against the United States.  If that's the best that can be said for them, they're pretty sorry bastards.



            "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell

            by another American on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:43:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  is it so simple? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elveta, Donna in Rome, Sophie Blue, berko

              The line between what is treason and what isn't treason doesn't seem that clear to me.  Let's take a hypothetical.  Suppose somebody stole $1 billion from the United States?  Is that treason?  What about somebody who tampered with an election?  

              I think the reason the FFs were careful in defining the term is that, historically, anybody who disagreed with whatever sovereign monarch was running things would be labeled a "traitor".  (This is kinda like what the Sully-types did after the invasion of Iraq, and notable GOP Capitol Hill types, using phrases like "Fifth Column" and "aid and comfort" that are code for traitorous behavior.)

              I think that now is not the time to be looking for any excuses for the Republicans who are facilitating the transformation of the US into a dictatorship.  What is clear to me is that the ruling class has diverged away from the traditional concepts of representative rule and are trying to restore discarded concepts of presidential privilege, creating an office of such concentrated power that it would be essentially unchecked.  This cannot be tolerated.

              •  No, it really is that simple (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                timberhoood

                Treason is about war. Period. The two hypothetical crimes you cite are theft and election tampering. They have nothing to do with treason.

                You're right, the Founding Fathers were careful about the charge of treason. But there is nothing "historical" about the need for that carefulness. The danger of treason becoming a political weapon is real and ever present. The constant honking and quacking from the right should be proof enough.

                I think that now is not the time to be looking for any excuses for the Republicans...

                What excuses? What does this mean? Is it an excuse to accurately describe their wrongdoings? Is now not the time for exact truth? The only counter to the right's repugnant abandonment of their duties is to adhere ever more closely to ours. The Constitution cannot be saved by balancing gross excesses.

                Why did the President choose to break the law?

                by Olds88 on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:10:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  They are, without doubt, guilty of Subversion. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elveta, celticshel, Lashe, Adistius

            They are undermining our Constitutional form of government. They are the enemies within.

            I would also add that their war in Iraq, which was intentional, gives aid and comfort to our enemies by doing exactly what our enemies wanted even though they themselves did not have the power to do so. However, I will submit that that was not intentional on the part of Bushco, they are just too fucking callous and stupid to care.

            Soot in my hair and stars in my hands

            by Alumbrados on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:56:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  aid and comfort to the enemy (9+ / 0-)

            you mean like outing a CIA operative and her front company that was working against those who were trying to develop and assist Iran (the enemy, if you ask any Republican) in getting nuclear weapons?

            As for a "time of war", if you ask our Republican leaders, I think they will all say that we are at war.

          •  I couldn't disagree more - they ARE treasonous (9+ / 0-)

            They have given Aid and Comfort to the Enemies of the United States. They have unified our enemies, empowered them (especially in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iraq), fueled their recruiting (with torture and attacks against civilian women and children), ignored their threats (by ignoring port, border and chemical plant security), allowed them to escape (like bin Laden and al Zarqawi), and by vastly magnifying the enemies infliction of terror upon us by fueling fear of that terror for their own political gain.

            Furthermore, these TREASONOUS Republicans have decimated our military ground forces, sabotaged decades of cultivated international relations,  bled dry the US Treasury of over $2 trillion - right into the bloodthirsty mouths of multinational corporations with no allegiance to the United States. Corporations, that have been aided and abetted by the Republicans to loot our treasury, exploit our citizens, clear-cut and strip-mine the earth of our nation, poison our land, our water, our air and our children, decimate our middleclass,  deprive us of medical care, legal rights, and justice, and tear away our jobs to overseas sweatshops.

            It could legitimately be argued that the Republicans aren't helping the enemy - THEY ARE THE ENEMY!

            I think, therefore I am NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

            by Reality Bites Back on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:10:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  What Do You Call Creating A Terrorist... (6+ / 0-)

            Training ground and propaganda tool out of Iraq, if not  explicitly giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a very big way? (An endeavor undertaken deceitfully, by the way.)

            Oh, but of course in order to have broken the law, you have to explicitly have meant to do exactly that. Right?

            9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

            by NewDirection on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:41:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I agree - they are not traitors to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SpecialEFX, blueoasis

            the United States in the sense of the founding fathers. But they are traitors to humanity, in the dictionary sense.

            "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

            by shpilk on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 04:22:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I agree, and 11 of 12 C-Span callers (11+ / 0-)

          said Bush should be censured.  Some even said he should be impeached.  The callers identified themselves as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

          ONLY ONE REPUBLICAN said that FEINGOLD is the one who should be censured, and he was on a rip, roaring tirade.

          According to WRONGWAY GEORGE, his most solemn duty is to protect the American people.  He does NOT say his most solemn duty is to uphold the Constitution.  
          Nevertheless, he has failed miserably to protect the American people (9/11/2001) and to uphold the Constitution.  

          TO MSO:

          I was soooooooooo disappointed that the Democrats (Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden, Schumer and Durbin) chose to be cowardly today.  I can't tell you what an utter embarrassment it is to me that SESSIONS, my so-called senator, is such a BUSH ASS-KISSER.

          I recall distinctly that there were GOPERS with integrity during the NIXON years, who chose to be on the side of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

          I find NO GOPERS of that complexion in evidence today and damn few Democrats.

          I think HISTORY will be on Senator FEINGOLD's side and see the balance on both sides of the aisle for what they are.

          •  late to this party... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ama

            but I think most politicians are missing something. Their fear of supporting Feingold is palpable as well as utterly wrongheaded and tineared. Those, "Warrantless wiretapping is o.k. in the name of stopping terrorism," people are few and far between these days.

            When the moderates' moderate Sandra Day O'Connor starts throwing around words like dictator you know something's shifting.

            In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

            by leolabeth on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 03:46:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I don't remember, but (10+ / 0-)

          Did Shrub issue a signing statement at his inaugurations?

          Election fraud, negligence, torture, spying... What's it gonna take? A BJ?

          by kamarvt on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:05:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Original Treason (5+ / 0-)

        The original treason was lying us into a war of choice and manipulating our fears rather than leading us in a time of darkness.  I'm sure that many of us have been using the Treason word for years, by now.

        ...in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent
        -G.W. Bush
        -7.00 -7.74

        by Luam on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:49:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Party before country. (36+ / 0-)

      That is what I see the GOP having devolved into...a party that prioritizes power, profit and exclusion of reason and accountability over the needs of a great democracy that stood proud for 230 years.

      I am ashamed of what these TRAITORS have done in our good name.  And to you trolls who say I hate America - fuck you.  I fucking hate YOU, and your twisted logic not this once and future great country.

      He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

      by joby on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:01:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Republicult is no longer a mere party (36+ / 0-)

      It's being shoved down people's throats as the National Faith. Where facts are cloudy (intentionally or not), if you don't accept the Republicult's position of the day, you are a faith-challenged heretic -- literally a non=believer and an enemy of the state.
      .

      napoli: To brutalize, rape, sodomize a young, religious virgin

      by Peanut on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:15:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What else can be said? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpecialEFX, dazed in pa

      You rock.  Every day.  In every politically incorrect way.

      There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. -5.25, -4.67

      by wolverinethad on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:23:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  unfortunately (4+ / 0-)
      You're right as usual, MsO'C, but unfortunately the meme's been pre-emptively corrupted.  

      Some Repubs and their echo chamber have turned "traitor" into just another partisan insult.  So even though it can be used with far more accuracy about them than it has been used by them, common usage has been watered down too much for the general public to respond.

      Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

      by Bearpaw on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:27:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm thinkin'... (7+ / 0-)

      ...that parts of "V for Vendetta" are far more prescient than we'd like to admit...

      "...and the ones that are lucky ones come home on the day after tomorrow..." -- Tom Waits

      by Newton Snookers on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:28:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  NO. (19+ / 0-)

      I will not engage in the same kind of hyperbolic accusations of people who think differently than I do.  I've seen way too much of it over the last 6 years and I don't intend to perpetuate it.

      God dammit Maryscott, this is not what people do when they want to improve political dialogue in their country.  Do I think Republicans have a corruption problem?  Certainly.  Do I think they care more about enriching themselves and their friends more than they care about the wellbeing of the nation?  Yes, and you could argue that it's a core philosophy of the Republican ideology.

      I am NOT going to refer to them as traitors.  When history looks back at this time when it was treacherous to say what you really thought, I want them to see that the perpetuators were Republicans and Republicans only.  I beg of you, do not taint us with their stench.

      I am going to leave you with a quote from A Man For All Seasons.  Sir Thomas More is talking about the rule of law here, but he might as well have been talking about the civility of public dialogue.  Have a gander.

      More:  Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

      Roper:  Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

      More:  Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

      This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

      Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

      --- Soooo...you voted for Bush. How's that working out for you?

      by dspiewak2634 on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:32:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only way to stop these traitors is to (14+ / 0-)

        call them out by name.  They fall under the definition of traitor, just as a suicide bomber falls under the definition of terrorist.  There is much power in defining this attack on our country and our Constitution.  Much power in defining it correctly and not shying away from the truth.  Maryscott is telling the truth and any attempt to shut her or that truth down is just, IMHO, another attempt to control the spin on the truth.  In other words, covering up that truth to protect who or what?  The people you voted for? The corporate interests you enjoy?  The dear leader who will protect you from terrorism in a never-ending war?  Why would you attempt to stop Maryscott from calling Republicans exactly what they are?  Traitors to the Constitution of the United States.  Period.

        •  Yes, yes, yes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GN1927, Brooke In Seattle, blueoasis

          And when they deny it, ignore them. The first thing to remember about traitors is that they cannot be trusted. All the time you spend trying to convince them they are traitors is time they will spend stabbing you in the back. In the same way that you don't have to explain to a rabid dog why you have to shoot it, you don't have to explain to traitors why you are pointing out that they are traitors.

          Republicans are liars.

          by tr4nqued on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:14:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Traitor is apt (5+ / 0-)

        Corruption doesn't describe the attempt to subvert the wheels of government to meet partisan goals. Perhaps if there were a balance of power you could write it off as corruption, but because the Reps are the dominating party that they have become, their acts constitute treason, or something very close to it. It's about doing the right thing, it's about honoring one's conscience:

        The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I'm not a scholar, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

        Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

      •  YES. (20+ / 0-)

        Beg to differ.

        "this is not what people do when they want to improve political dialogue in their country."

        With respect:  wrong.  This is precisely what we have to do now if political dialogue is ever going to improve.

        We liberals have been beaten about the head for years with accusations of treason and anti-Americanism from this craven GOP and its media allies, and it's time to put it on the table:  just what the hell does being a traitor MEAN?  

        It means just what Ms. O'Connor said above.

        And more:  the Vice-President of this country, Dick Cheney, has fattened his own bank account with money from the Iraq war, via Halliburton, as our soldiers die from lack of proper body armor.  This is treason, pure and simple  This is war profiteering, and Harry Truman made a successful bipartisan issue of it in World War II -- you know, the war that the Republicans like to claim is a precise parallel to the Iraq War.

        George Bush is more loyal to the dictatorial Saudi Arabians who he likes to take hand-in-hand strolls with, and the dictatorial U.A.E., than he is to the citizens of his own country.  Their safety means NOTHING to Bush, and his actions show it again and again.  This is treason.  

        And Democrats in D.C. have to get past the idea that it's somehow impolite to point this out, EVEN THOUGH IT'S TRUE.  Bush favors his international corporate pals over Americans citizens time and again... even when (especially when, it seems) they are ruthless, murdering dictators like the Saudi royal family, who practice beheading as an official punishment for the crime of APOSTASY.  (Look it up!)

        Democrats have too long tried to be polite and civil while getting savaged by lying, traitorous GOP propagandists as anti-American scum.  NO MORE.  Let them hear their own language directed back at them, completely backed up by the facts of the last few years.   If and when they cry foul, we will ask why they're such cowards that they demand a one-sided fight.

        We need to take their filthy words and club them over the heads with them.   This is how you deal with a bully -- you beat the snot out of him until he cries uncle.

        Then once the bullying has stopped, you and the bully have a choice as to where to go from there.
        They can change their ways, and you can try for a more civil relationship.  But the bully must KNOW first that you will not brook any more crap.  He must know it in his bones.  

        The GOP has not learned that lesson yet.  Let's give it to them.  

        Political bonus: people will vote for Democrats who fight.  The Demcoratic insiders in D.C. might be scared of fighting, but the people of this country are sick to death of Bush and the Republicans.  They want a political party that FIGHTS the GOP....not rollls over and show their bellies to them again and again.  

        Maryscott O'Connor speaks for me above.

        Republicans are a traitorous, anti-American cabal that puts their political party before the United States of America.  

        (Yes, Rove and Cheney, I know your minions reading this.  Screw you, traitors!)

        •  Bullies (5+ / 0-)

          This is how you deal with a bully -- you beat the snot out of him until he cries uncle.

          No, this is NOT how you stop a bully, but how you start a WAR. Bullying only stops when it is no longer tollerated by the entire community, in this case, all U.S. citizens. Speak truth to power, but don't trade insult for insult.

          Just sayin'.

          When you're going through hell, keep going. -- Winston Churchill

          by valleycat on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:15:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So war it is (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kimberley, epcraig, Opakapaka
            as apparently 1/3rd of the "community" are the bullies and another 1/3rd can not be bothered to turn away from their bread-and-circuses vegetable existence no matter what you do. I am afraid there will be a lot of bloodied noses, if you are lucky, or an actual warfare, if you are not, before this is over.
          •  Bullies (10+ / 0-)

            I had a trusted spiritual advisor as a young man -- a gentle, loving nun who was the very embodiment of Jesus' best message, I thought.

            Once I was troubled by a bully who kept picking on my friends and I.  I was a big, strong kid, 13 years old, and wasn't scared of this loudmouth per se, but I was paralyzed by fear of doing the wrong thing.  

            After hearing me out, my dear advisor said -- and I only loosely paraphrase -- "maybe you should beat the shit out of him now, then trade forgiveness with him later."  (Yeah, she cussed now and then.)

            But the first part is as important as the second.   A cycle of abuse or violence lasts until the abuser is STOPPED -- sometimes by shocking him into stopping.  Then the relationship has changed, and only then does it have the potential for getting better.

            As for the bully in question -- it worked.  I fought him, he backed down, and the spell was broken.  I can't say he became good friends with myself or any of my friends, but we did have a surprisingly cordial relationship after that, based on respect.  And to this day I give HIM credit for reconsidering his ways, as well.

            Just sayin'.
      •  aoeu (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, Sophie Blue, blueoasis

        "Do not taint us with their stench."

        I understand the sentiment but disagree. I'm a big fan of non-violence, the ends don't justify the means, love your enemy, and fighting fire with water. I do believe we should fight the enemy with love in our heart, and not hatred. However,

        This is war. They are destroying our country. If our liberal democracy is reduced to tatters, it simple won't matter how historians will view us. And I am not arguing for violence or evil deeds, I am arguing for feigned anger and intense rhetoric. We simply must defeat these fundies and fascists, they are destroying us.

        I can imagine being wrong, however. They way that the corporatists control the fundies is by manipulating them into thinking they are under attack by liberals. You might argue that our intense rhetoric against the right reinforces this, and you would be partially correct. However, I would say the way to resolve this dillema is to fight as hard as we can, but keep an open heart and when the enemy begins to turn, welcome them with open arms and bring them over to our side.

        You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. ---Martin Luther King Jr.

        by Opakapaka on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:20:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're confused. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, SpecialEFX, jfadden

        I wouldn't mind Republicans calling me a traitor if it were true. It's our duty as American citizens to challenge traitors.

        The problem is, I'm a good American citizen, but these Republican office holders are TRAITORS, literally.

        Read the constitution.

      •  "Traitors" won't sell to (0+ / 0-)
        voters in the US, who think "treason" means pretty much what the Constitution describes.  Applying that label makes the user feel strong, consequential even, in her righteousness, but it is effectively another bitter liberal turnoff, toxic to any reasonable discussion.  

        Words like "pirates," (environment*) "propagandists,"  (purchase of media coverage)  "liars," (a broad-spectrum label) "thieves" and "criminals" (elections, Congressional Republicans, White House staff)  "greedy," (tax cuts for the very rich) "unprincipled," (another broad-spectrum label), "lawless," (Iraq), "occupation" (Iraq), etc., etc., and used in the context of specific serious Repub wrongdoing, are more likely to have breach the blood-brain barrier.

        I think people are now ready to hear, with copious illustration, that (while not all Republicans are bad**) the dominant Rove-Bush faction of Republican Party is selling America down the river.

        People don't want to hear poorly-defined and needlessly inflammatory words like "traitor" thrown around.  Even I don't want to hear it, and I hate them utterly.

        *Remember the GREAT bumper sticker, "When Pirates Rule, Mother Nature Walks the Plank"?

        **Yes, this has to be part of the message.

        "The face of evil is the face of total need." - Wm. Burroughs

        by oblomov on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:20:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not your mother's republican party . . . (11+ / 0-)

      There used to be a couple of decent repubs. No longer.

      There is not one honorable republican.

      There is not one "moderate" republican.

      There is not one decent republican.

      Not. One. Period.

    •  Oh FFS (10+ / 0-)

      Just stop it, seriously.  You sound like Ann Coulter.

      Republicans are not "traitors".  To be a traitor implies a certain intention in one's actions to undermine the country.  Republicans are wrong and they aren't doing what's in the best interests of the country, but they are not traitors.

      Dropping to their level, and this is their level, only legitimizes them.  When political discourse devolves to two sides yelling about how much of a traitor the other side is, we cannot move this country forward.  Rather than looking like the reasonable "reality based" community we look like radical partisans just like them.

      The Republicans believe that they are doing the best thing for this country.  They believe that their party loyalty is necessary to maintain their control of power and thus provide the ability for them to reshape this country.  I completely disagree with their vision, but their vision does stem from their own beliefs about what would make this a better country.  

      Attack them on their logic, attack them on their facts, and win elections based on a commitment to true service to this country's ideals.  This kind of name calling just drives away people who might otherwise consider out view points but instead write us off as narrow minded radicals.  It's this mentality that insures that those who didn't vote last election won't vote this election.

      So seriously, just stop it.

      --- If trickle down economics worked, Marie Antoinette wouldn't have lost her head

      by sterno on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:10:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  if you say that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        the country is the middle class then they are traitors. because they lied us into a war and allowed 911 to happen so as to destroy any hope of maintaining our constitution as it was intended. yes, they are traitors.

        if you say that this country is for the corporation, then you are correct. they aren't traitors. they lied about war to support the country.

        republicans doing what's best for the country? you haven't been paying attention for the last 5 years. or you're hopelessly naive and of little value.

        republicans are doing what's good for 'their peoples' pocket book in the coming oil-crunch economy and nothing else.

        pay attention or recognize that your opinion won't be at all valuable.

      •  Wrong. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfadden, trojanrabbit, blueoasis

        The Republicans believe that they are doing the best thing for this country.  

        Wrong.

        The Republicrooks are doing the best thing for themselves. Any benefit to the country and its citizenry is incidental, if not accidental.

        We need not look further than Halliburton, Abramoff, KB&R, Neil Bush's "company," Frist's trust money, Abramoff, Cheney's oil interests, Santorum's "charity," Abramoff.... you get the picture.

        If the Republicrooks are doing good, then they've done right well.

        There is but one surefire way to vanquish conservatives, and that is to beat the shit out of them."--David Podvin

        by Sharoney on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:50:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

          My comment was meant for Sterno, as you can tell by the blockquote.

          There is but one surefire way to vanquish conservatives, and that is to beat the shit out of them."--David Podvin

          by Sharoney on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:52:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  True... (0+ / 0-)

          ...when you consider who 'themselves' are, you also come to understand that this government - the nation, its resources, its people - is just another tool. There are no borders in their world, there are just pockets of wealth to exploit.

          It's a revolving door. For some purposes, it's more efficient to run the government yourself than just to own it.

    •  Wow, (3+ / 5-)

      That's a lot of hyperbole.

      So, when can we get off the I hate Dubya bandwagon and start focusing on the 2006 elections?  You know, since he's not running for office again?

      Anyone want to come up with a message for the party?  Other than "We hate Dubya", I mean.

      •  This isn't an I Hate W diary. (3+ / 0-)

        Read the fucking title.

        •  Right, the title (2+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Eternal Hope, Bill O Rights
          Hidden by:
          EasternOkie

          "Republicans are TRAITORS"

          Ridiculous hyperbole.

          But let's look at why they are traitors:

          "They have made their stand, behind the most criminal, deceitful and incompetent President in the history of the United States of America -- and they will not be moved. Not by facts, not by arguments, not by the very Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.

          In this execrable display of mindless partisanship, the Republicans in Congress neither uphold nor defend that Constitution. It is patently clear that the Republicans hold partisanship above all else -- above truth, above country, above the Constitution."

          Ah, because they are standing behind the President.  How is this not an "I hate Bush" diary again?

          •  I most certainly do hate what Bu$hCo has (0+ / 0-)

            done and is doing on a daily basis to our country, our Constitution and the world.  He needs to be prosecuted for his criminal activities to the full extent of the law.  He's destroyed everything good about this country.  He's a liar, a thief, a wager of unprovoked war, a torturer, a spy, a lawbreaker and criminally negligent of American citizens.  When he declares that the world is too dangerous for him to serve only two terms as president and your Republican congress places a symbolic red, white and blue crown on his head, will you then join me in hating what this traitor and his cohorts are up to as much as I do?  Won't it be way too late?

      •  The 'I hate Clinton' bandwagon (0+ / 0-)

        was pretty effective for the idiot Republicans...so while there are other roads to be taken, please don't deride anyone who might want to stay on that train.  There is room for both the "I hate W" faction of Democrats as well as the "here is what to do" Democrats.  They are symbiotic.  

        Although the basis of your assumption is wrong, because wanting to hold someone accountable for their crimes is not about just continuing to hate them.  It is called Justice, and is required in a civilized society.

    •  sure, traitors (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote, epcraig, blueoasis

      But there is real legal standing here for censure.

      The republicans are caught between declaring FISA unconstitutional or agreeing Bush broke the law.

      If they declare FISA unconstitutional that basically validates Nixon's defense of watergate.

      They are screwed and it would be nice to see someone in addition to feingold put the legal, rational and logical pressure on the executive branch and teh republicans to admit their mistake.

      ... but first we have to cut through the rhetoric.

    •  meh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dannyinla

      yes, the refusal to censure bush is a greater act of treason than the southern states seceding, greater than the actions of klaus fuchs and jules rosenberg. . .

      right on!

      and i'd say the relevant definition of "treason" is not to be found on webster but in the constitution, or, simlarly, for espionage in the united states code

      I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

      by The Exalted on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:13:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Don't Have Anything (4+ / 0-)

      more to say. Treason is the correct word. They are traitors to everything the US stands for. Actually, I have a hard time believing that Senators and Congressmen are more interested in money than in upholding the principles of the United States of America, but there it is. Right there in your face.

      Republican Senators and Congressmen, if you're reading this: you are truly traitors and I for one (and probably several others) hate you with a passion. You have completely perverted and twisted everything this great  country stands for. I (and we) believe this. Yes, getting re-elected is important. But this is ugly and you will be in the history books as having undermined the Constitution. Won't your children and grandchildren be proud?

      You are filthy traitors, no matter the spin. We will never forget.

      And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (chuckle) is working very well for them. (Barbara Bush)

      by Krusty on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:13:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Like I said in the counter-diary, (0+ / 0-)

      it's really the national Dems who are traitors.

      I expect Republicans to sell out the interests of the country for short-term financial gain. That's what makes them Republicans.

      It's the national Dems who have sold us out. I believe, as I stated yesterday in Hunter's diary, that the national Dems, with the possible exception of Mr. Dean, are owned and paid by the corporations. The national Dems' incompetence is NOT a result of their general cluelessness: it's deliberate, as part of the overall plot to ensure that any viewpoint detrimental to the interests of the corporations does not see the light of day. Hillary Clinton, I'm talking to you. You supported the war, because you're owned. And you're a traitor.

    •  Death Penalty for Oliver North (0+ / 0-)

      When a military officer takes off his uniform and skulks around in the basement of the executive, stealing taxpayer dollars and running criminal operations in order to finance a rogue foreign policy initiative, in direct conflict with the laws as written under the authority of the people's representatives; well, if that isn't treason against the people -- who are the state, in a representative democracy -- what is treason?

      For twenty years, my response to anyone who wants to argue for their version of the death penalty has been, "Would Oliver North be subject to execution under your scheme? Because if the answer is no, your death penalty fails to address the most dangerous criminals in the country, the ones I fear and loathe, and I have no interest in it."

      HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!

      by UntimelyRippd on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:24:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can't tell you how hard I pressed the 'Recommen (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ranting Roland, blueoasis

      d" button, I am in such strong agreement. Practically broke my keyboard.

      Republicans: Everything they accuse us of is what they hate about themselves.

      by lecsmith on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:33:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  definition of treason (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      celticshel, Bill O Rights

      The U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 3)
      defines treason as follows.

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

      The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

      The Congressional Republicans are in many (not all) cases despicable, but I don't think they should be charged with treason unless a serious case can be made that they violated the above (Constitutional) definition.

    •  That slogan will guarantee us lost elections* (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pkjnew, Bill O Rights
  •  Preach it Sister! (12+ / 0-)

    It is so nice to see this stated so bluntly. You are speaking the truth. Bless you MSOC!

    I don't see the point to it but I keep blogging anyway.

    by AndyT on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:51:50 AM PST

  •  They are traitors (10+ / 0-)

    Fully.  Completely.

    We're gonna explode?! I don't wanna explode! 宁静

    by TalkieToaster on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:52:24 AM PST

  •  against all enemies (31+ / 0-)

    foreign and domestic. every one of them swears it.

    crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

    by wu ming on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:53:02 AM PST

  •  The treason... (11+ / 0-)

    of the Republicans exists only because of the apathy and indifference (yes, and perhaps fear) of a majority of the American people.

    The friend of my enemy is my enemy. Dump Chafee in '06.

    by jayatRI on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:54:24 AM PST

  •  The Republicans have ceased to be... (41+ / 0-)

    ...a political party.  They are now a massive criminal conspiracy.

    "...the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

    by Roddy McCorley on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:54:28 AM PST

  •  TRAITORS (12+ / 0-)

    "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

    ---There's not one "Howard Baker" type in this whole bunch of Republicans.

    They are a pathetic disgrace.

    •  Now There's The 64,000 Dollar Question (10+ / 0-)

      What did the President know and when did he know it.

      Takes us back to Nixon's law-breaking and cover-ups.

      How fitting that John Dean's adding his voice to the fight.

      Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

      by Alegre on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:57:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What Did The President Know - (3+ / 0-)

      About the Plame Affair
      About the war in Iraq
      About the NSA wiretaps
      About Hurricane Katrina?

      AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

    •  You must be asleep (0+ / 0-)

      Did you not hear the judges questioned at the censure unanimously say the FISA cannot take away constitutional executive powers?

      Maybe the program hasn't been explained to you, so I'll sum it up quickly:

      1. we discover phones numbers used by al-Qaeda in computer databases and phones in Afghanistan
      1. when a call from one of those numbers comes into the US or a call in the US is placed to a suspect number, computers flag the conversation. Intelligence officials (not political operatives) listen in.
      1. the effectiveness of this program is dependent upon the secrecy of this program. Intelligence officials and White House security aides brief only the highest congressional leaders
      1. in case you're not getting the point: these are phone conversations with al-Qaeda members with one end outside the US
      1. you may still be missing it: these are phone conversations with al-Qaeda members with one end outside the US

      I don’t expect you or other posters to be swayed by the simple, robust logic of the circumstances. Much like the nation’s leading law schools were slapped with an 8-0 decision rebuking their backwards view of Constitutional protections, it’s not likely that you will be persuaded by anything other than blind rage. But that’s okay, because the general population, specifically the voting population, does have more sense. Good luck convincing rational people or courts that this was in any illegal...and you think it’s impeachable? You’re the reason that Republicans will stay in control of Congress in November.

        •  what is unbelievable? (0+ / 0-)

          Please enlighten me...do you think the eavesdropping was done for political purposes? Do you think the program was intercepting calls between US citizens? (the military general in charge sid that occasionally this happened, but any records was promptly deleted)

          Do you think that congressional offices were not informed of the program? Do you think that most Americans don't want us listening in on calls between American citizens and phone numbers connected to al-Qaeda? Do you think a court would decide that monitoring these international calls is not a legitimate function the executive branch?

          I'm missing what you're regarding as astounding.

          •  um yeah (8+ / 0-)

            because quakers and peace activism groups do not have ties to al-qaeda.  and he used this program to spy on them.

            congressional offices were not informed, 4 members of congress were informed but were not allowed to discuss it even with their own counsel.

            yes, a court would and will decide in a heartbeat this was unconstitutional.

            don't choke on the kool-aid and go inform yourself.  

          •  What is astounding is the fact that (10+ / 0-)

            you are taking the word of the administration as the final and conclusive answer to the questions.   Given their solid background of lying, only a fool would do so.

            Do you think that congressional offices were not informed of the program?

            Some were and none have said they were to the full extent of it (at least the one we actually know about).

            Do you think that most Americans don't want us listening in on calls between American citizens and phone numbers connected to al-Qaeda?

            Do you think a court would decide that monitoring these international calls is not a legitimate function the executive branch?

            Do you think FISA would not approve a warrant for such a case?   Of course they would.   If you think otherwise, you obviously have no understanding of the FISA courts beyond what your right wing talking points have told you.  Use your head.

            You're throwing up strawmen like they're going out of style while completely ignoring the fact that the route BushCo took is completely illegal.   Given the fact that they could easily get warrants to do what YOU say they're doing, why exactly do they refuse to follow the law?

            Like I said, your belief in those talking points is simply astounding when compared to reality.

            •  Of the warrants Bush asked for (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Avila, tlh lib, SpecialEFX, blueoasis

              something like 5 were denied.  Five out of how many?  Anyone got the figure?

              A miniscule percentage from what I recall.

              The claim that the chance of denial is a just reason to NOT requesting a warrant is just bullshit.

              Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

              by Alegre on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:11:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hope this helps. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Avila, tlh lib

                http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/...

                "DOJ reports record number of special FISA warrant approvals
                Alexandria Samuel at 2:03 PM ET

                [JURIST] In an annual report [text] to Congress Friday, the US Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs [official website] revealed that the government applied for and was granted a record number of special warrants in 2004.

                The report submitted by Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella [official website], revealed a 75 percent increase in the number of special warrants approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review [statutory text] since 2000. The court was created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [text] to approve special warrant requests related to foreign intelligence. However, after the September 11 attacks and passage of the US Patriot Act [JURIST news archive], federal agencies have requested a higher number of warrants to investigate persons suspected of terrorist activity.

                According to DOJ reports [report archive], the court approved 1,003 warrant requests in 2000, 1,724 requests in 2003, and 1,754 in 2004. The FBI used a special warrant granted by the court in 2004 to search the home of Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield [JURIST report], who was jailed after his fingerprint was incorrectly matched to one found on a bag of detonators near the scene of train bombings in Spain that killed 191 people in March 2004. He was released after the FBI admitted its mistake. AP has more."

                Paragraphs created by Carbide Bit to make it easier to read.

                Parody - another thing getting harder and harder to do in Bushevik America.

                by Carbide Bit on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 05:28:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  In case you can't follow (6+ / 0-)

        Why, if that is what they are doing, can they not apply properly for a FISA warrant (either prior to or within the required period following) as required to electronically monitor people on US soil?

        I don't expect you to be able to answer that simple question and hence why they were required to break the FISA law as written.

        So are you saying if a citizen has any contact with a foreign person they no longer have any way of being protected by the legal system because the executive has unitary authority to montior them in any way it chooses without any check on its power?

        -------- 'We've secretly replaced the Whitehouse Press Corps with actual reporters'-- Jon Stewart --------

        by puppet10 on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:56:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, not like they've ever been caught lying... (5+ / 0-)

        BEFORE or anything. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

        FISA has retroactive warrants, easily obtainable. I've yet to see one Bush supporter explain why the law was not followed.

        Apparently, not even verbatim ingest-and-regurgitate Talking Points could suitably explain that garbage. Hence you can't, either.

      •  Sorry but... Have you even READ the FISA regs? (5+ / 0-)

        Seriously.  You can talk up a blue-streak but at the end of the day you cannot deny this one simple truth...

        The FISA law is set up so there's some oversight of those who spy on anyone - terrorists or Americans (you and me).  That oversight is there to protect our constitutional rights.

        The judges who hear the case for a warrent are thouroughly vetted and are among the most trusted people in the world when it comes to this top secret shit.

        If time is of the essenece then the administration has 3 days to apply for a warrant after the fact - something they repeatedly refused to do.

        Bush admitted he failed to get warrants when spying on American citizens.

        Bush broke the law.

        What part of this don't you understand?

        Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

        by Alegre on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:09:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tell It Like It IS (22+ / 0-)

    Bush broke the FISA law.
    He admitted this on national tv.

    Anyone who refuses to hold him and his minions accountable are aiding and abetting a criminal and as such - should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    PERIOD!

    Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

    by Alegre on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:55:47 AM PST

  •  You know it MSOC!! (7+ / 0-)

    The only loyalty they have is to their checkbooks and to those that can make their money grow faster. These bastards are controlled by greed and don't give a shit about the rest of us or things like the...um....constitution.

    Rrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The Only Constant is Change

    by proudprogressiveCA on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:55:51 AM PST

  •  This should be the mantra (22+ / 0-)

    Every single Democrat should be chanting this nonstop, demanding impeachment, demanding justice and demanding the immediate resignation and arrest of Cheney and Bush.  I'm honestly so sick of the utter lack of courage to, you know, enforce the laws and adhere to the Constitution.  Only 30-35% of this country still supports Numbnuts and the Dems are too scared to take a stand for justice and removing traitors from office?  It's incredibly hard to support anyone who refuses to show leadership in a time of dire need.

  •  This should be the mantra (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mataliandy, epcraig

    Every single Democrat should be chanting this nonstop, demanding impeachment, demanding justice and demanding the immediate resignation and arrest of Cheney and Bush.  I'm honestly so sick of the utter lack of courage to, you know, enforce the laws and adhere to the Constitution.  Only 30-35% of this country still supports Numbnuts and the Dems are too scared to take a stand for justice and removing traitors from office?  It's incredibly hard to support anyone who refuses to show leadership in a time of dire need.

  •  This should be the mantra (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RFK Lives, DeadB0y, mattes

    Every single Democrat should be chanting this nonstop, demanding impeachment, demanding justice and demanding the immediate resignation and arrest of Cheney and Bush.  I'm honestly so sick of the utter lack of courage to, you know, enforce the laws and adhere to the Constitution.  Only 30-35% of this country still supports Numbnuts and the Dems are too scared to take a stand for justice and removing traitors from office?  It's incredibly hard to support anyone who refuses to show leadership in a time of dire need.

  •  party first (6+ / 0-)
    given the republican allegiance to the notion of party first, is it any wonder that they installed a dry drunk as figurehead?

    'cept what sucks (among other things) is that we'll all be feeling the got-the-snot-kicked-outta me effects of the hangover.

    they ARE traitors.  they don't know thing-the-first about doing the right thing for the people of this country. f*ckers, all.

  •  In other news, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pb, Ranting Roland, Unduna, smokeymonkey

    the sky is blue and ice is cold.

    There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

    by ThirstyGator on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:57:09 AM PST

  •  Maryscott, this needs to be made PUBLIC. (4+ / 0-)

    The general population needs to read your words or all is lost!  The Republicans who have overthrown our government are TRAITORS and must be tried and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but who will lead this country to take those actions?  How can we, the people, join together and oppose this obvious overthrow of our Constitution?  How can we get voices like yours heard on the radio, the TV, cable and in newspapers throughout the land?  How do we STOP THESE TRAITORS???

  •  You are 100% right Maryscott... (12+ / 0-)

    It is every bit as bad as you describe. I am convinced that what has served this government so well is the failure of the American people to adequately appreciate that our very form of government and way of life has been put in real peril.

    We are a country of people who have had it so good for so long and actually believed in the infallibility of our system of government that many refuse to accept the truth. The reality is, indeed, so outrageously bad that it is hard to believe.

    Think back to 1999, I detested Bush, but I would never have been willing to believe that a United States President and his administration would purposely bring us the point where we must actually worry about keeping our basic constitutional rights.

    It is vanity to wish for a long life and to care little about leading a good life. -Thomas à Kempis, 'The Imitation of Christ'.

    by chicagochristianleft on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:58:36 AM PST

  •  excellent use of caps (0+ / 0-)

    this very helpful and constructive diary will help us retake a house in nov.  recommended.

  •  I have no kind words (33+ / 0-)

    for the Democrats who declined to appear. Feingold is holding down the fort now, ALONE.

    Kennedy
    Feinstein
    Biden
    Kohl
    Durbin
    Schumer

    All absent.

    Leahy left early.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:06:27 AM PST

    •  Appalling. (8+ / 0-)

      If I didn't have a specific theme in writing this diary, you may be sure I would have allowed myself to rant a bit about THAT particular travesty.

    •  Dammit - You're Right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kimberley, blueoasis

      Every fecking seat to the left of Spector is EMPTY!

      It makes it look like the Republicans are the only ones interested in holding Bush accountable!

      What parallel universe did I step into here?

      Or is this a dream?

      Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

      by Alegre on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:16:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kohl (0+ / 0-)

      apparently NOT absent

      "Why can't you and the idea of separation of powers just hug it out, bitch?" Wonkette

      by Hollywood Liberal on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:17:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Feingold didn't want to be hung to dry... (5+ / 4-)

      ...maybe he should have made sure someone else was on board before announcing his intentions on a Sunday-morning chat show.

      It's kind of silly to schedule a one-man show and then complain about the no-show opening act.

      This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

      by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:18:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a matter of comity... (12+ / 0-)

        it's the f'ing Constitution of the United States we're talking about here.  Who cares whether RF plays well w/ others?  We're talking about a core principle here underlying our system of govt.

        Besides, if personalities are supposed to be the deciding factor for senators, wouldn't whatever concerns they have about RF's "one man show" be trumped by their total disgust towards Cornyn, Hatch, Graham, et al?

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:31:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Incorrect! (0+ / 0-)

          it's the f'ing Constitution of the United States we're talking about here.

          Really?

          Wikipedia: "Unlike impeachment, censure has no basis in the Constitution, or in the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives."

          Besides, if personalities are supposed to be the deciding factor for senators, wouldn't whatever concerns they have about RF's "one man show" be trumped by their total disgust towards Cornyn, Hatch, Graham, et al?

          I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Feingold's censure resolution included them as well.  I was under the impression that it was directed at the president and ONLY the president.  Thanks for that correction.

          This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

          by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:43:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You mean separation of powers ISN'T... (7+ / 0-)

            in the Constitution?  I could've sworn that Sam Ervin told us that it was back in 1973.

            Technically speaking, you're correct--impeachment would be the proper remedy here.  I'm more than willing, however, to accept censure as half a loaf in the current environment.

            When the Senate Dems are too afraid to consider pushing for censure, it's utterly absurd to think about the remedy that is expressly stated in the Constitution.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:52:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  half a loaf? (0+ / 0-)

              I'm more than willing, however, to accept censure as half a loaf in the current environment.

              In other words, you're saying that pushing for censure at this time is an admission of weakness by Feingold on the part of the Democratic party?

              Censure of the president isn't half a loaf.  It's the stale slice of bread at the end of the load, and the Republican majority in the Senate is not going to allow the Dems to have even that.

              When the Senate Dems are too afraid to consider pushing for censure,

              They're outnumbered, censure is stillnot supported by a majority of Americans, and more independents oppose than favor it.  They don't have the numbers in the Beltway OR outside of it.  In the face of that, I think it's a cheap shot to call the other Senate Dems "afraid" and cowards.  Unlike Feingold, some of them have to face re-election this year (instead of 2010 like RF).

              This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

              by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:10:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Anyone who'll vote against a Dem who votes... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueoasis

                for censure this year was going to vote against him/her anyhow.  W's approval ratings are in the mid-30's, and they're more likely to go down than go up between now and Nov.  Despite the fact that there's only 1 senator pushing it, approve/disapprove censure is, as your link notes, pretty much w/i the MOE.

                Even if your proposition is correct, where the hell are the Dems who aren't up for re-election this year?  

                I still have no idea what you're suggesting instead.  If a small plurality against censure is reason to not support it, the large majority that would oppose impeachment would be even stronger grounds to not support impeachment.

                Whether censure is a half loaf or a stale slice, it beats the s**t out of doing nothing, which is what you appear to be suggesting.

                Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

                by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:24:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'd ask you the same thing... (0+ / 0-)

                  Even if your proposition is correct, where the hell are the Dems who aren't up for re-election this year?  

                  Where are they indeed?  Out of 40-odd Democratic senators, there must be a couple dozen who are NOT up for re-election this year, and probably a couple who are planning to retire at the end of their current terms.  Why do YOU think Feingold couldn't get one of those guys to stand up against an unpopular president at little or no cost to himself?  Do you really think that these men and women are AFRAID of taking a stand like that?  Some of them are combat veterans, all of them have conquered the fear of public speaking (scarier than death itself, according to some polls) and the fear of asking friends and strangers to give money in exchange for nothing but a good feeling (scarier than public speaking, IMO).  Do you really think the only thing keeping all of them from signing on with Feingold is COWARDICE?

                  I still have no idea what you're suggesting instead.

                  I suggest that instead of going off half-cocked, those who want to censure the president work the media, work the talk shows, work the grassroot email lists, work the blogosphere, and build public consensus to where other senators can't help but go along.  Or if someone decides to go ahead anyway, that he wait until AFTER the election, to give other Democrats the maximum amount of time to pay the cost that will be incurred.

                  Because you're right.  Censure is more than nothing.  And the cost will be more than nothing as well.

                  This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

                  by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:38:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  After elections (0+ / 0-)

                    I was almost with your reasoning.  Waiting for anything in the current climate is foolish.  We need to be doing something and Feingold got an entire hearing out of the deal; I call that something.

                    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                      We need to be doing something and Feingold got an entire hearing out of the deal; I call that something.

                      I'd call it having sex against an outer wall of the International Space Station, myself.

                      This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

                      by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:24:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  OF COURSE they're afraid... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueoasis

                    Do you honestly think that there's some grand plan behind this latest in a long line of cowardly acts?  Durbin, Levin, and Kennedy, 3 of the best the caucus has to offer, all want "investigations" before going forward w/ censure.  Roberts won't allow investigations, and Specter won't allow meaningful ones.  So the Dems don't want to go forward w/ censure until after an event that will never occur.

                    Plus, as Glenn Greenwald and others have pointed out, when the WH openly admits that it broke the law, what need is there for investigations?  

                    The Dems put up half a fight on Scalito, and they put up no fight on Roberts.  I was assuming a reprise of Scalito here.  I'm sorry to see that we're seeing a reprise of Roberts.

                    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

                    by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:31:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yes, honestly (0+ / 0-)

                      Do you honestly think that there's some grand plan behind this latest in a long line of cowardly acts?

                      Yes, that's exactly what I think.  I think the Democratic Senate leadership is more concerned with winning in November than in beating up on that sad sack lame-duck in the Oval Office, at least for now.

                      This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

                      by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:45:09 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Parent-Killer Pleads For Mercy As Orphan (0+ / 0-)

                First you spread RWNM talking points. Then you say censure isn't popular.

                Why?  Because Dems have been scared about telling the truth, while Reps have been bold about spreading lies.

                The solution is simple: Tell the truth.  Every Dem Senator on the committee shows up, and asks the same question repeatedly: Why are the Republicans lying about what this is about?

                This, of course, is the last thing a troll like you would want.

                  Troll, troll, go away
                  Come again some other day
                  You think you're smart, you think you're clever
                  Come back on the 10th of Never!

                •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                  First you spread RWNM talking points.

                  I'll have to take your word for that.  I don't watch / listen to the RWNM.

                  This, of course, is the last thing a troll like you would want.

                  Putting words in my mouth, name-calling, and childish rhymes to boot?  I guess talking points aren't the only thing you're learning about on the RWNM.  And I'm the troll?

                  This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

                  by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:47:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Collect Them All: MORE RWNM Talking Points! (4+ / 0-)
            Wikipedia is a great resource, but it's freepable and fallible, too.  For all their fulminating against it on Consitutional grounds, the GOP traitors didn't offer one single word of explanation as to why it was wrong, why the supposed absence of mentioning it in the Constitution meant that it was forbidden.

            In point of fact, Feingold is offering a resolution of censure--and resolutions are mentioned in the Constitution.  In fact, Feingold's isn't even the first Senate resolution this year. The Constitution makes one mention of resolutions, under Article 1, Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto:

            Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
            Feingold's resolution is a Senate resolution, so the concurrence of the House is not necessary.  Thus it is not covered by this section, but its permissibility is implicitly granted in the process of implicitly noting that not all orders, resolutions or votes require concurrence.

            Here is the resolved clause of Feingold's resolution:

            Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.
            This is clearly a Senate resolution, it makes no mention whatsoever of the House. Further, it contains no act of sanction against the President, aside from declaring condemnation and censure.

            The claim that this is somehow unconstitutional is facially absurd.

            I must admit I'm puzzled by this:

            Besides, if personalities are supposed to be the deciding factor for senators, wouldn't whatever concerns they have about RF's "one man show" be trumped by their total disgust towards Cornyn, Hatch, Graham, et al?

            I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Feingold's censure resolution included them as well.  I was under the impression that it was directed at the president and ONLY the president.  Thanks for that correction.

            At first I thought you were just playing dumb.  But I thought a moment, and now I'm not so sure.
      •  Thanks For RWNM Talking Point (10+ / 0-)

        My morning just wouldn't be complete without it.

        Of course Feingold should have waited till hell froze over the Democratic Caucus found it's spine before using his own.  He just makes the rest of them look bad.  Spoils the curve, as they would say in high school.  Shame on him!

      •  Too many little rabbits (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Creosote, missreporter, epcraig, blueoasis

        How do we know he didn't ask people to sign on before announcing?  Maybe they agreed and bailed, maybe they are there, maybe they wouldn't commit.

        The point is, just because no one has the nerve to stand up with you, doesn't mean you don't do what is right.

        •  right action? (0+ / 0-)

          The point is, just because no one has the nerve to stand up with you, doesn't mean you don't do what is right.

          It's also true that if you do ask your experienced colleagues to go along with a course of action and you can't find anyone to sign on, it MAY, just MAY, be a sign that what you're doing is useless at best and counterproductive at worst.

          That's assuming he did ask people to sign on.  As you point out, we don't know whether he did or not.

          This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

          by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:00:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting idea (0+ / 0-)

            How would this be counterproductive?  Even if it is whistling in the wind, don't you think it is better for some people to stand up for what is right?

            Or are you suggesting that this merely underscores the lack of conviction in the Democratic leadership?

            If the latter, what would be the appropriate thing to do, in your eyes?  Should everyone just stay united no matter what -- even if that 'team spirit' means they never speak up about anything, ever?

            I'm not being combative here -- I'm sincerely curious as to the more advantageous alternatives.

            •  right action continued... (0+ / 0-)

              How would this be counterproductive?

              You don't think the Repubs will frame this as hindering the president in his fighting the "War On Terror" (TM)?  Are you certain that the net effect on senators up for reelection this year (which includes Kennedy, Feinstein, and Kohl) will be positive or neutral?  If you're not certain, do you think the importance of winning a call for a toothless proceeding against a lame duck president outweighs the risk of losing one or more senate seats in November 2006 or 2008?

              If the latter, what would be the appropriate thing to do, in your eyes?

              Wait until AFTER November before deciding on a course of action, in order to have as much time as possible to recover from the cost of the stand.  

              Or talk up the president's wrongdoings, and talk up the president's wrongdoings, and talk up the president's wrongdoings, until you shift public opinion to your side -- at which point, other Democrats and maybe even some Republicans will climb on board, because then the benefits of supporting a censure resolution will become obvious.

              This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

              by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:41:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I simply can't agree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Creosote

                You don't think the Repubs will frame this as hindering the president in his fighting the "War On Terror" (TM)?

                Of course.  And that will be different from the past several years...how?

                The fear that people will scream 'BAD AMERICAN!!' has paralyzed our media and reduced our elected officials to yes-men and whispering in dark corners.

                This president's approval ratings are in the trash, most of the country thinks the war was a mistake, and that the country is headed in the absolutely wrong direction.

                Yet, still, the loudest people on the planet are the religious right and Fox News parrots -- if you listened to them, the whole country loves the president, hates gays and wants the women barefoot and pregnant, while the kids go to school with beaming faces to learn of the Christian God and intelligent design.

                We can't wait any longer.  We can't continue to live in fear that someone will use the word 'unAmerican' -- they've had enough victories with that type of blackmail.  This is the first time in a very long time that the American people might be willing to listen -- we can't waste it.

          •  Go Along (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis

            I see your points, but then Feingold shouldn't have opposed the invasion of Iraq, he shouldn't have voted against the Patriot Act, etc.  History will show him on the proper side of history.

            Consequently, he said during the hearing today that he is very non-partisan.  "Sometimes, I drive the Democrats nuts!"  He has the balls to act on his own and that makes me proud.  The political strategy has worked.

            •  Mission Accomplished? (0+ / 0-)

              I see your points, but then Feingold shouldn't have opposed the invasion of Iraq, he shouldn't have voted against the Patriot Act, etc.

              Why not?  The cases are not the same.

              I'm NOT saying NEVER fight, though the odds may be against you.  I'm saying pick your battles, and if you have to go down fighting, at least make sure it's a struggle worth fighting for.  Invading Iraq and fighting the PATRIOT act were worthwhile battles.  A censure resolution is like making love against an exterior wall of the ISS, as I said above -- it's fucking close to nothing.  IMO, the game is NOT worth the lantern.

              The Republicans set the agenda on the invasion of Iraq and the PATRIOT Act.  I think they planned and timed the invasion for maximum benefit toward Dubya's re-election.  The Mission was Accomplished in November 2004.  In the case of censure, Senator Feingold had the power to set the agenda, to time his attack for maximum benefit or at least minimum damage for the Democratic chances in November 2006 -- and I think he blew it.  If this is trolling, make the most of it.

              He has the balls to act on his own and that makes me proud.  The political strategy has worked.

              Worked for what?  As far as I can tell, the numbers for/against censure have not moved significantly in the couple of weeks since he announced his plan.  What do you think the censure resolution has accomplished?

              This is, after all, an administration that absolutely hates Planned Parenthood--but then again, judging by Iraq, they hate planned anything. --Bill Maher

              by Brother Love on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 03:15:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Yer Kidding (0+ / 0-)

        ... right?

        Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

        by Alegre on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:02:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •   Not a Troll comment an Opinion (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Maryscott OConnor, polecat

        Not a popular opinion.....on this siet but not an uncommon one......so don't troll rate because you disagree.

    •  Thank you - why are the cowardly Dems getting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      epcraig, The Termite

      a pass on this?? Oooohhhhh, will it piss off their bosses, the corporations?  I am so fricking pissed, I know there are some good Dems, but I can count about 4 right now.

      Feingold
      Conyers
      Boxer
      Leahy

      That is it for me today.  Sad.

      The Democratic party - the party of sanity, reason and kindness.

      by adigal on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:33:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is the story (0+ / 0-)

      The Republicans on the COJ are nothing but a convenient target for anger.

      We lost this because we surrendered.  Nary a shot was fired.

      Some things are not for sale. Send the Republicans home in 2006.

      by The Termite on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:51:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes. (9+ / 0-)

    Now that we're taking the word "traitor" back, here's some more we should be working on:
    Freedom, Patriotism, Un-American, Liberal, God, Religion...

    Hell, let's just take back that whole fucking Gingrich list.

    You think you've got it tough. Try being a liberal in the military.

    by filmgeek83 on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:06:55 AM PST

  •  I WANT MY REPUBLIC BACK (18+ / 0-)

    "when in the course of human events...."

    The history of the present King ...is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

    He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

    He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

    He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

    For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

    For abolishing the free system of AMERICAN laws, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these states:

    For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

    For declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totaly unworth the head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.


    In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:08:06 AM PST

  •  Republicans (11+ / 0-)

    Cover their disdain for much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights with an idolisation and worship of the flag.

    Maybe we should be having our schoolkids pledge allegiance to the constitution.

    New Orleans - The Birthplace of American Music - help the The New Orleans Musicians Hurricane Relief Fund

    by Ramar on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:16:02 AM PST

  •  Evil can prevail when good men do nothing... (20+ / 0-)

    Which is what we appear to be seeing again today.  We already knew that the Rethugs were miserable lying SOB's who would bear any burden and pay any price in order to obtain and retain power.  We always hold that vain hope that, this time, the Dems will actually stand up and try to do something about that sad state of affairs.

    They didn't do it when the 2000 election was stolen in broad daylight.  They didn't do it when Kerry was Swiftboated beyond recognition and a lot of funny business occurred in OH.  They didn't do it when 2 justices were confirmed for the SCOTUS who shared the view of 2 sitting justices that the incumbent WH possesses plenary powers.

    The Dems had a perfect opportunity this am to point out that, um, the president openly admits that he's routinely committing felonies as a matter of policy.  Instead, 5/8 of the Judiciary Dems got their tires rotated or dropped off their dry cleaning or prepared for their fantasy baseball draft or found something else more important to do than preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States.  

    WTF is wrong w/ these people?  Don't they want to get into the trenches and do battle w/ Hatch and Graham?  Aren't they tired of rolling over and taking it for over 5 years now?  Haven't they seen W's latest poll #'s?

    The Rethugs, by their own admission, don't live in a reality-based world.  As they showed again today, they create their own reality.  The only thing that will stop them is the determined opposition of the nominal opposition party.  Once again today, that "opposition" proved to be very nominal.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:16:50 AM PST

    •  BTW, as someone who volunteered in Ted... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wytcld, viscerality, ER Doc

      Kennedy's 1980 prez campaign, and, as someone who always believed that the cause endures and the dream will never die, I am truly embarrassed that he didn't show up today.  Today, Bruce Fein appeared to be more willing to defend the Constitution than EMK did.  I really hope that EMK was seriously ill or that he had a major commitment today that he had made months in advance.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:23:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just one correction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      epcraig

      Aren't they tired of rolling over and taking it for over 5 years now?

       

      That would be bending over...

  •  here's a letter I sent (11+ / 0-)

    to a paper who covered a rally I spoke at.  They quoted me and I thought, to a reader, I probably sounded like some Trotsky-ite.  So I wanted to do a follow up and they are printing my letter this week. Apologies for the length.  I just post it here to demonstrate that there are a LOT of people out here who see the oligarchs as traitors, and are desperate - and willing to make radical change:

    I was speaker quoted in the article you wrote about the Peace Train rally sendoff, and there was a few comments I wanted to make.  

    I hope it's not too presumptuous of me, but often when I hear someone speak, and they sound upset, or angry, or strident, I form assumptions about them.  Americans are not accustomed to hearing phrases like "class war" or "vampires" bandied about from ordinary citizens.  In fact, whenever anyone criticizes the current system of economics in our nation, they are accused of 'promoting class war" by the extreme voices on the right.  So many people assume that those who use such language are,  well, 'extremists".  Perhaps academics, or full time activists.

    So I wanted to tell you, briefly, who I am and why I am so angry.  I am the daughter of a WWII vet and the sister of a Viet Nam vet.  I was "careful" enough to be born healthy, in a white, middle class family, and as a result, perhaps, grew up with certain expectations about life in this nation.  I am a person of faith, a mother of two, a homeschooler, and the wife of a CPA who has been running a small business in Carol Stream for 15 years.

    Probably not the profile most people think of when they think "Angry Activist".  Well, I am angry.  And the language I used - the language of class - is born, not just out of anger, but pain and suffering.  My husband and I  - our entire family - are suffering greatly because of the policies promoted and defended by the Bush administration and those who support them.  I am a woman who cannot purchase health insurance, because of a pre-existing condition (medication prescribed to treat anxiety - I'm otherwise perfectly healthy) - this, after paying $1100 a month for health insurance for years.  I cannot afford to go to the dentist.  My husband has seen many of his clients lose their businesses, their homes, and their future and hope, due to outsourcing and policies that favor large, international corporations over local industry.

    There is tremendous pain and suffering out here, even in the suburbs of DuPage county.  The 'booming economy' described by our mainstream media is about as relevant to most of us as the latest (also overcovered) antics of Tom Cruise.  The economy booms only for the wealthiest - the rest of us are being left behind.

    When people like my family are losing this game, there is something wrong with the rules - because we followed them to the letter.  

    I hope you have a better picture of who I am and who many of the 'anti-war' activists are.  I also hope, sincerely, that your paper and others will report more extensively on the real story here - the plummet of the former midder class into a spiral of debt and poverty.

  •  Outing Valerie Plame was a clear act of treason (10+ / 0-)

    A smoking gun.  

    Cheney, Bush and all of these bastards only care about retaining power.

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:22:18 AM PST

  •  spineless cowards (5+ / 0-)

    the republicans LIED
    the democrats HID

    how am i supposed to support the spineless cowards of my own party...who couldnt even SHOW UP to the censure hearing....but ask me everyday to donate more and more money to help THEM stay in office

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:24:00 AM PST

    •  Democrat hiders worse than Republicans (0+ / 0-)

      a) I'm not an ardent censure supporter. I think the bill is fine. I admire Feingold for introducing it. I don't really care that much if it passes. Calling a kettle doesn't make a kettle any more of a kettle. Failing to call a kettle a kettle doesn't make it any less a kettle.

      b) If Republicans back Bush on something like this -- well, from our point of view, Bush is unambiguously breaking the law. From his supporters' point of view, he's just a well-meaning, stupid guy doing his not-so-great best to wrestle with a difficult situation. Republicans may feel they still have to support Bush because there's no guarantee we would be much better off even if he hadn't been so breathtakingly inept. But if the Democrats back Bush on this, or abstain from voting, that's really infuriating. Because, even if you could make an argument that Bush is just a bumbling, well-intentioned doofus, he IS violating the spirit and the letter of the law. He HAS already used intelligence information to try to ruin the life of a mother of beautiful baby twins. Why are our guys afraid to call a kettle a kettle?

      c) The blackmail/co-opting thing -- The question with Schumer is this: Is Bush just using WTC reconstruction funding to blackmail him and Hillary in the old-fashioned, pork barrel way, or is something more sinister going on? Do the Bush Rovies have pictures of Schumer with a horse? Of Hillary with a horse? Or what?

      •  Gotta Disagree With You There (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        epcraig, imabluemerkin, Timothy J

        No way in hell the Dems are worse than the Rethugs.  They're silent sure. But the Rethugs are DEFENDING bush and making one excuse after another for BushCo's crimes.

        Not even close.

        Bloggin' with a bar of soap and my car window IMPEACH -8.75 / -6.10

        by Alegre on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:06:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absence... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          ...is acquiescence.  At least our enemies stand to be counted.

          Surrender is treason, too.

          Some things are not for sale. Send the Republicans home in 2006.

          by The Termite on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:53:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really a reply to MSOC (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis

            Note: I'm not sure if either the Democrats or even the Republicans involved with all this are intentionally being traitors. I just think the Democrats are being horrible dunderheads, and that there's still a small possibility that the Republicans simply believe they are taking the least evil possible path through a bad situation. But I also think that it's reasonable for Mary Scott O'Connor and other folks here to use words such as "traitor" and "treason."

            On the one hand, again, maybe the Republicans involved with all this have (or believe that they have) good motives for what they've been doing.

            But from my perspective, even if you concede all kinds of points to the Bush Rovies for the sake of argument, it seems clear that the Bush Rovies have, if nothing else, shredded the U.S. military and intelligence agencies in a way that would make it difficult for us to use conventional means to repel an invasion organized by a globally warmed, starving Mexico, let alone a WMD war started by some scary future government in China or Russia.

            If the Bush Rovies are going to leave us vulnerable to an invasion by Mexico or China, even unintentionally, I don't think they or their defenders have much right to complain if we perceive that to be treason.

            •  Senator Roberts (0+ / 0-)

              if he isnt a traitor then i dont know what a traitor is.....Roberts swore to uphold the constitution but he systematicallyt spits on the constitution as he does what he has been tasked to do by his partyleaders...PROTECT BUSH at all cost..even if it costs our representative Democracy.

              "when in the course of human events..."

              "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

              by KnotIookin on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:48:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Republicans have counterbalancing obligations (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          to be loyal to the country and to their party.

          I think you could argue that in a symbolic battle such as this, in which some ambiguity exists, the Republicans have a moral right to stick up for their guy. Not because he's doing a good job, or even the right thing, but because he's just an imperfect guy who, to them, may look as if he's doing his best with a difficult job.

          But our folks have no obligation to make excuses for Bush.

          If someone like Schumer, say, knows Bush better than we do and simply feels sorry for the guy, fine, but why not get up and say something like, "I think he means well, but he's been breaking the law in a way that could lead to really bad consequences." Why would  Bush even really object all that much if Schumer said something like that in a diplomatically phrased way?

  •  specter (11+ / 0-)
    just got off the phone with Specter's DC office.

    After getting a busy signal for an hour, I got through and was on hold for 10 minutes. Busy day down there, it seems.

    The assistant said Specter hadn't made a statement, etc.

    I said to tell him I wanted him to support censure. The president broke the law. Since there is talk to retroactively change the law to make the president's program legal, ipso facto the president broke the law.

    The assistant interrupted and said she'd pass it on and thanked me quickly.

    humani nil a me alienum puto (I consider nothing human foreign to me) --Terence

    by astraea on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:24:07 AM PST

  •  NOT at war (4+ / 0-)

    We should not be having this debate.  The United States is NOT at war and never has been.  See some of the quotes I found for this article on my website.

    •  Even if we WERE at war (6+ / 0-)

      James Madison (an author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights) and Thomas Jefferson (an author of the Declaration of Independence) both refused to let John Adams use that excuse when he was President.

      Were the founding fathers themselves wrong? If they really intended to allow the kind of power-grab that Bush has made, then why did they oppose it in their own time? Why did they write the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions decrying the grave threat to our country, if they really supported unlimited Presidential powers in a time of war?

      Similarly, the Supreme Court refused to let Abraham Lincoln use that excuse DURING THE CIVIL WAR right here on American soil.

      What possible excuse is there now if EVEN Abraham Lincoln couldn't get away with it?

      Democracyfest July 14 - 16, 2006: The toolkit for taking back our democracy, disguised as a fun-filled weekend.

      by mataliandy on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:04:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Of course we're not in a time of war... (8+ / 0-)

    we are fast slipping into the Orwellian 1984 stylings of a "perpetual war".  Waging war on a concept rather than on the individuals has mobilized the people towards a state of constant fear of war.  It's not war in the sense that it can be won with battles.  You cannot defeat a concept.  You can deal with it, you can go after the problems that cause it, but you cannot "defeat it".  

  •  Schumer closed his office AND his phones (7+ / 0-)

    but his office and his phone will be re-opened at 2PM (I guess he thought the hearing he was HIDING from would last longer)

    I hope everyone who lives in NY calls him starting at 2PM to ask where the hell he was cause he sure wasnt at the judiciary hearing on the subject of censure

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:27:10 AM PST

  •  I agree but one note: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wytcld, epcraig, imabluemerkin

    The Constitution has been snubbed and ignored since early in the 20th century, first with Alcohol Prohibition and then with Drug Prohibition.  They used those programs to intrude into American's homes and it was executed on a bipartisan basis as a population control mechanism.  It is and was unconstitutional because it is arbitrary what plants are prohibited when other plants and chemicals are legal, such as tobacco and alcohol respectively.

    The underlying law of prohibition that allowed for the warrants was unconstitutional.  Our founding fathers warned against prohibition as a usurpation of individual's rights.

    With the FISA lawbreaking, they simply ignored a criminal statute, a law was just ignored and they didn't even bother to try to justify their unconstitutional infringement of the 4th amendment.  That is treason and a high crime against the Constitution.

    The drug war should be handled with Harm Reduction and censure of both political parties for their centralization of power efforts away from the basis of democracy:  the people.

    The FISA spying on Americans should be handled with criminal charges, including trials for treason.

  •  You've Gotta Love It When They Tip Their Hands (9+ / 0-)

    Over at Firedoglake, Christy noted:

    ROBERT TURNER, OPENING: ... And then goes on to pull a nutter and demand that the post-Vietnam Congress be censured. (RH: Ooops, well there goes that credibility question. Good selection of a witness, Arlen. snerk)

    This was one of the highpoints for me.  The smearing of John Dean (felon peddling a book) was another.

    Sure, we all know the hands their holding.  But it's these little moments of blatant over-stepping, the McCarthy Moment, the Tricky Dick Tick, that we need to freeze in amber and place on display as prime exhibits that can help those who are less attentive understand where these traitors are coming from.

    Oh, and the missing Democratic Senators?  Not traitors, perhaps.  Just AWOL.

  •  Yes, they are traitors. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Creosote, epcraig, Timothy J

    And every time I hear that the Democrats are weak or the Dems don't stand for anything (which, btw, is nonsense) it needs to be balanced with:

    but, the Republicans are traitors.

    Nicely said, MSOC.

    •  Exactly what did the Dems stand for today? (11+ / 0-)

      Only 3 of 8 showed up.  1 left early, and the other, from what I understand, didn't say anything.  

      Everything you say about the Rethugs is true, but only 2 Dems stood for much of anything today.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:43:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  heh. You're right. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Maryscott OConnor, mataliandy

        Today the Dems stand for nothing.

        Historically they stand for the common good... for civil liberties... for social and economic justice.

        But, yes, of course, obviously, today the Dems are virtually worthless.

        But, the Republicans are traitors!

        •  I remember when Ervin, Rodino, et al... (7+ / 0-)

          were willing to stand up and be counted during Watergate.  Those were my formative years politically.  The contrast between what we saw then and what we see now is jarring.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:55:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What a great fucking choice.... (5+ / 0-)

          I've been living in Warsaw, Poland for the last four years and after reading the blogs and traditional media for all this time now, I'm really afraid that I am literally going (have already gone?) stark raving mad from the the choice we now have of either worthless, useless, spineless enablers and cowards OR traitors who's treasonous and fascistic behavior would probably fit right in with Hitler's supporters in the Reichstag.

          No matter how: difficult/unrealistic/utopian/unfeasable,etc.,(after today's Dem en masse no show at the hearing,I have irrevocably given up on these wussed out cretinous motherfuckers with the combined backbone of [perhaps}one really tiny microbe) an attempt at creating a viable third party might be, I say PLEASE go for it!

          Call it the "Constitution Party" if you want, a popular movement of hard working, fair minded, "live and let live" non-judgmental, non- religious fanatic, prudent, realistic, thrifty Patriots dedicated unequivocably to protecting, preserving, and defending the Constitution and our cherished human rights and liberties, because these wussies on the left side of the aisle, and (at least equally cowardly, if not more so) fascist wanabees on the right side sure ain't in any way, shape or form up to doin' the job.

  •  Thank you, Recommended, and .. (4+ / 0-)

    ... cross-posted at DU because I want as many folk as possible to see it:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com...

    "If You're pro-Bush, You're Anti-America"

  •  The Constitution Revolution (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, coolbreeze

    is what we need. Everytime we see, hear, or speak with a politician we should give them them a copy of it. Stick it in their faces so they don't "forget" their oath.

    Listen all of y'all it's a Sabotage! - Beastie Boys

    by See you out there on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:38:01 AM PST

  •  Time for letters to the editors (11+ / 0-)

    Get your letters into your local editors now. The theme: George is pretending to be king, and the Republicans of the Senate, by putting their loyalty in him rather than our Constitution, betray their oath, which is treason. Thus this is a time of unparalleled danger to America as a free democracy, and a light to this world.

    If you're the sort who visits bars or lunch counters, spread the concern. Speak quietly or loudly, as fits the scene, about your fear for our loss of essential freedoms and democratic government. As the polls show, something like half the people are already with us on these concerns, despite all the lackings of the press in reporting these dangers. So word of mouth works! A groundswell of opinion is a very real thing, and may yet save us.

  •  There are some great rants here. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sally in SF, epcraig, Cake or Death

    May I suggest that everyone who wrote them send a copy to all of the senators on the committee?  We also might send some nice words to Sen Feingold, or perhaps some flowers.  He stood up when everyone else was sitting down, and he deserves some warm fuzzies for that.

    "Silflay hraka u embleer rah!" --Bigwig

    by Reepicheep on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:40:14 AM PST

  •  TREASONOUS TRAILORS, VILE SCUM, VERMIN (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, coolbreeze

    lock step into the the history books as the worst senate(rip publican) ever. I love words - succint clear labels - I cannot believe that these Senators do not realize they are being filmed defending the saddest criminal in the history of the United States - CD's, film last forever. Being brain dead is not limited to Bu$hit.

  •  None dare call it treason (14+ / 0-)

    And yet, that is precisely what we have here.

    The Republicans are abdicating their responsibilities to the country, to the Constitution, and to the past generations of Americans who fought to ensure we remained a republic and not a monarchy, not a dictatorship.

    Ben Franklin, that wily old man, is reputed to have said in 1787 to a woman who asked him that the Constitutional Convention had created "a republic, if you can keep it." Well, we have not kept it.

    The basic mechanism of the Constitution assumes that each branch will do its duty - to itself and the system. That if the executive becomes too powerful, Congress and to a lesser extent the Courts will step in and rein that in. You only need to read a few lines of Madison to know this. Scalia must know it, although his version of "originalism" denies it.

    The Republicans are, therefore, traitors. They are putting loyalty to a tyrant above their loyalty and obligations to the country.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:44:00 AM PST

  •  You're... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, imabluemerkin

    ...clearly unhinged, screaching and hysterical.../FoxNews

    Tell.It.Sista!

    *IMPEACH!* But First: Censure!

    by MichaelPH on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:47:16 AM PST

  •  'Time of war' (5+ / 0-)

    sounds like a Luntzism, a way to avoid admitting that we're not at war, while pretending that we are.

    Sounds like a line from "Turn, Turn, Turn" actually. There's nothing those whores won't try to appropriate for themselves.

    •  Key point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scrutinizer, mrblifil

      Since when does the AoMF equate to a Declaration of War?

      And, against whom?

      We're already extra-constitutional here.

      That's the fallacy in the argument.  It isn't wartime.  He isn't a "Wartime President" despite wanting to be one.

      That whole meme needs to be shot down.

      Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:24:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  nicely done, Maryscott... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, coolbreeze

    Always a pleasure to read your diaries.  And thanks for pointing out the lie that we're "in a time of war"...people need to repeat that--daily.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right

    by darthstar on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:50:09 AM PST

  •  Definition of treason (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maryscott OConnor, Moli

    I agree with everyone that the President and the Congressional Republicans have broken the law and are not following the Constitution and need to be impeached / thrown out.  But I'd just like to point out, treason has a specific definition in the Constitution, Article 3, section 3:

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

    Bush and company have not, in any literal sense, levied war against the U.S. (only against everyone else), and have not given material aid or comfort to any enemy.  I'm not disagreeing with the general spirit of things here, just disagreeing with choice of words.

    •  Well, if both US corporations (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Maryscott OConnor, epcraig

      and right-wing religious groups wish to overturn constitutional government in the US-do they not constitute an enemy? Just asking.

      It is vanity to wish for a long life and to care little about leading a good life. -Thomas à Kempis, 'The Imitation of Christ'.

      by chicagochristianleft on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:05:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The context that matters is war. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scrutinizer

        If there is a truly serious breach of Constitutional government, then there will eventually be a civil war.  As long as we are able to proceed as we are now, within the confines of speech and due process of law, then NO, they are not enemies in the context that matters for treason.  I think it is incredibly important for the legitimacy of are argument that we acknowledge this.

        •  I appreciate your thoughtful (8+ / 0-)

          argument regarding this...but isn't it in fact the case that we have had a 'truly serious breach' by means of the president knowingly ordering the breaking of US law with regard to wiretapping, knowingly giving false reasons to take US military to war, knowingly allowing his employees to reveal the identity of a CIA oeprative (or at least not turning them in to face the consequences if he founf out after the fact)...what I am saying is, I think we have had a breach of constitutional government, it's the failure of the legislative branch to hold the executive accountable that allows the government to continue-not operating under the constitution, but under the Republican party's loyalty to party over constitution. The breach has occured, it's merely the fact that the legislative branch are accomplices to the crime that keeps the wheels from coming off. For example, if I deposit money in the bank and the bank president withdraws it and puts it into his own account, then the bank auditors see it and refuse to take any action, then I go to the police and they also refuse to take any action-hasn't my money been stolen-whether or not those charged with protecting it will act to hold anyone accountable?

          It is vanity to wish for a long life and to care little about leading a good life. -Thomas à Kempis, 'The Imitation of Christ'.

          by chicagochristianleft on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:22:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You make an excellent counter-argument. (3+ / 0-)

            Let me note that in your banking scenario, you have taken care to close off every reasonable avenue of action: the bank is corrupt, the police refuse to enforce the law, this is a thoroughly lawless situation.  If the entire system is corrupted in this way, then you create the sort of situation that inspired Shays Rebellion - a situation where you don't want to make war on society, but you simply have no options to live and let alone.

            This situation has almost but not Quite reached that point yet.  Congress is afraid to act, yes.  The courts may or may not be able to respond effectively.  But I note that we here, even as we cry treason and impeach, are still talking about Constitutional means of acting.  And call me young, call me naive, call me idealistic, but I still believe that after Bush is out of office in 2008 (if he IS still in office after 2008, I will admit being completely wrong) the situation will be reparable.  If our opponents force us to start talking about UnConstitutional means of dealing with the problem, then I will regard them as having committed treason.

            Note that in saying all this, I mean to acknowledge the fact that Bush and co. ARE criminals, DO deserve to be impeached, and that the intensity and energy of this discussion is fully justified.

  •  Article III, Section 3 of US Constitution (3+ / 0-)

    "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    "The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood or Forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

    George W. Bush is an Enemy of the United States, of the Constitution, and of the American People. Thus, those who adhere to him and give him Aid and Comfort are guilty of Treason, as there are many here who have witnessed these Acts.

    However, notice the unique position we find ourselves in. The Congress shall have the power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but a majority in Congress are themselves guilty of Treason. How can we depend on them to determine the Punishment for themselves?

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:52:10 AM PST

  •  Has anyone contacted the absent Dems? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, The Termite, Truza

    We should be given an explanation as to why the opposition was left barely represented today.

    I'm calling Durbin. 202-224-2152.

    "I know it's hard to defend an unpopular policy every once in a while . . ." -- FZ

    by BobzCat on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:52:37 AM PST

  •  All that matters (10+ / 0-)

    is that they force themselves into power while we sniff each other's butts for purity. Jeb! and the SCOTUS killed the Constitution five years ago. We whined and sniffed. All else follows from there. The direct line from Florida 2000 to 9/11 is so obvious that future historians will consider our refusal to see it a fascinating anthropological puzzle. Here and now, there is no puzzle. Obscenely rich criminals forced themselves into power and immediately began to reshape the world according to their beliefs. They will not stop. If you think they will risk letting the riff raff vote them out when they have the option of guaranteeing continued power, then you are a chump. You are the worst kind of chump, who backs up the criminals by pretending they represent something legitimate. The 2000 election was a coup d'etat. It was not an unfortunate series of system failures. It was a brute force self imposition of criminals. 9/11 was not an unfortunate series of system failures. Niether was Iraq or the aftermath of Katrina. There is no good and acceptable way out of this. It's going to be rough and some of us besides soldiers and hurricane victims are going to get hurt.
    Vote Quimby

    "Live free or take it up the ass every day for the rest of your life." - Gen. John Stark, patriot

    by paraphrase on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:53:37 AM PST

    •  Vote Quimby? How can I vote anything (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Maryscott OConnor

      when these same "rich criminals" have installed Diebold fraud machines to change my vote "against" to a vote "for?"  I agree fully with you.  We are in for a world of hurt that hasn't hit us quite yet, but it sure is on the way.

      •  If 2006 brings fraud, that will be it. Nothing (0+ / 0-)

        will stop the wrath of the American people.

        •  Nah (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          scrutinizer, Southern Son

          Even kossacks will rationalize it because the alternative requires disobedience and invites condemnation.

          "Live free or take it up the ass every day for the rest of your life." - Gen. John Stark, patriot

          by paraphrase on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:33:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So condemn me. But, first, they have to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            paraphrase

            spend a lot of resources surveilling me, catching me, arresting me, booking me, trying me, imprisoning me.

            If everybody else here does the same, they can't do a thing to stop us.

            It's like everyone in town turning on their air conditioners all at once.  It'll trip all the circuit breakers.  Blackout for Bushtown.

        •  2000 and 2004 brought fraud and NOTHING (0+ / 0-)

          happened because there was no coverage in the msm.  NOTHING HAPPENED because KKKarl Rove knows how to control the masses.  Tell them "exit polls don't matter - only the vote count matters" which is Stalin-speak for "it doesn't matter how they vote, it's how the vote is counted that matters."  Then, change the subject immediately in the msm.  The talking points become "sore losers" and "traitors for not supporting our president" etc.  or gay marriage, or Terri Schiavo, or Natalie Holloway or illegal aliens or the war on Christians or Christmas depending on the time of year.  KKKarl's gotta million of 'em and the masses just move along, there's nothing to see here.  2006 will be handled just like 2004, Diebold will see to it that the count is pro-Rethug and Rove will see to it that the msm changes the subject and the Rethugs continue to fill their coffers with our gold and spill our childrens' blood for their oil.

    •  As someone who had a front row seat... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kimberley, Creosote, epcraig, Southern Son

      in 2000, I agree entirely.  Something broke then, and it has yet to be repaired.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:58:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Indeed the Republicans already..... (6+ / 0-)

    ...have their mind(s) set in stone that the unitary executive trumps all.  They would likely argue to the contrary of the unitary executive were a Democrat in the executive office.  They know that they are in deep, hot water and that if they don’t stick together they will suffer legal and political losses.  These facts MUST BE hammered home as much as possible.  The administration has these terrible habits of changing the subject and creating little emergencies in order to snap people to attention and this must not be allowed to go unanswered.  

    This morning, many of us listened to a bucket load of testimony from the Republican committee members when they were supposed to question the panel members.  Why do you suppose that is?  They are the rubberstamp of this administration and are incapable of providing meaningful oversight.

    Shredding the Constitution IS NOT even comparable to the executive getting a BJ; look where Republicans stood on that issue only a few years ago.  At least they guy holding the office when that happened was proactively going after terrorists.

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:53:48 AM PST

  •  Don't forget (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patricia Taylor, epcraig

    This was Nader's fault for warning you about it.

  •  The Democrats are the TRAITORS (4+ / 0-)

    Republicans are the Germans.

    I think that's pretty f'ing obvious.

  •  Uh.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig

    This is what Nader was trying to tell you.

    I believe he was called ... a traitor.

  •  Now people are seeing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicagochristianleft, epcraig

    It took so long. Maybe, too long.

  •  You are of course correct but (9+ / 0-)

    this is not new.  From the time that Reagan campaign sent his people to negotiate with Iran behind Carter's back its been pretty much all Treason and criminality from the Republican Party.  

    Thanks for the diary though, because it just can't be said too much.  

    Geonomist - Charge for privileges; abolish taxes on production.

    by Geonomist on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 09:59:17 AM PST

    •  Actually, it started w/ Nixon's people... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      undercutting LBJ's negotiations in Vietnam in 1968.  Using Anna Cheannault as a go-between, Mitchell told the Thieu govt that they'd get better terms under Nixon if they kept holding out.  Thieu held out, LBJ couldn't get a breakthrough in the Paris negotiations, Nixon got elected, and the war dragged on 4 more years and extended into Cambodia.  The deal Thieu got 4 years later was no better than what he could've gotten in 1968.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:50:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's only taken 6 yrs for someone else to say it? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boorad, epcraig, Southern Son, Timothy J

    the treason of dubya is unquestionable.

    he convicted himself when he said "...it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" about the constitution.

    throw the bums out in '06!

    BUSH/CHENEY '07
    IMPEACH AND IMPRISON

  •  Actually, they do not believe in democracy. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, GN1927

    While they pay lip service to it, they use it and distort it for ideological and monetary purposes that are diametrically opposed to the rights of individual citizens.

    The lies and distortions today from Sessions, Hatch, Cornyn, and Graham were dispicable examples of their fidelity to a belief in a will to power that sweeps aside any intellectual integrity and their sworn oath to the US Constitution for purely ideological purposes.

    Wolves at lambing time.

    Wolves, treacherous wolves who would kill and eat you without a blink of the eye.

    Yes, they are traitors to the nation, to the US Constitution, to us all.

    May God damn them to hell for all eternity.

  •  asdf (5+ / 0-)

    Language like "treason" should not be used in our efforts to bring sanity back to the government of our country.  
    When the radical right wing of the Republican party started using that language about those of us that are against the Iraq war all it did was show how  extreame those Republicans had become.  It din't convince any Democrats to support the Republicans, in fact that is one of the major critisisms of the Republicans, that they only "play to their base".
    What we need to do is convince traditional Republicans that Bush has abandoned their their core principles by running up the deficit, by invading peoples homes to do warrentless waretaps and by holding prisoners without trial.  Our goal should NOT be to pursue some vendetta against Republicans, that will only isolate us, we need to start winning elections by appealling to those sane Republicans to vote for a Democrat.

    •  There are no 'sane' Republicans. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      epcraig, GN1927, Karmafish

      Any American who still proudly calls him or herself a Republican is totally insane, IMHO.  Anyone who still supports those in absolute power today is in support of a monarchy, which is against everything our Constitution stands for.  Traitors!  Treason! We must stop them or America as a democracy will just be a fond memory of those of us who voted in elections pre-2000.

      •  come on (0+ / 0-)

        I understand your anger, but stop and think, slowly traditional Republicans are beginning to emerge from the fog that Rove has created, they're shaking their heads trying to clear their minds, looking around at alternatives.  If the only alternative they see is a bunch of Democrats  screaching "Traitors! Treason!" they will just be turned off and return to the Republican fold.

    •  Don't worry. (6+ / 0-)

      The Democratic leadership is nothing if not civil.

      (And look at how well it has served them.  And us.)

      Y'know, I wish someone had recommended such civility to the Republicans in '04.  When they were calling us traitors.  When they were calling us cowards.

      Perhaps if the Republicans had displayed such civility then, we wouldn't have a Constitutional crisis now, because Kerry would be president.

    •  Disagree intenstly. Sane Republicans ... (11+ / 0-)

      ...know their party has been hijacked by traitors.

      As I noted in Enough already with calling Iraq a mistake last October:

      Every one of them is wrong. Invading Iraq was no mistake. It was bloody treason. And the traitors still rule us instead of breaking rocks at Leavenworth.

      They knowingly, willingly, unhesitatingly pronounced what they knew to be lies and marginalized, denigrated and smeared contrary-minded people, manipulated real evidence, concocted fake evidence, tricked an American population traumatized, fearful and furious about terrorism and sent young men and women off to a war at the tip of a bayonet named "9/11."

      A mistake is when you hammer your thumb instead of the nail. A mistake is when you choose c) instead of d) on the SAT. A mistake is when you put too much garlic in the minestrone. Invading Iraq was no damned mistake. And calling it a mistake is more than a mere slip of the tongue. It sets a precedent. Pretty soon, everybody will be saying invading Iraq was a mistake. And in 20 years, your grandkids will be studying out of textbooks that call it a mistake.

      Instead of calling it what it really was. Sedition.

      Over and over again for three years we've had our faces rubbed in the evidence. Yet, every day, someone calls this perfidious, murderous scheme a mistake. As if invading Iraq were a foreign policy mishap. Oopsy.

      Stop it already. People do not commit treachery by mistake.

    •  There will be no warm and fuzzy 'bygones be bygon (0+ / 0-)

      Let's be clear about one thing.  If reason every prevails and the neocons are out of office, and hopefully a democratic president is in office, there should not be some big, warm, happy party with those who facilitated all that has happened in the last 8 years.  No. NO . NOOO.  In addition to reversing the many horrible things that have happened and setting forward and strong and powerful agenda, there should be an investigation into every single possible crime committed by every person associated with the adminstration including those in the legislative branch.  All who have committed a crime should be held responsible and imprisoned.  No.  There will be no warm and fuzzy, "Let bygones be bygones".  The ramifications  of their actions to our democracy, our country, and our strength have been too extreme.  The punishment must accordingly rise to the occassion.

  •  What I'm wrroying about lately (4+ / 0-)

    is the push to invade Iran. We're hearing all the same rhetoric that we heard in the lead-up to Iraq. Thing is, I have a feeling that there will be no request from Bush about whether he can invade. When the Congress gave him "permission" before Iraq, he's used that to excuse everything from the war to holding detainees to illegal spying. He considered it a blanket OK to do anything he damn well pleases.
    Treason? Impeach? Absolutely.
    Then I want them all frgomarched out of MY White House on the National News and put in the slammer - preferably Guantanamo where they will receive the same treatment as the detainees they put there.
    If Bush, Cheney, et al, aren't "enemy combatants" against this country, then who is?

    All Truth is non-partisan

    by MA Liberal on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:03:58 AM PST

  •  Very true by my measure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927

    It has been this way for decades!  It astonishes me that people do not see this as plain as day.  How anyone can trust the word of a Gooper is way beyond me.  Most Dems too, for that matter, but today I am seeing a little more integrity among the Dems.  But the Goopers should just present themselves at the nearest federal prison and start serving out their sentences for fraud, treason, and other high crimes.

  •  people have been saying this for years (0+ / 0-)

    I guess it's official now.

  •  Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden, Schumer and Durbin (6+ / 0-)

    Please stop fiddling. Rome is burning!

  •  Feingold/Leahy stood alone! (6+ / 0-)

    Against a 3 to 2 pro-Bush panel and against more Republicans.  

    (1) The name calling and character assassination of John Dean only points to a weak case for their side.

    (2)  Personally, I'm totally DISGUSTED with the Democrats that SHOULD HAVE been there.  Gutless wonders unless they were in the hospital bleeding or with a loved one bleeding.

    Now some a-hole on CSpan wants Feingold censured and compared his action to Joe McCarthy.  Sheee-it!

  •  Fully agree with this assessment (0+ / 0-)

    I was in total agreement before I even read the title; rec'd before going below the fold.

    Good job, MJOC.

    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
    Tempest even in reason's seat.

    by GreyHawk on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:18:05 AM PST

  •  OK, so we've determined that they are traitors. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole

    Now, what do we DO about it? All your thoughts are worth nothing if you don't DO something about them. So, what do we DO now that we've determined that we are surrounded by traitors? By the way, I don't just consider Bush supporting politicians to be traitors. I consider Bush rank and file to be traitors. I went to a Coulter event last week, and I got in some peoples faces and just repeated over and over again: "George W. Bush is an enemy of the United States, and those who support him are traitors." They were making noises back to me, but I couldn't hear anything they said. Traitors cannot be trusted. It does not benefit you to try to negotiate with or reason with traitors. It is time to study the art of dealing with internal enemies.

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:18:11 AM PST

  •  George W. Bush, You're Under Arrest. You too, Mr (0+ / 0-)

    Cheney.  It feels so good to say this!

    We love this country enough to have suffered as an unheard, despised opposition for a long time.  While we waited patiently, you've gravely damaged our country, our institutions, our global reputation, our finances, our cities, our military, and our Constitution.

    We gave the GOP a chance.  They betayed our trust.  No longer!  Dubya and Dick and Karl and Tom and Bob and Condi, you're all under arrest!

    We're here to let you know you're going to be tried, convicted and jailed for treason.  Nobody gets away with looting the U.S. Treasury and selling our national out to favored foreign friends of the First Family!

    We're gonna Kick You. Hard!  Then we're gonna Kick You again for thinking you could get away with it.  

  •  You could not be more right (0+ / 0-)

    if you posted for a hundred years. I have the solution to the presence of these scum hang them as they richly deserve.

    Hang them high...

    These traitorous scum deserve no less.

    "Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."

    by Nestor Makhnow on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:21:57 AM PST

  •  I had a dream (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Creosote, neroden, imabluemerkin

    No, not that dream. That was a dream - a wonderful dream that came true. I meant a nightmare, that recurring one I sometimes imagine, of those fighting Marines in that famous photo on Iwo Jima where they are raising the U.S. flag - but, in the nightmare, they are instead raising a flag with the GOP logo on it. What a nightmare is this real-life GOP. What a bunch of treasonous, blow-dried, mealy-mouthed bastard traitors.

    I'm gonna have to fire up Photoshop one of these days - that picture with the Elephant flag being raised and the caption: What's wrong with this picture?

  •  The Anne Coulter of the Left speaks. (6+ / 0-)

    Is this what we've come to?  Emulating the rhetoric, indeed the book titles, of Anne Coulter?

    Don't you get it?  The scary thing about the Republicans is that they actually believe that what they're doing is in accord with the Constitution and is good for the country.  They aren't acting in this wrongheaded fashion to aid and abet enemies of the United States (as treason is defined in the Constitution).  They are acting in this wrongheaded fashion because they are actually deluded enough to think its right.  

    Calling them traitors not only lowers the rhetoric to Coulter's level, it misidentifies the problem.

    •  Anger is easily confused with power. NT (0+ / 0-)
    •  No, they do NOT believe in their words (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      matt2525, gmhowell, blueoasis

      For them words are rhetorical devices and tools to hid their whoring ways and advance a position merely for economic gain. They are not driven by any purity of essence, but the basest alloy known to mankind, greed itself.

      Their ends justify their means, and neither do they say what they mean nor mean what they say.

      Theirs is a charade.

    •  Uh (0+ / 0-)

      "The scary thing about the Republicans is that they actually believe that what they're doing is in accord with the Constitution and is good for the country"

      I seriously doubt this.  Just the mere fact that it's all right there in black in white within the Constitution - just rec'd my "Constitution" book and have been thumbing through it.

      The Constitution lists the 1st and 4th ammendments pretty clearly.  Anyone with a 8th grade education can easily understand what it says.  I know I was able to in the 6th grade.  Now, with this in mind - the Rethugs are banking on the apathetic nature as well as willful ignorance by the general public to pull off what they've done.  

      I easily believe THAT.  They're fully aware that their very actions are indeed aiding and abetting the enemY of the US - that enemy would be Osama Bin Laden.  Strip our civil liberties, trample on the Constitution - they're playing into Bin Laden's hands.   Oh they surely know this.  They know.

      They're traitors.  I don't give a rat's ass if Coulter uses this term freely - she means nothing when compared to my idea of whats right and wrong in this country.  The Rethugs have all taken a oath of office that makes them swear to uphold the Constitution.  And they've miserable failed to do so - purposely turning their heads so that the Boy King and their fuck'd up agendas can have their way.  

      No more.  They're traitors.

      "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."- "V" in "V for Vendetta

      IMPEACH Bush

      by smugbug on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:41:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uh huh. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scrutinizer, wmtriallawyer

        The Constitution lists the 1st and 4th ammendments pretty clearly.  Anyone with a 8th grade education can easily understand what it says.

        Do you understand how ridiculous this assertion is when considered within the context of the thousands of cases attempting to construe the 1st and 4th amendments?

        The Republicans are full of people who are misguided true believers.  In fact, what makes them dangerous is their lack of self-examination and of doubt.  There surety that they are correct and others wrong.

        •  They are not misguided (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          they do not believe that what they do is being correct and the rest are wrong.

          Nope.  They know for certain exactly what they are doing.  From the time they began pushing Social Security "reform" to their current, "let's change the FISA laws so that the King can have his way!" - they know exactly what they're doing.

          They know that they and their rich crony friends are getting unbelievably wealthy.  They know that they are the majority party of the executive, legislative and judicial branches.  They no that there has NOT been any checks and balances for over five years.  They have run amok in the face of the very laws this country was based on.  

          They receive no sympathy from I.  None.  Never.

          "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."- "V" in "V for Vendetta

          IMPEACH Bush

          by smugbug on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:53:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who says Repubs deserve sympathy? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis

            Not I.

            But to cure a disease, you must diagnose it correctly.

            And when it comes to foreign policy, the root of the disease is the NeoConservative true believers who honestly, stupidly, thought that Iraq could be the first "Democratic domino" in the Middle East.  Who thought that American military power could solve any problem.  One need only read National Review's Victor Davis Hanson to see this disease in full flower.  

            •  Neocons (2+ / 0-)

              I know the Neocons Extremists have hijacked the Republican party.  The Republicans KNOW the Neocon Extremists have hijacked their party.  

              The Republicans, being the majority party of this federal government, has had five years to change the course of their party.  They have had five years to put a halt to the Neocon agenda; they also could have NOT cut Veterans benefits; passed educational cuts; pushed through cuts for social programs; they could also have NOT pushed the rancid budget bill which provided increased military spending.  

              I know exactly what the disease is.  I know where the root is.  Most people do; especially lately.  The Republicans have known all along as well.  They have done nothing to stop it.  They are as complicit as much as the Neocons.

              "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."- "V" in "V for Vendetta

              IMPEACH Bush

              by smugbug on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:34:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  CHURCH + STATE = TREASON (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, Cake or Death, blueoasis

    I expect to see this written on some highway overpasses by Monday. Get going.

  •  It's Working. So what's missing? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    epcraig, blueoasis, imabluemerkin

    Feingold is forcing Republicans to stand and defend a criminal adminstration like this country has never seen.

    Every one of those scumbags has to run for office in November. So why in the hell don't we see every Democrats name on Feingold's resolution? What about this do our elected Democrats not understand? Why are they still refusing to oppose this group of criminals occupying the WH?

    This sickens me.

  •  i agree 100%. they are all guilty (0+ / 0-)

    and should be held accountable for such blatant destruction of our country. Please check out the link. http://www.dailykos.com/...

    James M Joiner www.anaveragepatriot.com or http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

    by jmsjoin on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:35:45 AM PST

  •  This started a long time ago. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmhowell

    Around 1980 the conservatives welcomed Moon into their movement. They would have never taken control without his billions and his propaganda unit. He is the reason our nation is going hard right and theocratic. He pushed them over the top, molded their movement. He is their savior and he intends for Korea to be number one in the world - do you understand? Rank and file conservatives are the chumps in his political army and they don't see it.

    What has happened to our nation is NOT the product of the free market of ideas nor any democratic process, our nation is being subjugated, naturally... Conservative's actions may be treasonous but the majority are blind to why they are the way they are...

    From: U.S News and World Report March 27, 1989
    Rev. Moon's Rising Political Influence

    On New Year's Day, 1987, South Korean mystic Sun Myung Moon, who considers himself to be the son of God, told his Unification church followers that he wanted to expand the church's political influence in the United States. His aim, Moon said, was "the natural subjugation of the American government and population." ...

    ...the church [Unification] has established a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation, the largest of the conservative think tanks and an important source of government personnel during the Reagan administration. ...

    "Most people are afraid to address the issue because they don't want to publicize the extent of the church's involvement," says Amy Moritz of the Conservative National Center for Public Policy Research.

    Because almost all conservative organizations in Washington have some ties to the church, conservatives also fear repercussions if they expose the church's role.

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

    By the mid-1980s, Moon’s Unification Church had carved out a niche as an acceptable part of the American right. In one speech to his followers, Moon boasted that “without knowing it, even President Reagan is being guided by Father (Moon).” Yet, Moon also made clear that his longer-range goal was the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and America’s democratic form of government. “History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him.” Moon said, speaking of himself in the third person. “That is Father’s tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population.”

    Learn more..

    http://www.cellwhitman.blogspot.com/

    "Sun Myung Moon has more to do with our nation's political climate than anyone. Anyone!" - moonboots

    by moonboots on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:37:00 AM PST

  •  I called and wrote emails... (3+ / 0-)

    ...to every member of that damned committee, and my message to the Dems was STAND UP behind Russ Feingold.

    Who knew that most of them wouldn't even bother to SHOW UP.

    I am utterly appalled, sick to my stomach, that Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden, Schumer and Durbin chose to run from this fight.  They are dead to me.

    Democrats continue to stand on their own two knees.

    Some things are not for sale. Send the Republicans home in 2006.

    by The Termite on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:39:35 AM PST

    •  The Toulouse Latrec Party! (0+ / 0-)

      I will keep saying this:  If letter writing worked... all those you wrote to would have been there, and all those republicans who showed up would have been absent.

      To the streets!  Sunday at 9am.

      LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

      by letsfight on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:44:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So are the democrats! (5+ / 0-)

    Except a select group of TWO:

    Kucinich
    Feingold

    LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

    by letsfight on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:41:21 AM PST

  •  Millions will probably die (6+ / 0-)

    in a full-scale, second American Civil War.

    Every last one of them will owe their destruction to those who had their chance to be brave before a microphone today, and chose instead to hide from a 35% president and a 35% president's men.

    We're all Helens now. :)

    by cskendrick on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:41:43 AM PST

  •  WE ARE in a time of war! (2+ / 0-)

    Call it an insurgency, coup, closet rebellion, whatever - Republicans/conservatives/neoconservatives have been running an undeclared war on the Constitution for some time now, with the press' complicity.  The White House's attempt to create a permanent state of war and to gather to itself more and more power is simply another extension of this war.

    Yes, they are all traitors.  They undermine this country far more, and far more dangerously, dangerously than any hypothetical bearded, turbaned fanatics with a rental truck, fertilizer and fuel oil ever could.

  •  So does that make me a former traitor? (4+ / 0-)

    Yes, I was once a member of the other party.  I quit after making a decision not to act as an apologist for leaders with abysmal integrity, and who were making decisions that aren't in line with what's best for America.

    We need to be very careful wtih the words we use.  Calling someone a "traitor" erects a wall between you and that person which bars all further discourse, and loses you the chance to win them to your side.  I wouldn't call it McCarthyism, (again, watch the wording) but possibly Coulterism.

  •  A question for anyone. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Adistius

    What else could the activity of forcefully overthrowing our legitimate form of government (replacing a democracy with a unitary executive) be called?

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:50:15 AM PST

  •  Not treason, but maybe sedition (3+ / 0-)

    In their subversion of the Constitution, the Bush Republicans are guilty of sedition. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

    They are the true subversives in today's body politic, casting aside God's laws and man's laws when those laws inconvenience them and their corporatist inner circle. With no adherence to the rule of law, no allegiance to the Constitution, these rubber-stamp cultists are dragging the country down into the mire, the bog, the cess-pool of full-speed-ahead, devil-take-the-hindmost corruption.

    It's time to clean house! It's time to fire the skipper and turn this damned boat around!

    Impeach the lot of them.

    Ed

    •  Treason is defined in the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

      I posted "War President vs the Constitution" a few days ago which concurs with MaryScott's crosspost.  Treason is the ONLY crime actually defined in the Constitution, and it takes place in the time of War....  

      It is crystal clear these United States have had a war levied against them by Bushco and the GOP Congress Critters.  By any definition, they've given extensive Aid and Comfort to our enemies by dismantling and denigrating the nation and it's government.  Where do we go from here?  

  •  lather, scrub, rinse (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cake or Death

    "Are we not a nation of laws?"

    "Rule of law, rule of law!"

    "Are the President and Vice-President above the law?"

    "What did the President and Vice-President know, and when did they know it?"

    repeat as necessary

    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 10:54:28 AM PST

  •  Grand Old Prostitutes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    ...not only are they capable of selling out their own country for the almighty buck, but they are capable of selling out their own grandmothers for the almighty dollar, because they have done it, again and again...with their prostitution to the Pharmaceutical industry, for instance. (That's just one of their "johns.")

  •  This line of thought (0+ / 0-)

    Is a part of the problem, and a far cry from the solution.

    I'd post more of my thoughts but I realize that it would be meaningless to do so. The frenzy is whipped too high and the groupthink too thick. Enjoy the great partisan divide you are trying to construct in your mind.

    Dare to be naïve. -R. Buckminster Fuller

    by Moniker on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 11:57:35 AM PST

  •  Smiling Devils (0+ / 0-)

    The pat on the back and a smiling face does not cut it, the republicans are exposed and forever marked for complicity in their deeds. They win but what did they win?

  •  well done MSOC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ellisande

    And as we all saw this week with the Kaloogian thing... the newspapers, our leaders, Republicans, etc... they read this stuff here on dKos. I hope they are reading this one and taking notes.

    Help me retire to Hawaii by age 30! Pimp my site Simple Vegetarian Recipes!

    by OrangeClouds115 on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:05:26 PM PST

  •  So Sad, So True. (0+ / 0-)

    The Rebublican sheep have succunbed to a mob mentality that has allowed basically decent people to blind themselves to the horrible acts of their elected representatives.  I find myself wondering how many of the wingnuts actually believe we are using torture, spying on American citizens without warrents, and spending the capital of the nation like water.  What disrupts a mob mentality, and how ashamed will these people be if they ever wake to the evils they have been party to?

  •  I wrote a short play (0+ / 0-)

    to try to convey how I see things working out between the two main factions in American politics. What I saw at the hearing today is exactly what I try to exemplify in my play.

    Here's the play.

    Republicans are liars.

    by tr4nqued on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:22:59 PM PST

  •  The Republican party (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pam from Calif

    is the most dangerous organization to Americans that exists today - more dangerous than any terrorist group when you consider:

    • The thousands of people who will die each year in this country for lack of health insurance
    • Their disdain for "big" government that leads to incompetent govenmental disasters - Katrina
    • Their fucking war in Iraq
    • Their environmental policies (short and long term)
    • Their war against the poor
    • Their war against women

    The Republican Party - the most dangerous organization in America.

    -------------------------------------------------

    "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." - Pynchon

    by HairOnFire on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:24:36 PM PST

    •  Incidentally, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      Calling someone a traitor or dangerous may be distasteful and impolite to some but it must be done. The Republican party must be vilified to the point where the average person is embarrassed to say they voted for a Republican.

      Right now we are at a pivotal point with Bush's popularity tanking and Republicans not knowing if they should align themselves with Bush or distance themselves from him and call themselves "true conservatives."

      Republican policies must be absolutely vilified. Otherwise some voters who have become sick of Bush will still for their local Republican.
      -----------------------------------------

      "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." - Pynchon

      by HairOnFire on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 12:33:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with that .. (0+ / 0-)

        .. imagine a day when the word Republican gets the same type of visceral reaction from the majority of Americans that we now have to the word "Communist".

        Not that it's right, mind you.

        But can I dig it .. oh yeah.

        With folks like Rove, Cheney, Delay, Cunningham, Robertson, Dobson, Rohrabacher leading the point charge it just may be {get on the Chef voice} "a happenin' thing, children!"

        "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

        by shpilk on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 04:08:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  hmm.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightiris, scrutinizer, Moniker

    Since everyone seems so willing to give their opinion, I'll throw mine out there: I'm with dspiewak2634 on this one.

    I agree with the premise, as I'm sure most everyone does, that the President has committed treason - has broken laws, repeatedly. But Maryscott said that Republicans in Congress have committed treason as well, by supporting the President. Republicans, who represent 35% of the nation, have been called traitors, and indirectly, the people that support the Congressmen have as well...

    I don't think voices like Maryscott's, who writes so angrily (in the same vein as the Republican propaganda we despise) about a large portion of the population, should be elevated so blindly. It's really annoying when unneccessary terms like 'traitor' are lodged from the opening page of Dkos; when cursing that sounds more desperate than passionate permeates the entire site - from Kos to Armando, and Maryscott - and yes, I'm guilty as well.

    Part of fixing the problem is winning over the rest of the country... the ones who disagree with us. Name-calling, cursing in what should be serious debate, and joining the likes of Ann Coulter in recycling cliche political points, really doesn't deserve such visibility on such a progressive site.

    But, what do I know.

    (...Fuck.)

    •  happy happy joy joy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, blueoasis
      please, wake up and smell the coffee. I fail to see any evidence that the Republican attacks against our Democratic representatives, presidential candidates, or ourselves has in any way hurt them at the ballot box. and you truly believe that anyone on our side who speaks their mind in an angry voice is somehow going to poison the political well against us? have you never heard the phrase "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"? personally, I see no evidence that being polite has helped the Democratic case politically at all. what will it take before you're willing to speak out? when the firing squad in front of you is about to pull the trigger?

      Kevin

      •  you missed the point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lightiris

        It's not about us sacrificing our outrage in order to win elections. It's about elevating our mode of discussion. If we really want to be any kind of alternative to the American people, we might want to start by NOT mimicking Billy O'Reilly.

        Genuine anger has a place in politics, especially in these times. But, I've noticed a trend: lately, many posts and comments by some of the Big Dkos Names have contained excessive vulgarity and this pompous elitism. I disagree with Maryscott here, while respecting hers (and your opinion). Because we disagree doesn't mean we have to call each other meaningless names or rattle off four-letter words to get our point across.

        As for winning elections, yeah, everyone goes negative. But I don't think there's anything politically realistic in calling all Republicans in Congress "traitors." I mean, what is the point? Was she expecting the whole world to turn and nod in approval?

        We need to explain why they are wrong - on domestic spying, healthcare, ad infinitum. We need to hound our Democratic offices with phone calls when they don't show up at important meetings. We need to support decent people like Feingold.

        But... We don't need to plan coups while some angry bloggers hound us on through a ringing chorus of propaganda.

        Leave that fanaticism to the GOP.

        •  vulgarity and name-calling (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, shpilk

          I was thinking about calling the new CEO of ExxonMobil a "jackass" in something I'll post tomorrow.

          Is that ok?


          fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

          by Page van der Linden on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 02:37:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  missed it? (0+ / 0-)
          I don't believe we can live in a cacoon of civility and expect to have the public throw roses at us in their loving adoration. You'll see no four letter words or venom in my posts, but that doesn't mean they don't have their place. All I want is to see a lie called a lie. To see a lie countered by the truth. To see this done with force and emotion would be a plus from my viewpoint. MSOC is a blogger, not some subversive agent. She has a right to come to DKos and vent some steam! Why would her choice of swear words make any difference? Besides, what else would you call someone who goes about undermining the constitution besides "traitor"? Arguing that most of them are just misguided doesn't excuse them. They're still traitors. Treasonous is debateable. Traitorous is a dead-bang fact. And, hey, if the GoOPer public has a taste for the authoritarian things in life shouldn't we encourage them to move to Uzbekistan? </snark>

          the Repugs have rendered civil discourse obsolete

          Kevin

  •  Lets see how one president defined patriotism: (0+ / 0-)

    "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

    -Theodore Roosevelt

  •  Sending American military personnel (0+ / 0-)

    to their deaths for a war sold to the house and senate and the American people, via the use of false information for the dual purposes of vendetta and corporate gain is TREASON. I hold this administration responsible for the deaths of each and every American soldier that has died, and for the horrid injuries suffered by those who did not. This war was more than a mistake - it was an engineered act of TREASON.

    "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightening..." Frederick Douglass

    by WISCONSIDINK on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:16:57 PM PST

  •  hmmm... I felt the need to comment again. (0+ / 0-)

    Because there's this other diary, but I like this diary, and I like Maryscott.  I like the frank expression--sometimes explicit, sometimes wonderfully explicit--expression of her ideas, and I like her attitude style wit and if I ever met her in public I would no doubt approve of her general deportment and lightness of being.

    Maryscott is refreshingly akin to Howard Dean.  That's right.  In 2002/2003 Dean said things that put him at odds with the wimpy pansy-ass "so-called middle."  And remind me, where did that get you middle grounders?  

    Are we going to deny the fact that there is wreckage strewn from one end of the USA to the other?  Bush is a pathetic ignorant half-wit, and he has been entirely enabled to inflict wholesale havoc on the world by the self-righteous hand of god arm of the GOP.  

    I can't even meet a republican nowadays without laughing in their face and calling them out -- why have you done this to our country you motherfucker?  

    No, it won't do.  Kindness, politeness, PC, that's a thing of the past.  At one time, I approved of John McCain, a republican -- I even had a copy of his autobiography and met him, where he signed the book for me.  I have since shipped the book back to him with my own signature and sentiment.  My word to him (as it is to all Republicans):

    Traitor!  

    "pulp is fiction, blogs are hope, long live electricity"

    by dash888 on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:25:50 PM PST

  •  I'm with MSOC (2+ / 0-)

    To the extent that any Republicans (or Democrats who went along), whether elected or not, were genuinely duped into believing all the lies (and I include myself among these duped Dems at least with respect to the war and WMD), no, I don't think they were or are traitors (provided that they've now admitted their having been duped, which I certainly have). Criminally stupid, ignorant, lazy, gutless, sheepish, etc., perhaps (again, myself included), but not traitorous.

    But to the extent that anyone, Republican or Democrat, elected or not, who did know, or had very good reason to know, that these were not just lies, but very serious lies that would clearly lead to very serious consequences, but who chose to go along with them anyway, be it out of party loyalty, craven opportunism, fear of ostracism or plain old cowardice, as far as I'm concerned, yes, they were and continue to be traitors, and need to be dealt with as such, if not legally, then certainly morally (via social censure and ostracism) and politically (by being elected out of office).

    To equivocate on this is not just wrong, but dangerous. These people LIED, or participated in lies, that have caused immense human not to mention financial and material damage, and which have caused tangible damage to the US's security and standing.

    You can equivocate all you want on the sheep, who literally didn't know better. But as for the knowing liars, there can be no equivocation. They lied, and are traitors for it.

    This is NOT McCarthyism, because McCarthy went after innocent as much as if not more than guilty people, and was operating primarily out of POLITICAL, not principled motives. Whereas MSOC, and people like myself, are going after only the guilty parties, and for completely principled, not political reasons (or else who would we accuse Dems as well as Repubs?).

    This is about purging our political system of people who have been knowingly and deliberately working against our interests, against the constitution, and against our democracy. THAT qualifies them as traitors, and THAT qualifies them as fit to be called out and treated as such.

    But this is NOT a bonfire of the vanities at all.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

    by kovie on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:29:44 PM PST

  •  Don't hold back, Maryscott (0+ / 0-)

    Tell us how you really feel.

    Of course, it seems to me Republicans can't really be traitors.  Because you have to be human before you can betray your country.

    And Republicans ain't humans.  They ain't our countrymen.  They are two-footed animals who have somehow managed to walk upright and make noises that occasionally approximate human discourse.  And they are a bigger threat to the American way of life than the terrorists on the other side of the world ever will be.  If by some sort of reverse rapture, every LGF, FreeRepublic and RedState poster in America got claimed by Satan and vanished from the face of the earth, I would shut my office down and go on a week long bender to celebrate.  Complete with Thai take-out. And weird polynesian cocktails with umbrellas and a lot of fruit in them. And lattes, which I normally never drink, just to rub their sorry asses in their elitism stereotypes.

    "Hit a man with a fish, and he'll have a headache for a day. Teach him to hit himself with a fish, and he'll have headaches all his life!"--Karl Rove

    by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 01:30:03 PM PST

  •  This is way out of line (5+ / 0-)

    If you're trying to parody the right, please go back to serious posts - you don't do parody well. Otherwise, please stop making daily kos sound like free republic. We don't need that kind of irrational paranoia on the left. We have plenty of perfectly rational paranoia, thankyouverymuch.

    •  dkos (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      without Maryscott then dkos doesn't involve irrational paranoia?  Is that what you're saying?

      Or are you just saying you don't like this sort of message?

    •  btw, I don't care for it either (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Exalted, blueoasis, Bill O Rights

      but I see messages like this and "worse" all the time at dkos.

      I would not call them traitors, but what... we call them "those that care not for the rule of law and the proper American tradition of same".

    •  another way to put it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades

      I don't like the title, that part of the sentiment.

      But I DO think that having a diary of that title, and then a reaction diary just as full, with the opposite title, is the BEST we can hope for... the alternate, just not saying anything compelling at all.

      Far better in politics, which is rhetorical in nature, to have both in contrabalance than neither.

      •  How about neither? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Exalted, fivefouranonymous

        I'd rather have a well-reasoned and passionate diary decrying the fact that SOME republicans are acting in ways that are not in the best interests of our country. Over-the-top language like "Republicans are Traitors" isn't contributing to a debate, and it turns a lot of people off.  Like me.  I hate what the republicans are doing to my country. I hate the over the top rhetoric they use to divide people into "us" and "them" and declare "them" the enemy of freedom. I hate the rhetoric just as much when it comes from liberals as from conservatives. I don't think we need to move toward the middle (or right) to win, but I'm positive that we need to reach out toward the middle to win, and this kind of language marks the speaker as an extremist who is unwiling to compromise, who is unable to see the world through any lens but their own, not someone who is willing to work with people they disagree with for the good of the nation.

        The truth is that some republicans may not have the best interests of our nation at heart when they make decisions. But most of them think they are doing the right thing for the future of our nation. The "us"/"them" rhetoric is a marketing strategy they are using to win elections so that they can influence the future of our country. Every time we buy into that strategy, they win.

        •  but you can have that too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          I write such things.

          Do you think they are likely to be widely read?

          Need they be?

          The thing is... it's the title... MSOCs actual position and actual statements are in fact quite well reasoned.

          •  They don't need to be widely read to be good (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lightiris

            Unfortuneatly, they do need to be widely read to be recommended. I think that's why Maryscott's diary bothered me. She is a popular poster, and writes passionately, and many of her diaries end up on the recommended list. That means that her words carry a bit more weight than the words of people who are not as widely read. When she writes in the style of a freeper and it get's recommended we all look bad.

  •  what we fail to see clearly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    is that each time the executive and the legislative parts of the government decide they have jurisdiction over INNOCENT people and may interfer and manage their lives, each innocent person loses more sovereigntry. The judicial branch just enforces what the other branches decide, from the bench.

    This surveillance issue is such a bold faced power grab, I am truely shocked more citizens aren't screaming.  But we are fooled if we think it is the Congress that is losing power, here. Anyone of Congress  might someday be President, and probably have such ambitions. Maybe they would like to have the unitary power Bush is claiming.  If we want CONGRESS to stand up for stopping this power grab,  we  have to make ourselves known loud and clear. I've written, I've called and have seen so many who have done the same, and yet STILL most of them seem to ignor constituents.   Maybe what we need is a national referendum reasserting our constitutional position of power. Maybe we need to shake out our system ,  every law that infringes on our constitutional rights. Is anyone legally savy enough to undertake a judicial review of laws like that?

  •  dumb move (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightiris, cityduck

    So now the issue should be--are the Republicans traitors? Not are they wrong, are tshey causing enormous harm to the environment, are they prolonging a hideous war? But are they treasonous because we think they're wrong. Its posts like this one that make me want to swear off politics and just go back to normal life. I won't--it's too important. But boy I find this kind of ranting discouraging, even deflating.

  •  TREASON (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pam from Calif

    ... TREASON

     title=
    ... TREASON

    ... AND MORE

    ... TREASON

  •  They're traitors (0+ / 0-)

    If you piss on the Constitution, allow elections to be compromised, allow votes in Congress to be compromised, lie to the American people and steal from them, you are a traitor.

    I agree completely. What's so sad is to actually read people HERE at kos that don't agree.

    So what hope is there?

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

    by Dunbar on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 05:59:41 PM PST

  •  I have deleted the diary I posted on MSOC. (0+ / 0-)

    Because it violated a rule on DKos not to call out a poster by name.

    But, quite frankly, I think that's a ridiculous rule.  Daily Kos is dominated by a relatively few voices.  If we can't criticize them, what kind of democratic experiment is this?

    My biggest criticism of the American political process is that it encourages cults of personality.  

    I see no reason why that should not be combatted.  

    Still, rules are rules.

    My mistake.  It's corrected.

  •  That's a lot of capital letters (0+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  When deciding whether Republicans are traitors (4+ / 0-)

    some history is in order.  

    There was an attempted coup in the US in 1933 that most Americans do not learn about in their history books.  It was mainly run by industrialists angry at Roosavelt, but its political center was definitely in the Republican Party.  The coup collapsed when they made the mistake of selecting General Smedly Butler to execute the coup.  Butler was a real patriot and blew the whistle on the whole thing.  Congress held whitewash hearings(still secret)and swept the whole thing under the rug.  I would bet you a large amount of money that the names of the coup organizers would be quite familiar to most Americans and that they would not be names associated with Democrats.

    That great Right Winger Henry Ford managed to keep on trading with the Nazi's almost through to the end of WWII.  He was not alone in pulling off such a stunt.  The Wehrmact drew some of its strength (a small fraction) from American industry.  Similar arrangements were made with the Japanese through the Russians.  Amazing how those commies came in handy when it came to makeing a buck.  More Americans surely died because of this trade with the enemy.

    When campaigning for president, Richard Nixon secretly negotiated with the North Vietnamese, in effect derailing Johnson's efforts to end the war in 1968.  Nixon promised the Vietnamese a better deal if they would hold off on any deal until he became President as the peace negotiations foundered.  Nixon was lying to the Vietnamese (as ususal).  Recently released documents make clear that upon coming into office the Nixon administration knew the war was unwinnable but prosecuted it another four years anyway.  The result was about another 25,000 dead Americans, 100,000 wounded and several million (who the hell really knows?) dead indo-chinese of several ethnic groups.

    When Ronald Reagan was campaigning for president he also secretly negotiated with the Iranians behind President Carter's back, asking them to not release the hostages, held for more than a year, until after the election.  If elected he promised to sell them arms and to provide them other assistance.  This was the beginning of the Iran/contra affair which was actually a sprawling illegal enterprise of arms sales, mass murder in Central America, and US Government sponsored drug running, to say nothing of the rank money corruption of the whole thing.  We may never know all that happened in this sick episode of American history because of Bush I's timely pardons of numerous soon-to-be felons, including himself.

    Republican operatives invested $10's of millions in smearing Clinton, a duly elected sitting president, causing the nation great harm in ways numerous and difficult to calculate.  The impeachment madness cause our country to be a laughing stock around the world.  (It also had the effect of turning me into a hard-core partisan.)  

    Most Islamic terrorism is funded by Saudi Arabia.  The Bush's are famous sweethearts with the royal family.  One of the Bin Laden's even bailed Shrub out of one of his numerous business failures......kind a political futures investment.  Bush I still receives daily Presidential classified briefings which he uses to help with his investments in the Carlyle group, one of the biggest war profiteers of the current war and a profiteer which is largely Arab owned.  There is a pretty clear, although loose, set of connections of the Bush's (and associates) directly making huge profits off of this war, while funding indirectly the Madrass terrorist training schools.  The circle of money pretty much guarantees a permanent state of war.  Ordinary, mostly poor, Americans are being recruited to spill their blood and body parts into the desert sand to keep this wonderful money machine rolling.

    Bush II has declared himself publicly to be a criminal and has declared that the constitution does not apply to him because he is a "War President".  He has essentially declared himself to be a dictator, although his language is not quite so explicit, that is definitely the real meaning of his recent pronouncements.  

    Maybe these acts are not treason.  What would you call them?  

    My personal belief is that the way that Republicans have been throwing the treason charge around so promiscuously is simply their way of letting us know something about themselves.  

    It is definitely not civil to make such accusations lightly but I, for one, knowing the history of our country, find it quite tiresome to hear myself accused of treason because I disagree with policy, even war policy.  

    Geonomist - Charge for privileges; abolish taxes on production.

    by Geonomist on Fri Mar 31, 2006 at 08:56:27 PM PST

  •  A usual suspect (0+ / 0-)

    Where were Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden, Schumer and Durbin? ABSENT.

    What's with that dick, Durbin anyway?

    He must have stayed home crying.

  •  I SAID, THAT'S A LOT OF CAPITAL LETTERS!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  You are far too kind . . . (0+ / 0-)

    The correct level of indignance should start with crimes against humanity. They support torture and a system of warrantless searches, free of court review, carried out by mercenaries, paramilitaries, death squads, and paid intelligence branch soldiers indistingushable from them, other than they lack the experience and time-in-grade for large-scale atrocities. English knights who could barely read created the Magna Carta under far less provocation, and crowed about it for hundreds of years.

  •  Unfair to lump all Pubs together (0+ / 0-)

    To establish myself here - I am a liberal Democrat who has never voted for a Republican in my life.

    That said - I really do think he Republican party has been hijacked by a cabal of Royalists who use the term 'neocon' to disguise their actual goal to destroy the Democratic system. Even a former Reagan cabinet member in Friday's senate hearing spoke in the harshest terms about the way Bush is trying to assume Royalist powers.

    I truly believe there are some Pubs who believe in Democracy - but like most Dems - they are afraid to speak out for whatever reason.

    I have no idea how many Pubs now in Congress are genuine Bush Royalists and how many aren't - but the willingness of the Royalists to throw their weight around has most definately intimidated everybody else no matter what they believe or THINK they believe in.

  •  Exactly. Now let's add 'Cowards': (0+ / 0-)

    Kennedy, Feinstein, Biden, Schumer and Durbin.

    When prominent Dems won't stand for something, they stand for nothing: Bush Lite. That won't inspire anyone.

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    More fun than talkin' about Anne Counter's giant Adam's Apple ! [Cue Austin Powers] "It's a MAN, baby!"

    by Cenobyte on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 05:55:14 AM PST

  •  Yes, it's Treason, and more (0+ / 0-)
    I am a life-long independent and I seriously doubt that will ever change, for reasons that become more obvious by the day. As my mother once said: the Nazis were a political party, before they attained absolute power and started gassing Jews.

    Having said that, let me say that the republicans'  behavior during that hearing was not only treasonous, in the broadest sense of the word, it was shameful and childish. Cornyn, during his little oratory at the opening of the hearings took cheap shots at John Dean and then vansihed. He did not even stay for the testimony. Seems he only stayed around long enough to spew bile all over the hearing room. Now, that is really dignified and senatorial, eh?

    Then there was Lindsey Graham, who spewed quite a bit of bile himself. At least he stayed around long enough to hear testimony, even though it seems that he was more intersted in retrying John Dean and Richard Nixon than in anything that is going on today. He was right about one thing. Watergate and our current national nightmare are not the same. This is far worse than Watergate. As usual he was also interested in showing off his prosecutor skills, talking about legal cases that most Americans have no clue about. It is the kind of speechifying, in the form of questioning that tends to make my eyes glaze over. The fact that he is a lawyer and was once a JAG lawyer sure the hell doesn't impress me! (and what is it with all that vigirous rocking he does in his chair? He looks like a schizophrenic who has had a little to much thorazine.)

    Old Arlen sure has a pickle up his butt about Feingold leaving the Senate floor before he could debate him on the call for a resolution of censure. He is like a child telling everyone who will listen, again and aagain, that Russ wouldn't play with him. God these people make me sick!

    Also nauseating was the lack of democratic representation at the hearing.  

    The Republicans love to say that Russ Feingold is playing politics with censure. They are right!

    The Democrats have decided that it is bad strategy to talk about censure, impeachment or accountability, period. Maybe it is. I don't really know.

    Politics and politicians get on my damn nerves for just this kind of thinking.

    Nothing is about principles anymore. Nothing is about doing the right thing anymore. It is all about winning and losing, at any cost.

    Is this what we have come to as a people? Is the body politic as corrupt and sociopathic as its elected officials?

    I say a pox on both of their houses and God Bless Russ Feingold. When America lies in ruins, at least we can say that there was one American who stood up for this nation and its constitution and its people, time and time again, since 9/11.

    Of course there have been others, in the House. Noteworthy, too, is that they are mostly African American. Thank God for the Civil Rights movement or we would have even fewer real, decent  Americans in D.C.

    Sometimes I think that we should simply declare Washington D.C. an  open air mental institution for the criminally insane and put it under lock-down.

    I

    Read the Declaration of Independence, if it has been awhile since you've read it.

    by TDW on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 05:52:53 AM PDT

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, Devin, Deep Dark, wozzle, Alumbrados, shari, paradox, Manix, stevelu, vicki, Go Vegetarian, Marek, pb, Nathan in MD, ssmt, Peanut, nolalily, taylormattd, eugene, matt n nyc, Sally in SF, skyesNYC, vivacia, Forbes, Kelk, debcoop, ogre, teacherken, MrHinkyDink, bupkis, chassler, gogol, Hornito, moon in the house of moe, lrhoke, Delaware Dem, asimbagirl, ubikkibu, Raybin, tiggers thotful spot, Roland X, MarkC, Ramar, TrueBlueMajority, FaithAndReason, AdmiralNaismith, zed, saraswati, kainah, Paul Rosenberg, wytcld, Winger, jjc4jre, RickWn, Jacque, Lahdee, lebowski, littlesky, Shockwave, Jambro, crone, donna in evanston, SanJoseLady, meg, Jank2112, Tom P, genethefiend, DCDemocrat, shayera, Vico, rhubarb, nimc, etatauri, frsbdg, slick riddles, qw3rty, Pompatus, polecat, jsmdlawyer, lobezno, Disgusted, chicagochristianleft, lostian1, HarveyMilk, lawnorder, dash888, enthusiast, caliberal, Bryce in Seattle, Luam, lilorphant, RFK Lives, voltayre, Carnacki, zic, grndrush, watou, mataliandy, Jerome a Paris, bostonjay, bookbear, doorguy, zeitshabba, mbguenth, memberofthejury, Soy Lechithin, Dumbo, RubDMC, maggiemae, eyeswideopen, vinifera, jpiterak, Disgusted in St Louis, concernedamerican, Xeno of Elia, Joe Sixpack, conchita, chenico, sponson, alysheba, macdust, wonkydonkey, baba durag, bonddad, amsterdam, SamSinister, guyute16, annrose, nyceve, understandinglife, bedobe, nolajazz, jerseyjoew, HippyWitch, ask, metal prophet, buckeyekarl, phillies, Patricia Taylor, ZanderOC, phild1976, mrblifil, SherAn, luaptifer, AndyT, roses, The Ice Cream Man, murphsurf, cognitive dissonance, tmc, Dick Woodcock, Fe, Achlis, dchill, ornerydad, jjhalpin, Spindizzy, matt2525, fumie, jhklawyer, Cedwyn, high uintas, Alna Dem, CocoaLove, Boorad, emmeke, aitchdee, Eddie C, Tomtech, mayan, WeatherDem, Moody Loner, Ryvr, milofischi, Magatsu, tr4nqued, sockpuppet, Revel, NewDirection, Dallasdoc, Tracker, crkrjx, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, Chamonix, KevinEarlLynch, darylt, StuartZ, gmb, Timoteo, Noodles, kdrivel, kenjib, TXsharon, pilotweed, epcraig, baxxor, homo neurotic, weeping for brunnhilde, Black Maned Pensator, jamfan, GN1927, Oy the Billybumbler, nika7k, renaissance grrrl, dnn, rockhound, DriftawayNH, socal, lecsmith, horsewithnoname, RenaRF, welshvalleymaid, Dood Abides, Pohjola, lubarsh, LayedBackGuy, TheJohnny, walkshills, Oaktown Girl, JayBat, Noisy Democrat, parkslopper50, mattes, zappini, Eckhart1234, advisorjim, Hillbilly Dem, OrangeClouds115, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Deward Hastings, Steven D, jcrit, DarkSyde, bablhous, rebirtha, rickeagle, kd texan, Schwede, realalaskan, rockmoonwater, rmdewey, bibble, Timroff, califdweller, Shapeshifter, Dave Brown, colinm, Sol Fed Joe, rapala, SteveK, MichDeb, leolabeth, nehark, Skennet Boch, Los Diablo, chumley, lcs, cantwait08, Bluesee, saodl, 3goldens, deano, Treg, Rick Oliver, See you out there, el dorado gal, Alegre, LisaZ, OpherGopher, PBen, wizardkitten, corvo, KnotIookin, Luetta, Newton Snookers, clammyc, Valtin, myeye, stitchmd, 5oclockshadow, amRadioHed, Brooke In Seattle, KiaRioGrl79, dj angst, Ranting Roland, anonymousredvest18, Jared Lash, Bouwerie Boy, Sophie Blue, eru, billybush, Bill White, curtadams, mojo workin, majcmb1, Stem The Evil Tide, Pam from Calif, Karmafish, Mr X, sassy texan, uato carabau, jimreyn, perky mcjuggs, thered1, dunderhead, GreyHawk, Gegner, Kayakbiker, annefrank, Little Lulu, Phil S 33, rpm5250, libbie, abbeysbooks, simultaneous contrast, ord avg guy, leonikolayevich, RElland, RickE, PrairieCorrespondent, Habanero, DblTrbl4Me, bayside, shergald, Cannabis, Zergle, neroden, Pitin, Silence is Complicity, NHabroad, Cory Bantic, trojanrabbit, Ghost of Frank Zappa, Spathiphyllum, proudprogressiveCA, Neoprag, jay23, Reality Bites Back, OnlyZuul, Cantinflas, berko, geminiartist71, Cletus from Canuckistan, taracar, Bushkills, LeftOverAmerica, noblindeye, kovie, JosephAZ, keefer55, trashablanca, PoppyRocks, Robert M, bee tzu, tarheelblue, tommymet, PatsBard, ama, Kingsmeg, Opakapaka, BlueInARedState, Russgirl, CommiePinkoScum, Truza, buhdydharma, Catesby, SGT MAJOR MYERS, rhetoricus, a gnostic, Wary, chainsaw mary, PlanetTreasures, blueoasis, DeweyCounts, TalkieToaster, birdbrain64, wild hair, Lashe, Eupraxsophist, NOLA Native, imabluemerkin, condoleaser, Arjunas Bow, Xerxes, Preston S, Wbythebay, ER Doc, Freiheit, Balzac, Timothy J, Blue in VA, BB10, numinus, fiddlingnero, SwimmertoFreedom06, rhatermike, wiscow, PhilW, JZinMa

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site