READER COMMENTS ON
"'FOOLED AGAIN' Author Responds to Fooled Again Critics"
(33 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 11/22/2005 @ 3:56 pm PT...
As W said, "fool me once .... ah fool me twice ... ah ... fool me ... ah ... I am fooled ..."
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 11/22/2005 @ 4:10 pm PT...
If we believe the W story that "they had the same 'intelligence' as I did" then we have been fooled again.
"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter. "
Raw Story has a report that the president is telling A LIE (link here).
I wish we could put this neoCon low life in prison but we can't touch the president in that sense. He can't be indicted or put in prison by a prosecutor on a grand jury.
The neoCon and neoConvict folk in the white house, other than the president, can be indicted.
Since congress will not impeach any of them, some prosecutor needs to step up.
Screw the president, he can't even find his way out of a room without help.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 11/22/2005 @ 5:01 pm PT...
I don't think that Congress alone has the authority to remove the President. The Constitution says that Congress may remove the President, I don't think it says that only Congress can.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 11/22/2005 @ 5:03 pm PT...
I think our job is to persuade as many people as possible to read "Fooled Again." Maybe give it out as a Christmas present, with a Santa Claus tag attached reading, "Democracy is the greatest gift I can give you this year."
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 11/22/2005 @ 5:34 pm PT...
Truly the gift that keeps on giving...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
jIMcIRILE
said on 11/22/2005 @ 6:06 pm PT...
I recently ordered Fooled Again (and Bob Mills' book, too!) from Amazon. I've already sent copies of the Fitrakis/Wasserman book and the Conyers book "What Went Wrong in Ohio" to several big newspaper and magazine editors and PAC leaders such as PFAW's Ralph Neas.
(Sound of crickets chirping.)
It's all so frustrating. So many people willingly keep their heads in the sand, because they simply cannot allow themselves to believe just how Rethuglicans will stoop. So while I applaud continued efforts to keep hammering away on this (and I do so,) the critics are making one fucking damn good point: why on earth should they give a rat's ass if John Kerry and Al Gore do not?
Now I absolve Gore in this one. He DID fight. He simply threw in the towel in a noble (although ultimately misguided and tragic) attempt at unifying America. Little did he know just how quickly the neocons would roll out their fascism and world domination scheme (although he *should* have--he did spend 8 years watching the maniacs attack Bill.)
Kerry, of course, gets no such free pass. He is exactly the one who should have thrown down on November third, called a press conference and said, "What the fuck just happened here? This is bullshit! I DEMAND A HAND RECOUNT!"
Here's the truth, guys: the media is owned by big republican-controlled corporations. As reported by none other than the Vice President himself ("Commander in Chief"'s Peter Coyote,) there is a blackout on this issue. Any attempts by reporters or even editors to voice this issue are quashed.
I have reached one inescapable conclusion. As much as we are all doing a very good job making a stink about things, we need a goddamn politician to champion this. And it needs to be a seantor.
I believe that person is Barbara Boxer.
As you all know, Boxer was the only senator to throw down against the stolen election.
Recently I e-mailed Brad, along with Brett from VR and Justice Through Music, and the Black Box Voting crew. My idea is this: WE, the internet community, launch a petition. The goal: get Senator Boxer on board to champion election reform. And I'm not just talking supporting the intentionally stalled HR 550 or Kerry's flaccid, too-little-too-late, doomed "Count Every Vote" proposal. I'm talking urging her to get up and speak out on the Senate floor on election fraud being the biggest threat facing America and thus the world. I'm talking MAKE A FUCKING STINK and force the media to give this issue ink!
Senator Boxer is big on petitions. Her PAC sends them out all the time, in the silly and naive belief Republicans can be swayed by them. So let's turn the tables. Let her know where WE stand.
I believe that by cross-posting this petition on all the blogs the aforementioned folks have access to--Brad Blog, Black Box Voting, Huff Po, Justice Through Music, VR--not to mention the VR mailing list and anyone else we can get to come aboard--we can get a shitload of signatures in a hurry. 25,000 signatures DEMANDING she address this issue should turn Senator Boxer's head in a big way.
And yet I haven't heard back from anybody. What's up with that?
Guys, I think it's time to BRING it. I am sick of screaming at the MSM and the dems, waiting for them to do their jobs. I say: Target: BOXER.
WHO's WITH ME?
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 11/22/2005 @ 6:54 pm PT...
Won't Get Fooled Again? This was recorded by THE WHO back when... 2 comments Mark Miller gave an excellent response to the Bushit style journalistic review given his book. Manjoo stands for "the sheep" waiting for the good word from "a wolf" before he believes "the wolves" could be responsible for the decrease in their herd numbers. On the other hand, Hertsgaard uses whats become the Bushit stock propaganda American mindfck standard. Write an article or report a story, (in this case give a book review) and provide 2 opposing viewpoints BUT do not lead the reader/listener to the real truth. Mask, distort, and dismiss the real facts. The underlining meaning of this story then becomes a NON-ISSUE. As much as i would like to put all these cheating lying murderers in a ring and box their heads off, i would like a piece of these poser loser hale the furor sellouts that have confused, mislead, and effectively misrepresented the most important issues facing Americans. These bastards deserve full credit for acting as a malignant cancer on our Democracy and whitewashing the Bushit Fascist regime as a pro choice government of the FREE.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 11/22/2005 @ 7:08 pm PT...
epppie #3
Give me some authority, other than your own "I think", and I will consider it.
I am in accord with current legal thinking ... legal scholars. But I never cut off or denigrate counter intelligence without hearing them out.
So, you are either wrong or you have some insight I need to hear.
So share it with us.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 11/22/2005 @ 7:51 pm PT...
Dredd (and epppie)... here's the text from the Constitution
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
"sole" .. meaning only Congress can impeach..
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 11/22/2005 @ 9:02 pm PT...
Na, no fraud that put Bush over in 2004... no swing states had any "real" issues, nothing other than those Silly Dems trying to register a few dead people..
Oh.. wait.. a swing state with 150% voter restistration, and the normally "democratic" vote ends up being "republican" by a hair.. yeah, had to be the Dems cheating, they just must not have cheated enough..
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 11/22/2005 @ 9:13 pm PT...
Savanster, impeachment is not the only reason for removing a President.
"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."
It seems to me that it's really not like the Constitution to set up dead ends, which would be the situation if a President should be removed from office but Congress is not willing to do it.
Dredd, I am satisfied with my own authority. I do not need to appeal to the authority of others. It's fine with me if you are uninterested in what I suggest if I do not have an authority to cite, other than myself.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 11/22/2005 @ 9:16 pm PT...
Ohio had 150 % registration?
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Soul Rebel
said on 11/22/2005 @ 9:30 pm PT...
#6, I e-mailed and called my lame-ass senators the day before Boxer and Steph tubbs-Jones made their plea to the Senate (remember 2000 - can I please have a Senator? There is no Senator. Yeah, well fuck the Senate, we were robbed)...errr, where was I? Oh yeah, my lame-ass Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, I told them they had better back Boxer if they wanted my vote. I don't care what else they voted for that was positive, BOTH of them have voted to keep funding this war, and anyway, I won't vote for either of them in 2006/2008. We've got a challenger for Cantwell up here in Mark Wilson (who has run as a Green before), and he has the right ideas (see his website www.votemark.org).
Anyway, I've listened to Fitrakis and Miller firsthand, got my books signed, and I have been following FreePress.org for a long time, plus read Miller's previous books. I'm convinced. Shit, there isn't even any mention on the vote-critics criticism of all of the crap that led up to this that was originally documented by Greg Palast (I was convinced back then that the elction was stolen) , and the OBVIOUS theft of the Cleland election in 2002 (which OF COURSE, the Democrats did not challenge - it was Georgia's first electronic voting election and there was something like a 20-point swing from the week previous polling to election day. Oh I forgot, all of a sudden, polling is entirely fallible and I'm sure they only polled Democrats.)
So, anyway, you're right, the only Senator with the guts to blast the cannons in the right direction is Barbara Boxer, and not only should we do whatever we can to back her in this fight for election reform, we need to get her to make a serious run at the presidency. Boxer and who? Feingold? Bernie Sanders - God I would love that! Jon Stewart? Fuck Hillary Clinton, Boxer is the shiznit.
I listened to Miller in the front row give his account of the Kerry story, and you know, you don't make that kind of shit up. He was totally sincere and a great speaker. So even though Kerry has been kind-of standing up against this admin more than he had been, he still rolled over like a dog doing tricks after the election and he COULD have done someting about it.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Soul Rebel
said on 11/22/2005 @ 9:36 pm PT...
..and one more thing. Just like Brad said, the Hertzgaard review was lame as shit, and the Manjoo article was just long. As if it was OK, in the face of all of the evidence (and there's sooo much more than Manjoo cited) it was detrimental to be REALLY FUCKING PISSED OFF!!!!
Man, people need to get pissed, and right quick, or Miller is right - the '06 and '08 will get snatched just as handily.
Now is the time.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 11/22/2005 @ 9:51 pm PT...
Epppie, I think the point is, other than the quote I posted, the Constitution doesn't allow for "removing the president'.. the bit you quoted just says that if for some reason he -is- gone, the the VP takes over.. blah blah.. setting up the chain of command.
I've not seen anything else (that comes to mind) that allows for the removal of the President... short of perhaps a revolt.. Maybe a special election, but I've not seen anything in the Constitution for that, and never heard of any laws about it (regarding the President).
Dredd's point is, just because you "would like to" doesn't mean we have a current "leagal way" to, other than impeachment, which is the sole pervue of Congress.. Does that make sense? With no "legal" way to do it, wanting it is irrelavant.. under the premise of "legally doing it", we need to toss out all the Repugs in 2006 and get a 2/3s majority of Congress with a spine (just being Dems won't do it, there are plenty that are towing the company lines)..
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
Soul Rebel
said on 11/22/2005 @ 10:17 pm PT...
I was talking to a like-minded co-worker today about corporate influence and power (building on Savantster's comment about Dems toeing the part line) and he said, "Y'know, as soon as his shitty policies start affecting their bottom lines, he's gone, they'll bring him down." Cuz that's what it's all about - the bottom line.
So how long until his failed economic policies really start affecting the corporate world to the point where they have to take action (which means, they tell their bought Senators and Reps to start impeachment investigations/hearings or whatever it might be)? I figure his economic policies can only crush Americans' buying power for so long before corporation start feeling it dig into their pockets. Tax cuts will only go so far...
Sorry this is a bit off topic re Miller, but it struck me as something to think about in terms of how long the world will actually have to put up with this wanker.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 11/23/2005 @ 2:56 am PT...
For Jim Cirile: Count me in on your idea. You have my e-mail address.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 11/23/2005 @ 3:45 am PT...
Epppie #11
You said "I am satisfied with my own authority. I do not need to appeal to the authority of others. It's fine with me if you are uninterested in what I suggest if I do not have an authority to cite, other than myself."
So is every dictator and neoCon but that is not enough to fit into a social order.
We must be subject to the authority of the constitution and laws in accord with it. We cannot set ourselves up as the authority, because that is the way of a despot.
One of the words that goes with "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority" is anarchy.
Anarchy does not fit our system of law.
You should heed what Savantster posted at #9 and #15. He has it right.
It is the US Constitution that defines the way a president is handled for misconduct. That way is the impeachment process, which removes the president from office and places the vice president in his or her place.
There is no other legal and constitutional way. Like I said in my post #2.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 11/23/2005 @ 5:28 am PT...
The Founding Fathers faced a dilemma, it seems to me. On the one hand, they knew that removing a president through any other means than impeachment would leave the door open for a mendacious prosecutor or police chief to simply charge the president with a crime on flimsy evidence and bring him to trial, during which time the country operated in a vacuum (or under a vice president secretly allied with the prosecutor). Bad.
On the other hand, the fathers knew that political parties were dangerous (George Washington loathed them, as did most of his contemporaries), because a dominant party could protect a president from removal, no matter how heinous his "high
crimes and misdemeanors," simply through party loyalty. In fact, it didn't take a dominant party, merely 1/3 of the votes plus one. At the same time, a president could be persecuted by a Congress dominated by his political enemies, which happened with Andrew Johnson and Bubba Clinton.
Insisting on impeachment as a prerequisite to prosecution of a president at least took the decision out of one or two hands and put it with popularly elected officials. It was the lesser of two evils; the hope was that raw partisanship would give way to duty and honor. And there's the rub...where Bush and Co. are concerned, the founders' reservations about political parties seem prescient.
The two-party system has never in our history been more inept, as proven by the war in Iraq and two consecutive stolen elections. The fact that it survives without serious challenge owes to nothing more or less than $$$$$$. If anyone believes that electing Hillary Clinton in 2008 will change things, please leave a false tooth under your pillow tonite and a fairy will bring you a counterfeit quarter.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 11/23/2005 @ 6:33 am PT...
COMMENT #15 [link]
...Savantster said on 11/22/2005 @ 9:51pm PT...
Epppie, I think the point is, other than the quote I posted, the Constitution doesn't allow for "removing the president'.. the bit you quoted just says that if for some reason he -is- gone, the the VP takes over.. blah blah.. setting up the chain of command.
I've not seen anything else (that comes to mind) that allows for the removal of the President... short of perhaps a revolt.. Maybe a special election, but I've not seen anything in the Constitution for that, and never heard of any laws about it (regarding the President).
Dredd's point is, just because you "would like to" doesn't mean we have a current "leagal way" to, other than impeachment, which is the sole pervue of Congress.. Does that make sense? With no "legal" way to do it, wanting it is irrelavant.. under the premise of "legally doing it", we need to toss out all the Repugs in 2006 and get a 2/3s majority of Congress with a spine (just being Dems won't do it, there are plenty that are towing the company lines)..
-------------
I hear your point. However, I think that the Constitution is not entirely clear on the matter of how a President can be removed. Nor could it be. I think that the founders were wise enough to understand that they could not forsee all possibilities in the future, all possible future situations.
I don't know what legal means other than impeachment by Congress there could be, but I think there must be other possibilities.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 11/23/2005 @ 6:46 am PT...
COMMENT #18 [link]
...Dredd said on 11/23/2005 @ 3:45am PT...
Epppie #11
You said "I am satisfied with my own authority. I do not need to appeal to the authority of others. It's fine with me if you are uninterested in what I suggest if I do not have an authority to cite, other than myself."
So is every dictator and neoCon but that is not enough to fit into a social order.
We must be subject to the authority of the constitution and laws in accord with it. We cannot set ourselves up as the authority, because that is the way of a despot.
One of the words that goes with "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority" is anarchy.
Anarchy does not fit our system of law.
You should heed what Savantster posted at #9 and #15. He has it right.
It is the US Constitution that defines the way a president is handled for misconduct. That way is the impeachment process, which removes the president from office and places the vice president in his or her place.
There is no other legal and constitutional way. Like I said in my post #2.
--------------------------
Dictators and anarchy? Rave on, pal. My point was about authority. I do not need the authority of others to have confidence in my own ideas. Now if you need me to cite others in order to take an interest in my ideas, fine. That's your deal. Go ahead and ignore what I have to say.
But as regards authority, please do not forget that the authority of the Constitution itself rests in the will of the people. If the President were opposed by a vast majority of the People and Congress refused to act, it might be not anarchy, but restoration of Democracy to remove him on the basis of a mass movement against him.
But I'm not speaking of that. I'm simply saying that I do not think the Constitution is entirely clear on removing the President. I believe it does give Congress the sole power to impeach the President, but I don't think it says that that is the only way to remove a President. The Constitution's silence with regard to other approaches could be taken to imply that there are no other approaches, but that's reading in, it seems to me. I have nothing against reading in, but I think it has to be acknowledged for what it is.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 11/23/2005 @ 6:47 am PT...
Cirile, I think appealling to Boxer is a good idea.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 11/23/2005 @ 9:19 am PT...
Epppie #21
Would you agree that the judicial branch of government, specifically the US Supreme Court, has the authority to "say what the constitution says"?
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 11/23/2005 @ 10:51 am PT...
For Jim Cirile: If you can start the petiition to Barbara Boxer going, I'll help spread the word and ask all my contacts to do the same. I have no computer skills, so that's the best help I can offer.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 11/23/2005 @ 11:03 am PT...
I nominate Lieberman for best "George Bush Democrat" in DC (link here).
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Soul Rebel
said on 11/23/2005 @ 11:23 am PT...
I'm in on the Boxer petition also. Send me what you come up with. - SR
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 11/23/2005 @ 11:36 am PT...
Ultimate authority lies with the people, actually.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
jIMcIRILE
said on 11/23/2005 @ 9:31 pm PT...
Ok, guys, the petition is up. Please take 10 seconds to sign it, then post it on your websites, print the link in your newsletters, etc., and forward this everyone you know who cares about what's happening to this country...
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/boxer
Here's the text:
Dear Senator Boxer,
We applaud your courageous stance in speaking out against the
certification of the electors in the 2004 election.
With the 2006 elections fast approaching, it is urgent that a prominent
politician speak out on the issue of electronic vote fraud and force
the Senate and the mainstream media to address this issue.
It is clear: the 2004 election was stolen. As reported on MSNBC, in
Florida '04, dozens of heavily Democratic districts inexplicably voted
for Bush by huge margins--yet voted for Democrats on local issues.
"Problems" abounded in New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Georgia; and of
course we need look no further than Ohio for the most obvious example
of neocon chicanery. And speaking of Ohio, the '05 elections once again
prove that Diebold and Blackwell stole the state. Propositions that
were leading the polls by 20-30 points were impossibly defeated. The
only explanation: election fraud.
Black Box Voting has demonstrated just how easy it is to "flip"
hundreds of thousands of votes. After witnessing the endless parade of
lies from the neocons, we're supposed to trust them that they haven't
meddled with our elections? After Karl Rove stated in Newsweek he has
rolled out a plan for "a permanent Republican majority"?
Senator Kerry privately acknowledges the election was stolen, but to
the dismay of the progressive community, he refuses to take point on
this issue. Shame on you, Senator Kerry. But the fact remains: somebody
has got to.
Senator Boxer, I urge you stand up on the Senate floor and speak the
truth to the American people and do everything you can to force this
issue into the public discourse. There IS no other issue as important.
The mess we are in would never have happened if we had not allowed the
neocons to filch two elections in a row. Senator, we are a nation under
siege. While we still have an America left, I urge you to champion this
issue. Thank you.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
Soul Rebel
said on 11/23/2005 @ 9:46 pm PT...
OK, Jim, some clever bugger has already decided to jack up the petition, so I don't know if its something that is worth continuing...
Every idiot in the country has access to this blog, and not only is the other side NOT interested in democracy, they are certainly not interested in playing fair.
Are those signatures something you have the power to remove?
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
RedHawk
said on 11/24/2005 @ 9:48 am PT...
"Fuck Hillary Clinton, Boxer is the shiznit."
"If anyone believes that electing Hillary Clinton in 2008 will change things, please leave a false tooth under your pillow tonite and a fairy will bring you a counterfeit quarter."
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks Sen. Clinton should stay in the halls of Congress where she can do the least damage.
P.S. I do like her personally, but as President? YIKES!!!! The worst thing I've heard somewhere on radio is (OMG): Clinton v. RICE in 2008!!!!! A nightmare for sure.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
jIMcIRILE
said on 11/24/2005 @ 1:19 pm PT...
Yep, the offensive signatures will be vanquished.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
jIMcIRILE
said on 11/24/2005 @ 9:07 pm PT...
Argh! I have had to move the petition to here:
Boxer petition
Please take a moment to re-sign, guys! Thanks...
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
epppie
said on 11/25/2005 @ 9:54 am PT...