On The Table!

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table", I am sorry if I do not have the exact wording, but I had the feeling that it was said calculated to get a response to put the people on the table.

Stephanie Miller has Cindy Sheehan discussing impeachment, and giving her two weeks or she will file to compete for her seat.

As I indicated earlier, for Pelosi impeachment may not be on the table but investigations are now on the table of many committees. And reliable sources, if I may filter through progressive talk radio, say two things. A. What is going on now is what would be going on, if impeachment were on the table. B. That Pelosi has gotten the message. No more funds for Iraq, that do not also withdraw the troops.

One progressive host has interpreted this pressure as a negotiation to keep the administration in line, much as a bargaining chip to further other issues. That does not seem to be in the spirit of actually holding criminals accountable.

Breaking News: Republicans filibuster Webb/Hagel support for troops. Republicans vote to not put issue up to vote, meaning not enough votes to end debate. I hope the debate continues.

Everything Changed?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pelosi and the NSA
by Ray McGovern TomPaine.com

Getting up to the table.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bush claimed that things changed,
but also that congress was briefed.
Maybe things will change.
But for the better,
for Pelosi?
THESE EVENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED!

Ray of Hope?

Republicans see the dark side:
Backstory: An impeachment vote turnaround stuns Washington therawstory.com

Democrats see the bright side:
Benchmarking Schumer on John Bolton, David Addington and Mukasey The Huffington Post

The ray of hope is where the Republicans went wrong and the Democrats may have gone right(no pun intended), that being that the issues were kicked down the road to further the process that is politics and democracy, that will hopefully bring more to light. But then, Bush is an optimist too.

[Another Ray? [Contrl F] meaning find Pelosi in:
Noun + verb + 9/11 strategy still works Frank Rich seattlepi.com:

The House isn't even going to bring up this malevolent bill because, as Nancy Pelosi has said, there has "never been a declaration by a Congress before in our history" that "declared a piece of a country's army to be a terrorist organization."

That is a good sign.]

Krugman v. Pelosi

Not that they are opposed,
I just juxtaposition
the two perspectives.

Krugman: Don't Make Nice.

Pelosi: more than "lame duck is enough" (See "Two Heartbeats..." video)

Together: Not just don't make nice, but more than just a pledge of what is on the table or not.

If you investigate...

they will go.

Recent impeachment polls indicate that XX%(30 to 40 something) of the people support impeachment. That is actually down from earlier polls indicating more specific support for impeachment on wiretapping and lies about Iraq. So called "liberal media" MSNBC poll (not scientific) shows a surprising 88%. My surprise is at the total response, and that people who use that source still are. But then I looked.

MY POINT: A well* framed question about the charges should indicate stronger support for impeachment, and if investigations are started voters will come and the guilty will go.

Point two: GO PELOSI TWO!- I support the idea of supporting [ correction suing] Bush over signing statements, but why has it not been done for the 700 or 800 earlier statements, and I cannot believe that standing is required to be established to hold him accountable, if it is the case that it is political, that is the reason for the above push.

If you build a field of facts, the people will come. That is politics as it should be and the media as it hasn't been. It can work that way on any cause and those most important are changing course and holding all the administration accountable.

* well = including charges that have been admitted to, phrased as "if/then", explaining that the process is an investigation.

Reel Ledership

Unknown candidate more favorable than Obama.
Obama leading over known persons.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
2000th post.
(Counting 90 in draft, that is.)
 
Unfortunately, the blog format has evolved, and needs getting used to.
In fact, it seemed to evolve mid-post, as I managed to get in a bottom link here, but cannot not locate that process going forward or even in edit format.  


THIS just as I had declared MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, I mean, ACCOMPLISHED[!]
And just as I had reached a pinnacle of a point, (That was redundant, or was it?) {one of the the new features}
the irony* of Mission Accomplished, let alone leadership. (David Sirota and the Star Chamber)

NOW with** ALEX WAGNER,
But earlier with Jansing & Co.
And earlier with Ed Schultz and Nancy Pelosi.

BUT HERE IS part of the Mission CON *** TEXT,
and UNDERSTANDING "Who-w-Aww!"

* nails it:"Battle Him of the Republic".
let "alone" "leadership"
** or rather not yet with Alex Wagner
(and before I forget, it is the "pretty please" hyperbola of Romney, and the childish cycle.)
*** see CON 5 minutes on.
[Note Labels and comments(2),'n  Odd need.]

[The Alex Wagner link HERE.]
[Speaking of Dawn Key Ody]
[Late Possible Link inserted, let alone Try Angle.]

[Final note in reverence to Christopher Hitchens, and reference to Bashir and Ratigan. (oops)]
[accidental tangent found error in "Final" link/search/pun]
Mean[!]while: Ratigan has a panel on "Straight Talk" where Mission Accomplished applies to the popularity of congress.  With Republicans in charge of the House and having record filibusters,(meaning a minority has the responsibility in the Senate), their schtick is gridlock, not progress or compromise, let alone all truism. These are my prose not the panel's or guest's, but it can certainly be said that for the Republican goal of making sure there is a one term president by passing the buck, it could be mission accomplished.  But that hits the nail on the head with my lede (and the source) of Reel Ledership[!]. 

9-13-13 Jansen and Co label corrected(added).

GO SPEAKER PELOSI !

"The president is wrong" again and again.

The administration must "get a clue" after 5 years of failed policy.

F'n P[!]

an-archy? / tan gent
[!] sarcasm irony punk.
Lede or Ship:  Heading

4 M or links in order of insert
(In F able. / punc. / -archy / gent)

War'n Buffet Rule
The P ?
Original Intent: almost lost, Footnotes Page # ?
Gephardt*  -House Republicans Changed the Rules to Keep Government Closed
McConnell  -Who Controls the House GOP?
Battle. -  George W. Bush and the Real Story of the Great Recession****  - (b.s.) Buffet + Warren
Re  - Buffet +Metaphor
:  - Rule + Field
congre$$ - [War'n Pic/MoveOn]
AM:
Pelosi/
Klobuchar
Gang **

** links/line anachronistic
AM=Andrea Mithell
*** Deep Files Go 4 it.

(buy Jim'n Knee: Faith 'n Progress ?)
[The Cycle? New Hostage on the Table. /  Measured Optimism ? ]
[If you don't vote, you won't get your pudding.  How can you get your pudding when you won't eat your meet?]

MoveOn!

There is hope that things are about to turn. They could not get worse than the week that was. Well really they always can, but we can hope. There are hints that there will be some feet put down. It only takes 41 Senators to hold up a "heckuva" lot. And now that it has been acceptable to admonish a group for what they say, a real hard look should be taken at Bush.

Search Leahy and Pelosi as I will add links here.[The next day;]
[ Yeah Leahy! [More Democratic Kudos] ]
[ On the Table! See A. & B.]
[ What's going on? ]
[The point is that the Democrats are getting the message and contrary to the do-nothing plan that the Republicans have, Democrats should be moving on with subpoenas and may switch to "do-nothing" without a timetable for withdrawal. It only takes 41 votes to not vote on a bill. It only takes 41 votes to hold things up until something gets done, even if it is only a sense of the Senate.]

Two Clever by One Third?

Or both ends against the middle?

Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.

BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)

* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential this is as tricky a net, in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option) Up down before or after change, either now or in 2010. I would risk the now. I am unsure how the cloak filled rooms would navigate the choice. Could they pass a progressive bill and the Senate Bill and then let the Senate choose? But do not risk doing nothing and leveraging 2010. See Countdown Tonight 5, 4,... 1-20-2010.

[Psst...(Rachel) speaking of mythical beasts, I believe one of these links(Mathews) had Gibbs noting $4 billion or so in health care gains in the market today[*], although other reporting (Keith) shows a market loss overall, but at least Barney Frank got the mess- age. Hmmm?]{Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
[Psst...It should be kind of hard for "Republicans" to declare a win as that word is kind of absent from his website. The same almost goes for the "Democrats" taking any responsibility when it comes to party identification]

[*](1-21-10) possible anachronism,(see BTW: Ed(9:45).) at least anecdotal(different sectors, different days?)(See comment 2)

He said, She said?

Enhanced Interrorgations?
Goldberg and Hannity have some interesting points aside*.
Meaning they seem to have presented an argument for prosecutions for lying to the American People, not to mention looking back.
"...all of them were given very specific details that enhanced interrogation would be used..."
To be fair and balanced, I doubt he would apply the same standards to himself or the past. I do think prosecution is the thing, only the forum is the question.

* meaning the sorts the thing

[First let me say that my sorting above might hinge on the charge of "political expediency". That is what former CIA Director Porter Goss accused Speaker Pelosi of employing, if not amnesia. But really I think it could be more a matter of not being able to be direct about who was told what by whom when and when was it authorized** to implement or leak. OK, enough parsing or passing the buck game, but the new game in town is also "political expediency" with the move of Sen. Arlen Specter announcing his switch and plan to run in the Democratic primary to finish out his legecy.
** temp link here of my own expediency]

Proof of Life...

is a term that is used in hostage taking.  Hostage taking is a tool of terrorists.  Torture has been a tool against terrorists.  Noting these as such is not an endorsement or argument.  But...
what is the word and when does it change? 

CIA Director Brennan:  word[!]
/ Pelosi: will of words (?)
(/)will of the people: Rumsfeld/Cheney
(fn)viscous cycle

[!] I think Brennan made a very nuanced and carefully parsed review of the so-called Torture Report.
There is a sense of E.B. White and M.C. Escher in this 4mat.  Let alone Cromnibus.

 

Hint(/)Rib [!].


[Note: E.B. > Elements of Charlotte.
M.C. > not exactly !]



12-16-14 Torture may be watching Meet the Press, I may waterboard myself later.

Progressive Break Fast

Campaign for America's Future.

The above link is a compendium of news, comments & hope for progress.
Meanwhile I have made a few comments w/minor corrections **,
but bring this up much as it is(was):

Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.***

* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential, this is as tricky a net in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option)[Adjusted snippets of original continued.] [Psst...(Rachell)Speaking of "mythical beasts"(...)at least Barney Frank got the mess-age(...){Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)

BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)

** see [*]& comment 2 there
*** the holding water bit is a play on the Hardball promo regarding Chris Matthews' style of argument, Waterloo, and his leaking all over the mirror Howard Dean holds up. But I really did not intend a restroom metaphor, and so it goes.

[Apologies for the anachronistic asterisks and shuffled links but Rachel Maddow's were not yet available and I wished to bring up a few points. Howard Fineman clarifies the fine men or Frank & Obamba not to mention the Governor in Rendell link. While the beast was the unicorn of 60 yet not meek Senator Stabinow, not to mention the Ouch of Geek Irony.]
[translation of apologies/index of links]
mirror: Matthews/Dean Hardball
beasts: Maddow/Stabinow unicorn filibuster
ouch moment: Maddow/parody of TeaDay
Fine Man: Maddow/Fineman Frank Obama
Governor: Maddow/Rendell
downe: Browne
Not to mention BTW: Ed Schultz/Huffington
Not: Schultz/Lanny Davis
Ed.:Schultz/Gibbs

And Countdown. Keith Olbermann/Gibbs et al.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Harpers/Gitmo
tasteless/Brown
Obama/promise?

FAUX NEWS!

I'm not in the mood to play with words today.
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.

The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.

My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.

Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]

* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]

[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]

[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]

War'n Buffet Rule

Gephardt* McConnell Battle. 

* Re: congre$$
AM: Pelosi/Klobuchar Gang **

** links/line anachronistic
AM=Andrea Mithell

Taking the Bear by the Horns!

Obama Team Moves to Regulate Complex Financial Instruments
by Kevin G. Hall - McClatchy TruthOut

Reform Movement:
Rachel Maddow at commondreams.org
Philip Zelikow on His Testimony tortured memos
www.TomPaine.com
The Progressive
OurFuture.org
Center for American Progress
Think Progress
The Huffington Post
The Pelosi Brief
The Noble Stunt Meme*
and The Ticking Time Bomb Scenario.
Blame the counsel, the comedian and the computer.

* Sen. Linsey Graham[update] (Bush Administration saw law as "nicety we could not afford")
"there is a purpose for everything, there is a reason people do what they do...hierarchy of needs..."(14:50-15:24)
the levin report(15:30)
Brian Beutler TPMMuckraker
Jane Mayer The New Yorker
"the moral high ground in this war is the high ground, it is not a location..."(15:40)
common article 3?(16:35-17:00)
the Geneva Convention did not apply? an argument
"what we do in looking back, may determine how we move forward..." (17:30-19:00)
(all times for Noble Stunt Meme[video])
[The Golden Rule(in Progress) is no joke. Nor are the fine points of law or politics just stunts.]

Rehash or Just Hash.

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01

Or Sour Mash?
Washington Post: Democrats Including Pelosi Told of Waterboarding in 2002
jonathanturley.org

The implications are that there could be something wrong with the pressure that Democrats are under, either from the actual facts of the situation or the interpretation from some perspectives. But it better be cleared up before the lid blows off the principles of this nation or the party, let alone our hopes for progress. This is my take on this, the implications also being that this may not be breaking news but a matter that I have already filtered and others are just getting to the party. I think the simplest explanation is that full disclosure was not done and then even more disclosure was not allowed, but the use of that information in leadership roles is going to be eventually explained if not utilized for the common good. But that is just what is so hard to count on, and meanwhile the "hard work" of our troops and our grassroots, let alone any base is being squandered, or should I say, about to go down the drain.

I must note that I had heard Jonathan Turley speak on this issue on the Randi Rhodes show yesterday, but I have yet to more than barely start to read either of these articles.

[Correction: I did read four paragraphs of Jonathan Turley's piece and just thought there was more, and I must give a lot of credit to his fourth paragraph:

This also explains the failure of the Democrats to block votes that seemed to legitimate waterboarding and unlawful surveillance. If true, the knowledge of Democratic leaders shows a deep disconnect and possible dishonesty between our representatives and the voters. In many ways, this will be the test of our political system. If the public returns to its prior slumber after this story, there is little hope for a system that seems to replicate this type of conduct.

I don't really know what the public can do, but the Democrats better do more than wonder and not wander through any course that does not correct their staggering work.

Yeah Leahy! [More Democratic Kudos]

Sorry for the disrepect but Senator Leahy, Chair of the Judiciary Committee plans to withhold confirmation of replacement Attorney General until questions are answered about the last AG. He will know when he has enough answers when he knows what questions to ask the nominee about "what's going on". (5:48 into clip) This merits respect for the Senator for his mission to stop the disrespect to the constitution and congress. As I put it just after the '06 election pull up the chairs. For shadowing "What's Going On?" In my post May 9th '07, If you investigate... I found a major typo/misstatement in not using the word "suing", I was so much supporting, of Speaker Pelosi.

[9:40 AM More signs of a steady course or KUDOS TO CONGRESS. Bush Success Rating at Historic Low House Democrats "stongest opposition from either party" in 54 year Congressional Quarterly record.]

Rescue Plan Close

"We've made progress..." says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

But read between the links...

Contempt of Congress

Contempt for Congress
ONLY FAIR?
Interpretation is difficult, but could it be that given the support of Democrats over Republicans, excellent 3 to 1, and the flip flop of only fair to poor, Dem (40/33) Rep (33/42) that it depends on what is actually being supported. Some Republicans may be against congress for not going their way, while some Democrats may not support congress for not going more their way. It is hard to separate out independents, but it would make sense that given the lack of support for the administration that there be more resistance to the administration.

Gee! I did not realize I would stumble upon an anomaly.
The bottom line is that there is surprising support for Congress, and there should be a line that rates the media and polling. The poll shows congress getting 58 to 38 support (only fair or better to poor with 4 unsure). On the media/poll question it might be interesting to note that Pelosi and Rice are have more support and more unsure, but which might play into the above political non-calculations.

Missing from the poll it seems is anything related to what their jobs are. Not to mention who should have contempt or be in contempt.

GO HERE! For Accountability!My Comment there:
Please do what is needed to prevent further crimes by the administration, and failing that, prevent any pardons. Impeachment may be the only way to prevent wholesale escape from justice, but please keep the pressure on.