Who are the Appeasers?

[pat_k]

Appease: To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle.

The Appeasers aren't THEM. They are, by definition, people on OUR SIDE who are appeasing THEM.

In the battle for our national soul, "our side" is the Anti-Fascist camp.

Impeachment is the battleground.

Appeasers are "our" problem -- it is up to us to persuade them it is a moral imperative to demand Impeachment.

• Un-Americans who are players in the conspiracies to steal our elections, destroy our constitutional institutions, rule by signing statement, terrorize us with threats of mushroom clouds, hold the power they have seized at any cost, and gather ever more power unto themselves, are Fascists.


• Un-Americans who are cheering on the Fascists are Fascists or Fascist Dupes (not always easy to tell apart).


• Americans who know that a Fascist cabal has taken the WH, but who look the other way, are appeasers.


• Americans who want us to "lay low" on Impeachment until we win back the House are appeasers.


• Americans who see the Fascists for what they are, but who "make nice", rationalizing that doing so will somehow win them political points, are appeasers.

We must distinguish Appeasers from the Fascists and Fascists Dupes because we must deal with the people who fall into each of these camps in very different ways.

• Appeasers
  These people are "our" problem -- it is up to us to persuade them that it is a moral imperative to demand Impeachment. (Their belief that their silence will somehow benefit them is tragically mistaken. Americans disdain people who "stand on principle" only when it is safe to do so.)


• Fascist Dupes
  These people can, and should, be ignored. We don't need to go after these folks directly. As more of "us" break our silence, they are getting swept up in the changing tide.


• Fascists
  These people are fighting us for the American soul. Impeachment is our battleground and we must fight to force their leaders out of power with everything we've got. We must DO IT NOW, not when we believe it is "safe."

A Note on Levels of Culpability:
Each day that a member of Congress fails to carry out their sworn duty and demand Congressional action, George W. Bush can point to their failure to act as justification for his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to power (If his actions subverted our constitutional democracy, wouldn't more members of Congress, who are sworn to act, be demanding Congressional action?)

When they are silent on Impeachment, citizens don't have the same level of culpability as members of Congress. Average citizens are not public servants who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Nevertheless, to choose silence so you don't rouse an enemy is to appease.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

1. A point well worth examination

The problem is that, to one extent or another, and especially in the Senate, the Appeasers at one time or another include most of the Democratic Membership.

Look at the cave-in over the so-called "Nuclear Option." Appeasers.

Look at the cloture and then up-or-down votes for Alito. Appeasers.

Look at the vote on the Bankruptcy Bill. Appeasers.

Look at the Min. Wage/Paris Hilton Tax Cut. Appeasers.

Look at the Iraq War Resolution. Appeasers.

Look at the John Roberts vote. Appeasers.

Congressional Democrats must learn that being the opposition party includes the bold, decisive act of OPPOSING the majority.

We, as constitutents, have some teaching to do. I understand that all the mugwump Democrats in the Senate will be necessary to form a majority. The real fun starts after we get that majority. That's when we stoke the fire to white-hot and start holding the Nelsons and the Reids and the Hillarys and the Byrds and the Baracks and the Bidens feet right up against it, and make them understand that majorities won can quickly become majorities lost.

There is far too long a list of priorities that must be addressed in the next two years. Allowing our party to coalition-build and compromise with the Party that tried to stifle freedom itself is unthinkable.

[pat_k]

6. Impeachment is JOB One. . .

. . .any legislation they pass under rule by signing statement is meaningless.

When Bush nullifies legislation passed with 90 votes in the Senate by signing statement -- legislation intended to stop them from committing war crimes in our name -- he proves he will nullify any law.

As we lobby them to stand up on Impeachment, we are also challenging rationalizations that cause them to appease, fold, "make nice" on countless other things.

This fight is a pre-requiste to all the others. It also supports all the others by chipping away at their beltway-bubble illusions.

[pat_k]

9. Follow up on above reply

BTW, some of the fights you cite should have been DIRECTLY connected to the fight for Impeachment. For example, on Alito, the lobbying efforts that focused 100% on the fact that Alito is a key promoter of the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive, chipped away at their denial of the horror of that treasonous doctrine.

But, too few made that the exclusive focus. When people labeled Alito as "too conservative," "a threat to Roe" or "a threat to environmental protections," -- they were skirting the truth about

1. The "doctrines" he subscribes to (i.e., the fascist fantasies he invokes to convince himself -- and us -- that the Bush Syndicate crimes are not crimes) or


2. His role in the fascist invasion of our government (i.e., putting Alito on the Supreme Court is a GIANT leap forward in their march to render the Constitution we established for the United States of America permanently null and void, and make their vision of a Stalinist Unitary Authoritarian Executive a reality.)

Alito is a co-conspirator in their treasonous effort to nullify our constitution. When we took up the fight to reject him, we would have been far more effective if we had focused SOLELY on rejecting the lunacy of a Stalinist unitary authoritarian executive in America. "Piling on" other labels or arguments only muddies the water.

I don't mean to minimize the importance of protecting the environment or Roe. Certainly, if we render the planet uninhabitable, it won't much matter whether America was a dictatorship or a constitutional democracy. But our first job is to restore legitimate authority. Americans can only have a role in creating rational global and domestic environmental policy if we have a functioning constitutional democracy capable of enacting and enforcing our collective will.

Any effort that confronts them with the stark realities of our predicament supports our demands Impeachment.

Facing Facts
<my shot at a summary of the stark realities Americans must confront>

The Bush racketeers gleefully conspire to thwart the will of the American people to grab and consolidate the power they believe they are entitled to. They view the rest of humanity as pawns to be manipulated to their own ends. They twist reality to justify the atrocities they commit in our name. For them, "We the People" means "We the 'Right' People; We the Powerful and Superior." As superior beings, great wealth is their natural reward. Since no law defined by others applies to them, any avenue that yields their "due" are open for their exploitation.

Their crowning achievement (pun intended) was the theft of the American Presidency in 2001.

On January 6th, 2001, Congress counted the illegal electoral votes from Florida, and thus failed in its duty to preserve the government. Since that date, our Constitution has been in breach.

As long as we permit them to remain in power, our laws and regulations aren't worth the paper they are printed on. The fascist Bush syndicate refuses to enforce and flagrantly violates those laws. We must face facts and stop supporting the pretense of their legitimacy by offering plans to them, or trying to influence their agenda.

Our only option is to fight them at every turn, and ultimately force Bush, Cheney, and their co-conspirators out of power. Forcing them from power is a protective/defensime measure. Once that is accomplished, they must face judgment and punishment for their crimes at the Hague.

These are the truths we must confront our leaders with -- and we need to do it as citizen lobbyists, in face-to-face dialog, where we can challenge their rationalizations.

It's daunting, but any of us can become a citizen lobbyist and ask to meet with the members of Congress who represent you (sample meeting request)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

18. Perhaps more succinctly,

your argument echoes something I've said repeatedly on "Head-On," namely that we will not make progress until the Reproductive Rights crowd understands that their issue is the Environment, and Environmentalists understand that their issue is Labor Rights, and the Labor crowd understands that their issue is Gay Rights, and the Gay Rights crowd understands that their issue is Womens' Reproductive Rights.

In a word, this is a solidarity issue, and every.single.issue benefits from the peaceful, legal, constitutional removal of this madman from office. I am firmly convinced that it was someone like George W. Bush whom the Framers had in mind when they developed the mechnaism for impeachment.

[pat_k]

20. Like it (I do tend to be wordy)

[savemefromdumbya]

15. Democrats need more SPINE!

& stop trying to be Republican

[bryant69]

2. What about people who conclude that Impeachment is a pipe dream?

And that we shouldn't waste our time fighting for something that won't happen.

Maybe those forces could be better spent trying to clean up our election prescincts or dedicated to some other worthy goal.

In which bucket do you put these people in?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pat_k]

4. Appeasers . . Exposing stolen elections suupports Impeachment. . .

Demanding Impeachment and exposing the Stolen Elections go hand and hand.

But the defeatist prognosticators do more damage than good, whatever their efforts in other areas.

Those who promote "don't act, it's a pipe dream" on Impeachment do it in other areas.

The tendency to refrain from fighting the good fights for "practical" or "strategic" reasons is largely responsible for the perception that Dems are weak. Members of the Democratic Party may believe they are "picking fights wisely," but to observers, it appears they spend all their time predicting defeat and "saving their energy" for fights they can win. Outsiders looking in do not see "wise selection," they see cowardice. When the rare "winnable fight" does materialize, it is often for some incremental step or practical end that inspires no one.

----------------------
Predictions of futility are irrational
. . .and silence on impeachment is complicity.

I am always mystified when people use predictions of futility to belittle those who stand on principle, or to rationalize their failure to do what principle demands of them.

Tragically, such defeatist and self-fulfilling beliefs create their own reality. People rationalize sitting on their hands, predicting the futility of action. Of course, in failing to act, they assure defeat, and thus the prognosticators of doom pat themselves on the back, saying "I told you so."

It is so mystifying because folks on our side take such pride in their their rationality, but is irrational to believe in ones own omniscience. Outcomes are never assured until events are behind us. To see the real possibilities before us, we must not succumb to irrational predictions of futility and doom.

------------------------------------
Republicans may beat us to the punch

Make no mistake; Republicans in the House may well beat the Democratic members to Impeachment. Some are already raising the question "Do we really want to bequeath unitary power to Hillary?"

They can have President Hastert now; or President Pelosi later.

That choice may be very simple for many of them. Fascists are happy to toss anybody overboard to hang onto power.

The sad thing is that the Fascists are relentless when it comes to accusing and punishing those they perceive as wrongdoers (even if the wrong they perceive is just plummeting poll numbers; not crimes.)

Anti-fascists on the other hand tend to want to "fix the system" or "make sure it doesn't happen again" -- rather then go after individual wrongdoers.

[bryant69]

5. You are very sure of yourself

And seem very strong on your opinions of those who might disagree with you.

Bryant

[pat_k]

7. Simple truth and moral principle is like that

Just because "they" (conservatives, fascists, fascist dupes) often hide complex reality behind false dichotomies, it doesn't follow that all dichotomies are false.

We do the opposite and tend to make muddles of complexity out of things that in reality boil down to simple A or B choices.

Just as they are suspicious of complexity, we tend to be suspicious of simplicity, often telling ourselves "there must be more to it" when we run up against such black and white choices.

Well, there is no more to it in this instance.

This is a black and white choice. There is no escaping it. You can tolerate rule by signing statement, or you can object to it and call on members of Congress to put an end to it though Impeachment.

Members of Congress also face a black and white choice that is dictated by their oath. They must choose duty or complicity.

[bryant69]

10. So the grounds for impeachment are the signing statements?

Or is that just one plank?

While I abhor the signing statements I'm not sure they are a slam dunk case until they actually come into effect. I would think the warrantless wiretap program would be stronger grounds for impeachment.

Bryant

[pat_k]

11. For every abuse, national and international, they. . .

. . .seek cover in their so-called "theory" of urinary⁽¹⁾ authoritarian executive power; the fascist fantasy that as long as they claim they are acting to "defend" us, they can usurp our collective sovereignty, violate our laws, commit international crime in our name, and destroy our institutions to serve themselves.

Because each and every violation comes back to their treasonous claim to absolute power, that is the center of the case. The crimes they commit "under color" of that claim support the case.

Every time Bush, Cheney, or their minions invoke urinary authoritarian power as their get out of jail free card, they declare themselves traitors. This high crime subsumes all others. It is all we need to force them from power tomorrow.

Their many immoral atrocities -- torture Gulags, terroristic threats of Mushroom Clouds,⁽²⁾ criminal war of aggression, massive program of spying on us without warrant or legitimate authorization, on and on -- are the proofs that they recognize NO limits on their power.

Despots who claim absolute power use it.

Impeachment is not just a means to hold them accountable for nuking the constitution with their claim to dictatorial power, it is the ONLY way we can protect ourselves against future atrocities.

We know all we need to know to impeach and remove right now. Comprehensive investigation and congressional hearings of the specific crimes (those that have been exposed and those that as yet remain secret) can follow.

Given the gravity and urgency, members of Congress have a sworn duty to do whatever they must to see that Bush and Cheney are forced to resign, or Impeached and removed.

Their duty is self-evident, and yet they fail to act.

Some of them are immobilized by the denial and rationalizations that pervades their insular DC world; some are ignorant of their duty; others are in cahoots with the bushcheney regime. But, whatever may be behind a particular member's failure, it is up to us to challenge them and make their inescapable duty to clear to them.

They are just people. Confronting them and chipping away at their rationalizations does not require great numbers, but it does require us to do more than write letters, call, or march.

To be effective, we must enter their world, seek meetings, engage them (and senior staff) in dialog, challenge their rationalizations, and hold them to their oath.

--------------------------------
(1) Pissing on the constitution.

(2) They TERRORIZED the American people with the most colossal bomb threat in history (mushroom clouds in 45 minutes). "They terrorized us" is something I'd like to see forced into the echo chamber. Lying is too tepid a label for their acts, "Cherry picking" a mealy-mouthed nothing. They terrorized us. They committed treason.

[bryant69]

12. Seems like that would move the trial onto shaky legel and rhetorical

grounds. I mean all Bush has to come back with is "Are you argueing that the constitution does not permit the President to protect the American people?" Plus the bush administration has some pretty smart (if evil) guys who will make a case that this conception of Presidential power is supported by both the Constitution and by historical tradition. They can and will thoroughly confuse the issue so that the case boils down to "The president is claiming Dictatorial powers" vs. "The President needs to be able to protect the American people." And people would find the later more compelling.

There's also a question about the feasibility of actually impeaching el Presidente, and the very real political price we would pay for trying and failing.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pat_k]

14. Impeachment is a POLITICAL not a legal process.

We vested the power to Impeach in Congress to ensure it is We the People, through our elected representatives, who determine whether or not a President is subverting or violating the intent of our common contract (our Constitution).

Bush has violated the letter of the law and subverted constitutional principle in the process. The case is not a shakey one (See Conyers investigation/report. See Hoodwinked by Prados).

But, even if a President has not violated the letter of the law, Congress would nevertheless be obligated by their oath if they/We the People concluded that the President's actions constituted a threat to the fabric of our constitutional democracy. We could impeach for extreme incompetence that endangered the nation if we concluded that the incommpetence posed a clear and present danger.

The definition of Impeachable hgh crimes and abuses of power are ours to define within the political process.

[bryant69]

16. Hmmmm

It strikes me there are two possible reasons to push for impeachment.

1. We have a good chance to get him impeached. This does not, in all fairness, seem to be the tack you are taking.

2. We have a moral duty to impeach him, even if the impeachment fails, and even if it embarrasses us politically as a party. This seems to be your argument - correct me if I am wrong.

That's a pretty hard sell.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pat_k]

19. So, rule by signing statement is AOK by you?

I have to sign off until tonight. A few questions for you in the meantime.

• Do you only stand and fight for principle if you think you can win?


• On what grounds do you make the assessment given a process that plays out across fences, in pockets of activity across the nation, step-by-step, event-by-event, with new possibilities opening up at each stage?


• Do you believe you can know how it will unfold in every neighborhood, at every stage? (i.e., Are you omniscient?)

When it comes to standing up for our most treasured principles, the ONLY way you can decide whether or not to fight is to decide how MUCH you actually treasure those principles.

In matters of truth and principle, fears of failure should never enter into the decision to act.

[bryant69]

21. What I find disagreeable about your position

is your willingness, even eagerness, to demonize those who don't happen to share your opinion. First we are appeasers and now you assume that rule by signing statement is A-OK with me?

This is similar to the Conservatoid gambit of "You don't support our plan to turn Iran into glass? You must want the terrorists to win."

I can see some benefit to pressing for Impeachment - and I can see some downside. Perhaps if I were pure-hearted I would ignore the potential downside; but there is more at stake than moral purity here. There are people going hungry, people suffering with stagnet wages, people without healthcare, people being taken advantage of by corporations. Real people. And one has to weigh the benefits of immediately fighting for impeachment against what we might lose in the process.

Bryant

[pat_k]

22. Complaining that form of the choice -- duty or complicity

. . .is "similar to" the false "Conservatoid gambit" doesn't say anything about the validity or substance.

As I pointed out above, the fact that they employ false dichotomies does not make all dichotomies false.

You seem a bit peeved that I am intolerant of your opinion.

All is not opinion. Truth and fact exist. There is an objective reality.

At times, the truth and the facts call on us to choose a path that balances multiple interests; at other times, the truth and the facts force us to make either/or choices that are inescapably black and white.

There are concrete principles and dictates that we have established in our common contract (the Constitution of the United States of America). It is a fact that Bush and Cheney have nullified and violated the terms of that contract. They are re-writing the terms without our consent or the consent of any other party to the contract. They are not only in serious breach of contract, they are committing crimes that all parties to the contract now share responsibility for.

The parties to the contract have a choice:

• Choose silence and submit to Bush and Cheney's unilateral terms; choose silence and share responsibility for the crimes committed under the terms you are submitting to.


• Choose to demand that the agents charged with enforcing the contract with respect to officials in the executive or judicial branches (i.e., Congress) do their duty (i.e., fire the President and Vice President for exceeding and misusing their authority in breach of contract).

It may be disagreeable, but each citizen who knows that Bush and Cheney are subverting our constitutional democracy face a black and white choice. The choice is little different than the choice a person faces when they are witness to an ongoing criminal enterprise.

If a criminal enterprise is being run next door and you have undeniable evidence of their egregious crimes in your hands, but choose to keep quiet about it, you are tolerating the criminal activity, and you share responsibly for the criminal acts committed each day that you don't go to the police, present the evidence, and ask them to do their job and put a stop to it.

Now, maybe the crimes are victimless crimes and sharing responsibility does not violate your moral code. In that case, silence wouldn't be a problem for you.

But if the crimes being committed are crimes you abhor, you cannot escape the fact that you share responsibility for the crimes committed each day you keep your mouth shut. You may be complicit because you fear for your life, but that doesn't absolve you. How much you will risk to break the bonds of complicity is going to be dependent on how much you abhor sharing responsibility for the crimes.

The choice each of us must make regarding Impeachment is no different.

Many Americans put a VERY high value on defending the Constitution of the United States and the principle of consent on which it is founded. We expect men and women of our armed services to risk life and limb to fulfill their oath. I haven't sworn an oath, but if called on to risk my life, I hope I have the courage to do whatever I have to.

For many, the value is so high that choosing to be complicit with men who are shredding our Constitution is an intolerable state. For these people, action becomes a moral imperative. For these people, defending the Constitution falls into the category of:

"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum"
"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall"


-----------------------------------
Risks of Silence / Benefits of Action

You appear to find complicity tolerable -- or believe it is balanced by some risk. Without your evidence or logic, I can't evaluate your fears. But, assuming your fears have some basis, your focus appears to be one-sided.

Have you considered the potential rewards and benefits of demanding Impeachment? Or the downside of NOT demanding Impeachment?

If you haven't, you might consider the following.

There is a big down side that the Democratic leadership and candidates cannot escape. As Craig Crawford has pointed out, they will pay a high price if they DO NOT run on Impeachment, but then do what their oath demands of them and move forward only after they perceive it to be "safe." The public will rightly view them as unprincipled cowards. Anyone who stands up for principle only when they think it is safe deserves our disdain.

There are potential political benefits -- big ones-- that are likely to translate into votes at the polls (nationalizing the election, demonstrating strength and conviction that Americans across the spectrum respect, giving voice to national anger at Bush. . . )

Impeachment is the only way for this nation to confront the horrible truths about this regime. Over and over this nation has failed to confront and come to grips with the truth. With every failure, we pay a higher price. (See http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html">Truth Matters).

You say you are worried that we'll lose something if we demand Impeachment, which begs the question:

---------------------
What could we lose that we haven't already lost?

We live in a country in which our highest office -- the office that carries with it the constitutional duty is to faithfully execute OUR laws -- is occupied by man who routinely nullifies OUR laws.

Executive branch operatives are systematically dismantling the institutions though which our laws are enforced and executed.

Agencies of OUR government are complying with orders from the Office of the President to violate our laws and to violate the international laws we have codified in our own Federal Statutes.

Through systematic and widespread corruption, 10-hour poll-tax lines, fraud, lawful and valid votes uncounted, purposeful mis-direction of voters, intimidation of voters, Fascist forces have stolen two Presidential elections.

The principle of consent, the SOLE moral principle on which the Constitution, and therefore the nation, was founded has been suspended.

[bryant69]

23. Well then I wish you luck in your endeavor

But I doubt that you will have any.

Bryant

[pat_k]

17. Another follow up re "very real political price we would pay for trying

. . .and failing."

If the Democratic caucus starts beating the Impeachment drum now, and successfully votes out Articles of Impeachment, or if a state conveys articles to Congress for action, sure, they could "fail" to get a guilty verdict from the Senate.

So what?

The process itself would have brought the crimes into the open. The camp fighting to make Impeachment a reality would have grown in strength, and learned lesses. Articles could be represented to the 110th Congress.

What would stop us from lobbying them to draft and vote out new, stronger Articles of Impeachment? If we do not win before the next Presidential election, what would stop of from demanding that Congress pass judgment on the high crimes and abuses of the Bush regime 2009, or 2020 for that matter.

As long as you are in the fight, you have not failed. One battle does not make a war.

What do fears about losing have to do with the necessity of standing on principle anyway? We might have lost against Nazi Germany too. Would that prospect have stopped you from demanding that America join the war against them?

There are ALWAYS benefits of fighting the good fights on principle, win or lose. . .

The farm workers union in Texas didn't give up the fight after the Onion strike was broken in '72. They haven't given up the fight for fairness yet.

[pat_k]

13. . . .a list of the crimes

It is the CLAIM to limitless power that subverts the constitition and demands defensive action. He has acted on his signing statements (e.g, continuing a policy of torture in violation of McCains bill). But, even if he had not committed crime under the authoritarian power he invokes, defending our constitional democracy from the claim is demanded by the Congressional oath.

Whether or not we include their torture Gulags, their terroristic threats of Mushroom Clouds, their aggressive war, and the other crimes, we must keep it ALL on the radar in the court of public opinion. There is so much that it merges in to an inescapable black cloud that will drive away even their staunchest bootlickers.

==============================================================================================

Although articles of Impeachment need not be violations of written law⁽²⁾, there are plenty of such violations to chose from. Below is the list I emphasize. You have most covered, but feel free to adopt anything you like.

• Violations of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act -- U.S. Code Title 50, Section 1805


• Violations of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 844 paragraph (e). Bomb Threat -- Whoever, through the use of the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate or foreign commerce, or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, willfully makes any threat, or maliciously conveys false information knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made, or to be made, to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property by means of fire or an explosive shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined under this title, or both.


• Violations of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 35. Imparting or conveying false information (Bomb Hoax)


• Countless acts of negligent homicide, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and wreckless endangerment of the members of our armed forces.


• In their failure to take even minimal steps to prevent the attacks of September 11th, they committed more than 3000 acts of negligent homicide and countless acts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and reckless endangerment.


• Violation of the Title 18 section 2441. War crimes


• Violations of U.S. Code Title 18 in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential <s>elections, In particular:
  
  
  • Section 241, which makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the exercise of a right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States (including the right to vote in an election for President).
  
  
  • Section 594, prohibits the intimidation or coercion (e.g., 10-hour poll-tax lines) of voters for the purpose of interfering with the right to vote for a candidate for federal office. (This statute does not require violent intimidation.)

Related topic: Charges Against George W. Bush

(2) Bugliosi includes a discussion of the types of crimes in None Dare Call it Treason. Unlike malum prohibitum (wrong because they are prohibited), malum in se (wrong in themselves) crimes involve morally reprehensible conduct that is wrong, often evil, even if there is no law against it. Bush and Cheney's treasonous claim that no law defined by others applies to them is such a crime. Congress never dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election, but the five black-robbed robbers that handed down the Bush v. Gore edict are nevertheless criminal. After we force bushcheney from power, we can turn our attention to impeaching them (a posthumous impeachment for Rehnquist).

[Rockholm]

3. The "MEDIA" are appeasers.

[pat_k]

8. . . .and some are Fascists and Fascist Dupes. . .

(like Nora O'Donnell, who can't seem to control the little knee jerk remarks defending Bush that drop from her brain to her tongue like gumballs).

[tlsmith1963]

24. When Rumsfeld Said We Were Appeasers...

I thought that the only "appeasers" in our party were the congressional Democrats who wouldn't stand up to Bush. So you make some good points.

[pat_k]

25. Within the beltway, they seem to have a morbid fear of being called . .

a "bad name."

When we call them "Appeasers", we are defining who the Fascist are -- and, since name calling seems to be their bogeyman, maybe the reality of the label "Appeaser" will actually insert itself into their fantasy beltway world. (Or, at least kick them into gear by activating their terror of the "bad name" bogeyman.)