« What Fitzgerald Didn't Know Yet | Main | The Politics Of Iraq Part III »

July 16, 2007


What happens after 30 hrs?

so I should praise MY EMPLOYEE, for FINALLY beginning to do what he was supposed to do SIX MONTHS BACK

I don't think so

I've got some news for Mr Reid and my blue dog democrat representative:

if you don't get off your lame asses and DEFEND my country, I'll find somebody who CAN

lots of other Americans saying exactly the same fucking thing

our Democratic Representatives ain't afraid of us yet, but they will be

I said,m it's a first step and we need to keep the pressure on. I said nothing about praising him.


July 16, 2007

Impeach Now
Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy


Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.

William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.

Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.

The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging "terrorist" events. The talk, encouraged by federal agents, resulted in "terrorist" arrests hyped by the media, but even the captive media was unable to scare people with such transparent sting operations.

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."

Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued. According to a number of writers, false flag operations have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.

Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?

Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.

Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders.

The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming "terrorist" events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy?

As best I can tell, at the end of the 30 hours ofdebate they vote on the amendment. This is a cumbersome procedure to use on every bill.

sorry Sandy, we don't need to read that

we already know it

why do you think we're here

you'll find more true patriots here than you could find in congress

we ain't here for personal gain, we're trying to save our Country

may be a "cumbersome" proceedure, but it's gonna make damn fine theater

and it doesn't really matter how the corporate media trys to spin the theater either

the repuglicans are gonna look bad, really bad, and the repuglicans know it

Voinovich told kkkarl rove that "bush FUCKED UP Iraq, and the fun hasn't started yet"

the repuglican revolution is OVER

let the cannabalism begin


Specified purposes!

What? To shoot guns?

Those poor baby GOPers. They don't like the filibuster requirement AT ALL. They are now desperately trying to setup for the coming REAL filibuster...like the current amendment they are trying to add that sets up a "sense of the senate" declaring just how superbad a "failed state in Iraq" will be.

The important thing in the next two days, as the GOPpers whine about 'political stunts', is for Dems to be armed with the list of bills obstructed by McConnell's demands for cloture votes. That publicises the obstructionism, and vindicates the overnight session.

I've done an update to explain what I understand of how this works and what happens next.

Here's the text of Levin-Reed. The specified purposes are force protection, training the Iraqis and counterterrorism misasions by special forces. As I've said before, "force protection" is circular and would lead to much too big a residual force. "Training" is clearly problematical. We need to face the fact that most of the Iraqi security forces are sectarian militias. Giving them weapons to fight each other (or us) is not helpful at this point. The problem isn't training but the lack of a cohesive national government to fight for.

Here's a partial list of the bills the GOP has filibustered.

Sandy, your 15:59 is copyright infringement and shameless blogpimping. I am very strongly in favor of impeachment and imho that piece hurts the cause a lot more than it helps.

Thanks very much for the post Mimikatz. With all due respect to freepatriot, I called Harry to thank him.

I wish they would have done the filibuster with Web's troop rest deal. That's something that's really needed and would play well in the media to show who supports the troops and who doesn't. Of course, this would be moot if troops start coming home in 120 days. But, I think it would have been an easier sell.

Begin impeachment proceedings against GW Bush and Dick Cheney NOW!

Completely agree on the Webb amendment. I'm hoping it will be reintroduced and get the same treatment. Oh, how I want to see Republican senators spend 30 hours arguing against returning to the rest requirements combat troops were getting before the Iraq 'adjustment.'

Late and slow, but it seems like we're moving the right direction on a few fronts. Good post, mimi.

Maybe I am dense (ok, the maybe is inoperative filler), but I still don't understand what is going on here. If it is a real filibuster, why was the emphasis placed on the 30 hour bit, and why talk of only Tuesday night? If the Republicans are really going to go to the mat on this total turkey of a bill (this goes for Dems too, this is a crappy bill) don't they have to do more than cover one measley night? This just looks goofy; if this is our Senate leadership getting tough, we are in a world of hurt.

"This, today, is just theatrics."

And delaying tactics while arms are twisted.

All of this is an unholy mess! The sheer amount and depth of the corruption is nearly overwhelming! I sent this letter to my Senators and House Rep. today regarding the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board, which have also been totally coopted and are ineffective in protecting the very federal employees and whistleblowers they were formed to protect. I encourage everyone else to write also, and for more information visit:

July 16, 2007

Dear Senator_________________ (or ) Representative_________________

I have been reading about the ongoing problems with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

I have been researching issues for some time involving whistleblowers and the corruption that causes them to become whistleblowers and have blogs on this topic to help share information and encourage people to stand up to wrongdoing. I also have a family member who found themselves being labeled a whistleblower just because they responsibly and ethically did the job they were hired by the federal government to do.

It would appear there is an extremely poor track record of the OSC and MSPB for about 30 years, and that no reforms or changes made have helped. It does not appear to me at any time, but particularly now, that these organizations should be under the wing of the Executive branch, where they may be easily prevented from accomplishing their intended mission.

Since we seem to be having such a crisis at this time all throughout government, and in severely hampered if not corrupted federal agencies and offices across the country, and the Justice Department is just about non-functional, due to influence and manipulation coming from the Executive branch, I think the only real solution is to pass the laws protecting all whistleblowers including federal and defense department (S.274 and others) and then putting the investigations of allegations of wrongdoing under the legislative/Congressional branch. It appears the best efforts are being made through Congress right now in the various committee investigative efforts. Abolishing the OSC and the MSPB as the agencies under the Executive Branch, moving their mission to Congressional oversight, cleaning up the Justice Dept. and their deadening affect on all of the various criminal investigative agencies, and seeing to the very careful screening of any further Executive Branch appointed judges (Prevent any more appointments of constitutional revisionists and those who put partisan policy/politics ahead of the U.S. Constitution!) would go along way to helping to straighten this out.

The new Congressional entity will need to be adequately funded, and must have the funds restricted for use by this mission, not be able to be siphoned off to other things. The funding currently sent to OSC and MSPB should be dedicated to the new Congressional mission of overseeing the process of whistleblower complaints, and seeing that they are handled in an ethical manner. I personally have more faith in Congress right now than the other branches, and feel if there is a problem with someone in Congress not doing their job I would have more ability to address that problem, than I do dealing with trying to change the puppeteer masters, from three steps away, the way it is now.

Please sponsor a bill which will address these issues, and vote to get these changes implemented and help the many federal whistleblowers and others who are suffering never ending retribution due to the total dysfunction of these Executive branch controlled agencies.



second flyover of the day, caught you on the last thread. jodi's apoplectic, that's funny.

And they are deathly quiet about universal health care for all americans aren't they?
It is because they know that if America speaks out with one voice, they are rendered impotent and far better for us, extinct.

Do you all understand? We finally have something that can bring down politics and a huge percentage of the corporations that decide who lives and dies, and who goes bankrupt and loses their homes?

Do you think this is right? isn't it time to make the change that fires that shot heard around this country. the populist army was required then, and it has become obvious that it is needed now.

OK, will somebody please help me out here, because this "filibuster" thing Reid has announced is driving me nuts. It appears that there is still a cloture vote set for Wednesday morning irrespective of what occurs in between now and then in the Senate, and the Democrats still must obtain 60 votes for that cloture vote on Wednesday morning in order for the bill to go to vote (which the Dems still appear to be well short of). Oh, and the "30 hour" thing doesn't really apparently apply as that is the maximum length of debate that can be had AFTER a successful cloture vote of 60 or more votes (which, again, the Dems still appear to be well short of). I must be wrong here; in fact, I hope I am, because so far this just looks stupid to me. What am I missing that makes this such an admirable "get tough" tactic for us? Looks to have all the power of another letter begging the administration to pretty please turn over the incriminating information.

Rule 22 only limits debate after cloture is invoked. It's designed to prevent a post facto filibuster. The only way to break a filibuster is the nuclear option, and that requires a compliant presiding officer. (Which raises the question of why the Dems were so bad at it as a minority. The answer: there were usually five or six who could be peeled away, issue by issue.)

If Reid's going to commit to this -- the all-night debate is basically just a refusal to recess -- then he needs, in essence, to grit his teeth and wipe the calendar clean for the entire week. And the weekend. And however long it takes to get it to an actual vote on the amendment.

PinNC - So I basically have this thing right then. If so, then the only way this goes anywhere is if Reid keeps repeating the stunt over and over requiring the calendar clearing you describe. But he won't do that I bet; which makes this a pretty weak and lame gesture. It may get some PR, but it also is an admission of how gutless our leaders really are. It is time to "end our long national nightmare". Defund the war, and if Bush doesn't bring the troops home, impeach him and then put him in the criminal docks for the wiretapping violations and any other crimes for which there is solid probable cause. I am tired of Harry's pansy ass charades and the respective Judiciary Committee's lame letters begging the Administration to pretty please play nice. Lets get on with it.

You get credit today for being the lead pebble, Mimikatz:


I just sent a letter to my Rep - Lamar Smith of Texas, lecturing him on constitutional duty. Probably a waste of time as he is a Republican, but sure felt good.

This filibuster thing sounds better than it actually is in practice. Here is a description from a Report for Congress on Filibuster and Cloture in the Senate:

"The latter point is important because late-night or all-night sessions put as much or more of a burden on the proponents of the question being debated than on its opponents. The Senators participating in the filibuster need only ensure that at least one of their number always is present on the floor to speak. The proponents of the question, however, need to ensure that a majority of the Senate is present or at least available to respond to a quorum call or roll call vote. If, late in the evening or in the middle of the night, a Senator suggests the absence of a quorum and a quorum does not appear, the Senate must adjourn or at least suspend its proceedings until a quorum is established. This works to the advantage of the filibustering Senators, so the burden rests on their opponents to ensure that the constitutional quorum requirement always can be met."

There was hope that requiring an actual filibuster would force votes, but I cannot see how it will work.

I forgot the link: http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Filibusters_and_Cloture_in_the_Senate.pdf

Masaccio - In addition to all the complaints I have evinced above, I don't see how Reid is going to get a quorum for his dog and pony show. A quorum requires 51 Senators; Johnson is still out ill, Lieberman is a lost cause and some are likely on the campaign trail. No reason any Republican is going to assist this lame effort.

The all-nighter filibuster puts a bigger strain on the proponent (Reid) than on an opponent. But, as for maintenance of a quorum, he can force attendance via Sergeant at Arms -- not that he will since that door swings both ways. What will happen is both sides will agree to provide a certain number of speakers to do the night shift, and the Senate will have its usual quorum calls or quiet periods anyway. The same dog and pony show was put on by Senator Frist in the 108th and 109th Congresses, where the Democrats refused to agree to vote on judicial nominees, and some 30 cloture motions on judicial nominees were rejected by the Democratic minority.

As for GOP blocking the Ethics bill (S.1), that one is being held up by Democrats in the Senate. The Senate passed a provision (DeMint S.Amdt 11 as modified by Durbin S.Amdt. 44), by a 98-0 roll call vote (link - Conrad and Johnson were not voting), that would create a new Senate rule relating to earmarks transparency. As a Senate rule, it has no effect on the House and it need not be signed into law by the president, and there is no reason to negotiate with the House on the proposed earmarks transparency rule embodied in S.Amdt.11/44. That is, there is no reason whatsoever for this particular provision to be taken to a House/Senate conference. As a means of preserving the already-passed Senate Rule on earmarks transparency , Senator DeMint has offered exactly the same Senate Rule as a Senate Resolution (S.Res.123) - or in the alternative, sought agreement that the already passed (98-0 roll call vote) Senate Rule not be stripped out of
S.1 in House/Senate conference. Senator Reid has objected to both of these options, and therefore appears as failing to agree to maintain the already passed Senate Rule on earmarks transparency.

Not that the series of proposed consent agreements are easy to find, but the Congressional Record is perfectly clear on what was passed, and on Democrats raising of objection to adhere to the amendment that was passed 98-0.

On the GOP blocking the other items on the list (e.g., Iraq resolutions in particular), I think that's a fair characterization.

This, today, is just theatrics.

precisely. If Reid was really playing hardball, he would have told a host of Democratic Senators to be ready to spend the night -- and after an initial vote on cloture that failed to pass, ordered the seargeant at arms to forbid Senators to leave the chamber, and told the GOP that if they wanted to debate the bill all night and into the next day...and the next night, that they should go for it.

And Reid should have done this with the Webb amendment, not Reed-Levin. While Americans are solidly behind a withdrawal, they are not solidly behind any specific timetable to accomplish that withdrawal....and Reed-Levin creates opportunities for GOP talking points that don't exist with the Webb amendment.

Thanks to all for the excellent comments above about Parlimentary procedures. Perhaps Harry's Rule 22 is just a "shot across the bow?" Per the comments above, he can always ratchet up the pressure if the GOP doesn't cave.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad