portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

Beating the drums for justice: Calls for Bush's impeachment for 9-11

update on activisim re. impeachment

Beating the drums for justice: Calls for Bush's impeachment for 9-11

By Joyce Lynn
Online Journal Contributing Writer


January 23, 2003?The "I" word in connection with 9-11 has come out of the closet as activists and citizens call for impeachment of the Bush administration.

A delegation of about 30 people on January 15 visited the office of Palo Alto Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-Ca) urging her to introduce articles of impeachment against George W. Bush for his "crimes of 9-11."

"The administration is lying to the American people and trying to cover-up the truth about 9-11," said organizer Carol Brouillet, a member of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

With local television cameras rolling, a staffer to Rep. Eshoo said she would relay the group's concerns.

At a community meeting on 9-11 the following night, Brouillet urged attendees to launch similar visits to their members of Congress.

Referring to the sign popular at peace marches, Brouillet asserted, "Regime change begins at home."

One participant likened post 9-11 fears of questioning the administration's story and the lockstep response to Bush's patriotic fever to the Germans' response to Hitler. "The German people were trained for over 100 years to be free from personal responsibility. They could feel free as long as they were obeying their leader. I see a lot of that obedience in Americans," she said.

Another questioned whether an administration that was illegally installed could be impeached.

The march came a year after Brouillet led a delegation to the San Francisco office Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein demanding a congressional investigation of 9-11.

At that time, the group raised questions about the business relationships of the Bush and bin Laden families through the Carlyle Group, the failure of fighter jets to intercept the four hijacked planes in violation of standard procedures, and questions about U.S. oil interests in the Caspian Sea Basin.

With pressure from 9-11 families and over administration objections, a joint House-Senate Committee was set up to investigate the intelligence communities and 9-11. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney urged then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) to limit the inquiries.

Because of the administration's failure to fully cooperate with the Joint Committee and because its scope was limited to the Intelligence communities, the 9-11 families pushed for an independent commission. Legislation established the commission late last year.

Bush Ignoring Numerous Warnings

Among the first to sound the 9-11 impeachment siren were two veteran Democratic strategists. In June 2002, Bob Fertik and David Lytel launched "The Buck Stops Here" on their Democrats.comwebsite. Similar to Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge's color-coded system of terrorists' alerts, Fertik and Lytel have compiled a devastating indictment of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.

That call for impeaching Bush asserts Bush allowed the September 11 terrorist attacks to succeed by ignoring numerous warnings, failing to take precautions against hijackings, and then lying about it afterwards. As of January 16, Democrats.com's electronic petition to impeach Bush had 4,774 "signatures."

Asked whether the site, home to progressive Democrats, had garnered any congressional support for impeachment, Fertik said, "Look at what happened to Cynthia McKinney. Nobody wants to be next," he said. Challenging the administration on 9-11 "is a guaranteed ticket to political hell."

Last spring, McKinney, a Democratic congresswoman from Georgia, called for an investigation of the events surrounding 9-11. McKinney said, "The American people deserve answers about what went wrong on September 11 and why."

She accused the administration of warmongering in Afghanistan and connected the role of oil and defense interests to U.S. policies. Although her statement seems prophetic now, McKinney was ridiculed at the time. Political strategists of her own party on national television derided her. Her reelection bid went up in smoke when she was defeated in the primary election.

Fertik called the "real juice" for investigating 9-11 the "People's Investigation and the 9-11 families who are pushing to have a commission. They are unhappy with the rigged commission. They want the truth."

Despite the administration's resistance to an independent commission to look into 9-11, Bush finally agreed. However, he appointed Henry Kissinger to head the commission. Kissinger, who has served in four Republican administrations, has a controversial reputation and oil interests in the Caspian Sea Basin.

Kissinger resigned and Bush appointed Thomas Kean, who also has oil interests conflicts and financial ties to bin Laden's brother-in-law.

Disappointed with the administration's response, a loose association of citizens, researchers, and activists is assembling a 9-11 Truth Alliance to establish its own investigation of the many unanswered questions surrounding 9-11. The alliance is organizing a 9-11 Citizens Truth Commission and planning a conference in New York City in the spring.

Fertik said there were a myriad of warnings about 9-11 "but whether Bush was personally privy has not been established."

That kind of information could be put on the table after hearings begin. Fertik pointed out that the Watergate hearings revealed Richard Nixon was tape recording his Oval office conversations and those tapes provided the proof of the cover-up of the illegal break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters and hush-funds payoffs.

The 9-11 Independent Commission, which has an 18-month legislative life, is unlikely to release its findings before the 2004 presidential election. "Yeah, that is part of their game plan," Fertik said. "They control the clock." He said Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, "is brilliant at this. If they want something, it has to happen immediately, like the bombing of Iraq. Otherwise they will run out the clock."

"'Finality.' Remember that?" Fertik asked ruefully referring to the Republican tactics during the 2000 election recount. The Republicans argued the future of democracy depended on knowing who the next president would be, rather than on counting the votes.

"They will run this out, too," Fertik said.

Then, pausing, he offered: "Bob Graham is serious about running for president. He's furious at the White House and Bush and the intelligence community for jerking them (the Joint Intelligence Committee) around, and they kept secrets from the committee."

Fertik also said former committee co-chair Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala) is "equally livid. Maybe Graham will start talking about it if he runs, " mused Fertik.

Regardless of the scenario, Fertik maintained, "The American people have the right to know what went on and who to hold accountable."

The committee's 50-plus page staff report released in September listed dozens of warnings about attacks on U.S. soil including terrorists plans to use planes as weapons. (Excerpts from the committee report are below.)

CIA director George Tenet has refused to declassify a memo containing what he told Bush about terrorists' threats in an August 6, 2001, briefing. Graham has also expressed concerns about how the terrorists were able to enter and travel in the U.S.

Asked if the Bush administration's recalcitrance related to 9-11 might be a campaign issue in a 2004 Graham for President campaign, Carson Chandler in Graham's Senate office had this response: "That is something (Graham) has continually brought up regarding 9-11." However, Chandler said, until the senator decides his political future, "he is not talking about his agenda for a campaign."

Graham has said he will announce whether he is running for the Democratic nomination in 2004 in late January after Bush's state of the Union Address. News stories report Graham is busy talking with Florida supporters.

Activists have questioned what Graham and his House counterpart on the Intelligence Committee,, Rep. Porter Goss (R-Mich), were doing on the morning of 9-11 at a breakfast meeting with the Pakistan ISI chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad. In October 2001, the Pakistan intelligence head was accused of wiring $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 hijackers. Top officials in the Bush administration also met with Ahmad in the days before and after 9-11.

University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark have drafted articles of impeachment against Bush for his Iraqi war policies.

They wrote similar impeachment articles against George H.W. Bush for the Gulf War 12 years ago. Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tx) introduced the articles of impeachment, which Boyle credits for halting Bush's march into Iraq.

More Questions About 9-11

Questioning the administration's handling of 9-11, several noted figures have recently broken the shroud of public silence about the administration's veracity and actions (or lack of) before, on, and after 9-11.

During a presentation to the Fairfax City Council in Marin County, California, which was considering a resolution to oppose the USA PATRIOT Act, Daniel Ellsberg, on January 7, raised the issue of what the administration knew.

"They were waiting for such an incident to come," Ellsberg said. He said as a Defense Department analyst in the 1970s, he would have been instructed to write such legislation under similar circumstances.

Following the council meeting, Ellsberg said, "They were warned there would be a major terrorist event. What did they do? Nothing. Bush was briefed in July and August. What did they do? I feel morally certain they drafted a Tonkin Gulf-like resolution for Afghanistan and polished up the PATRIOT Act before 9-11."

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave President Lyndon Johnson powers to drastically expand the U.S. war in Vietnam.

Ellsberg said he is not convinced "yet" Bush knew "precisely" when the events would happen. Afterwards, "they wanted to avoid blame. What government officials say after such events is almost never true. They always cover up afterwards."

Helen Thomas, a former UPI reporter and now a Hearst News columnist and dean of the White House Press Corps, is a lone voice among her colleagues in addressing 9-11. Upon release of the committee's final report and a call by Shelby for CIA director George Tenet to "take the fall," she asks if Bill Clinton and George W. Bush should be "held responsible" as well.

The corporate media has capitulated to fears of losing access to its news sources or approval of even more mergers and acquisition. The public broadcasting system fears losing its federal funding. Except for a few websites, even the independent media avoid reporting on 9-11 as if it were the worst of the 10 plagues.

Last fall, former Vice President Al Gore accused the administration of ignoring signs al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden planned to attack the United States on September 11. "The warnings were there before the attacks," he said. Gore also said Bush's Justice Department and the FBI had spent more time and money investigating a suspected New Orleans brothel than monitoring bin Laden and his terrorist network.

Yet, no U.S. government official has been held accountable. Instead, Bush has promoted and rewarded military and intelligence agency heads under whose watch 9-11 occurred. Members of Congress knew of the warnings and yet handed Bush, under whose watch 9-11 occurred, powers to invade Iraq.

Excerpts From Joint Inquiry Staff Statement of Eleanor Hill, Staff Director, Joint Inquiry Staff, September 18, 2002

From the Foreward: "According to the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet), the President's [sic] knowledge of intelligence information relevant to this Inquiry remains classified even when the substance of that intelligence information has been declassified. . . . (on two matters)

"The Joint Inquiry staff disagrees with the DCI's position on both issues. We believe the America public has a compelling interest in the information and that public disclosure would not harm national security. However, we do not have independent authority to declassify intelligence information short of a lengthy procedure in the U.S. Congress . . ."

The statement contained at least 11 references to terrorists using planes as weapons. Here are a few of those and other findings:

  • "[S]hortly after Osama bin Laden's May 1998 press conference, the Intelligence Community began to acquire intelligence information indicating that bin Laden's network intended to strike inside the United States. Many of these reports were disseminated throughout the Intelligence Community and to senior U.S. policy makers."
  • "In June 1998, the Intelligence Community obtained information from several sources that Osama bin Laden was considering attacks in the U.S., including Washington, DC and New York. This information was provided to senior U.S. Government officials in July 1998." (Joint Inquiry Staff Statement, Part 1, 9-18-2002, pg. 15)
  • "In August 1998, the Intelligence Community obtained information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center. The information was passed to the FBI and the FAA. The FAA found the plot highly unlikely given the state of that foreign country's aviation program. Moreover, they believed that a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its intended target inside the United States. The FBI's New York office took no action on the information, filing the communication in the office 's bombing repository file . . .
  • "In September 1998, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Osama bin Laden's next operation could possibly involve flying an aircraft loaded with explosives into a U.S. airport and detonating it; this information was provided to senior U.S. Government officials in late 1998."
  • "In the fall of 1998, the Intelligence Community received information concerning a bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, DC areas."
  • "In November 1998, the Intelligence Community obtained information that a bin Laden terrorist cell was attempting to recruit a group of five to seven young men from the United States to travel to the Middle East for training. This was in conjunction with planning to strike U.S. domestic targets . . ."
  • "A December 1, 1998 Intelligence Community assessment of Osama bin Laden read in part: 'OBL is actively planning against U.S. targets . . . Multiple reports indicate UBL is keenly interested in striking the U.S. on its own soil . . . al-Qa'ida is recruiting operatives for attacks in the U.S. but has not yet identified potential targets.'"
  • "A classified document signed by a senior U.S. Government official in December 1998 read in part: 'The intelligence community has strong indications that bin Laden intends to conduct or sponsor attacks inside the United States.'"
  • "In the spring of 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information about a planned bin Laden attack on a U.S. Government facility in Washington, D.C."
  • "In the March of 2000, the Intelligence Community obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives in bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plants."
  • "A briefing prepared for senior government officials at the beginning of July 2001 contained the following language: 'Based on a review of all source reporting over the last five months, we believe that OBL will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"
  • "[I]n August 2001, a closely held intelligence report, for senior government officials, included information that bin Laden had wanted to conduct attacks in the United States since 1997. The information included discussion of the arrest of Ahmed Ressam in December 1999, and the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It mentioned that members of al Qaeda, including some U.S. citizens, had resided or traveled in or traveled to the United States for years, and that the group apparently maintained a support structure here. The report cited uncorroborated information obtained in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to hijack airplanes to gain the release of U.S.-held extremists. F.B.I. judgments about patterns of activity, consistent with preparation of hijackings . . ."
Copyright ? 2003 Joyce Lynn

Joyce Lynn is a journalist and was a political reporter for eight years in Washington, DC. She is editor of the Political Diary. She can be reached at politicaldiary@hotmail.com.


(FAIR USE ONLY; In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



Bush is just an anchorman - he's not the boss 26.Jan.2003 02:26

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

True, Bush is a problem. But the real problem is "our" capitalist (plutocratic oligarchic) system. It guarantees that a genocidal maniac will be pResident. Ousting Bush will merely make room for another dollar-chasing mass killer. Democrats are just as bloodthirsty as republicans (yes even Carter and Clinton) - democrats started WWI, WWII and Vietnam. Impeach and replace the system, not its figureheads.

yeah, but, GRINGO STARS......... 26.Jan.2003 02:57


You're missing the big picture here. What you say is correct on one level. But the point is, somehow pressure must be put on this regime to stop it from trashing America and the world beyond hope. In fact, things are so god damn crazy right now that we have ideologies (Cheney and gang) that actually look forward to having the entire middle east erupt in conflict. These very same people don't mind the notion of nuclear war, and have religious views that are messianic and sociopath. They're willing to start wars and not really care too much about the final downside risk scenarios (in this case, we're talking WWIII as the worst case, and extinction of the human race; anyone that sees that statement as hyperbole is simply not sufficiently informed, as the point isn't what the risk is, but the fact that the risk exists and is way above a probability of zero).

I'm sorry, but you need to put down your axiomatic truisms for the moment and "stoop" to the lesser fight of embracing tactics that can put some pressure -- and perhaps stop -- this insane right-wing junta. There are a great many people within the ruling class that are against what is going on, and we're finally seeing that body express itself in various forms (e.g., the increasing number of stories we hear about Generals and Pentagon types trying to slow Bush down, and on and on...).

I don't mean to come off too strong here. And I'm not firing a salvo at you. But the stakes are so high and dire at the moment (which I know you agree) that we don't have the luxury of armchair ideological debate. Call it embrace of lesser strategies if you must, but working within the system for system change right now is vital, regardless of how it's done. The ruling class is not a monolith, and there is some unknown percentage of the elite that actually is a bit worried about the spin-out challenges of downside risk scenarios.

Going after Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Ashcroft per the articles of impeachment drafted by Prof. Boyle is about putting pressure on the right-wing junta first and foremost, not necessarily impeachment itself.

please excuse the typos 26.Jan.2003 03:03


"ideologies" should have been "ideologue." I'm sleepy. Might be another one or two in there, but you'll get the drift



...than Republican Party dictators. Because ultimately, it is the American Evil Empire itself (regardless of what Political faction is in charge, Liberal or Conservative; Democrat or Republican) that is the enemy and the problem.

If you want to "put pressure" on the American government, some lame "article of impeachment" that will never see the light of day is a waste of time. Prof. Boyle may or may not be sincere, but he knows damn well Congress will NEVER take up his so-called articles of impeachment. The best way to push pressure on the current American regime is to not only to protest but to actively rebel in the streets. This is what the American establishment (including many Liberal "Peace Police" in the antiwar movement) fear. The Liberals (or Warmongers Lite, as I call them) are more interested in channelling opposition to the war into Nice, Safe, respective, and utterly useless forms of protests--like some phony "Articles of Impeachment."

Indeed, this whole impeachment charade is being pushed by Liberals, and other Democratic Party sympathizers who are interested in Bashing Bush on whatever issue that exists (War, 9-11, etc...) all the while carefully trying to divert attention from the American Empire itself (including the Democratic Party wing of this Evil Empire). Last time I check many Democratic Party hacks in Congress and those candidates running for President supported both the Colonization of Afghanistan and of Iraq.

Moreover, Online Journal, which is publishing this articles of impeachment is connected to the Democratic Party. It essentially acts as a proxy or cutout for the Demo-rats (and Lying Liberals in general) to attack the Bush Regime for politically opportunistic reasons, and to tacitly promote the Demo-rats as some kind of progressive alternative.

In terms of 9-11, maybe Online Journal and Prof. Boyle should ask why it is that many of the 9-11 hijackers trained at secure US military bases in Florida, Alabama, and California DURING THE CLINTON REGIME?


Answer those questions, and you will have more than George Bush or the Republicans to "impeach." You can be sure that Democrats and other phony progressives are just as guilty.

Extinction of humanity-stay focused on stakes 26.Jan.2003 12:08


I don't want to spend much time debating you point for point. But I will address a number of things you say. First of all, you have done exactly what Gringo Stars has done: You have misunderstood my basic point. I agree with your analysis of the world we live in when it comes to the Democrats being no different, Clinton being guilty of supporting and working with Osama through the CIA, etc. But both you and Gringo are, again, coming from an axiomatic dogma. I'm sorry folks, but the entire fucking world is at risk of going extinct here. You need to be a little more flexible for the short-term.

Putting pressure on the right-wing oligarchy through standard political address isn't something to mock out of hand, which is what you're doing. The Bush fascists have been pushed back on a few fronts. For example, funding for Total Information Awareness was blocked this week by Congress. The "TIPS" program to create an informant system like East Germany was stopped last year. Bush wanted to go to war as early as last October, and as late as September the Bush administration was saying that there was no need to go to the U.N. It was the rise of the peace movement taking generic actions that forced the moderation of the Bush policy (going to the U.N., which has now set-up another potential stumbling block and bought the peace movement time). Could you be a dogmatic reflex intellectual and argue that "progressive" action is never going to ultimately address the root causes of our system's problems? Of course you can! You're right! But you're also being foolish in the near-term. The risk of the extinction of humanity has increased in the last few months, and it's time for everyone to rally around a lower common denominator/standard for unifying action. That's basically what the ANSWER folks are doing. Yeah yeah, I know anarchist find the Stalinist ANSWER folks rather pathetic. But there's a lesson to be had here. Even though ANSWER is -- how shall I say? -- putting on a face when they present their broad-based plea for demonstrations, it has worked in getting over a million people out in the streets in the last six months.

Look, I get rather angry with the Liberal "Peace Police" bozos as well. I'm not one of them. I'm not a liberal. Frankly, I don't know what the hell I am.

I would like you to honestly consider the following suggestion: take some time to listen to the Boyle radio interview (follow the links in the article above, you'll find it). Putting pressure on the regime is doable. Even though America has increasingly seen the rise of rigged systems (fascist five on the supreme court, fixed voting and voting scams among the mix), the political system still has some traditional levers that can exert change. The peace movement has exerted change. A formal impeachment drive, if embraced by five or ten percent of the American people and only a small percentage of congress would freak out the Bush administration. It more and more people could be brought under it's umbrella, perhaps it would do more than just freak out Shrub and Co., but the fact is, the process will slow him down regardless, and the process is in fact important in getting more of the truth about 9-11 out in the general public mind.

Finally, when it comes to your attack of Online Journal, I'd like to respond with a resounding yawn. I know all about how fake liberal organizations have compromised funding sources, and how much of the progressive media is spineless by design. But I also know that radicals have a tendency to lump things into a black and white framework. You're doing just that. Let me give you an example. Alexander Cockburn has been consistent in his attacking the fake liberal peace movement police but he writes for (among other publications) The Nation. The Nation is DEFINITELY compromised, with CIA connection and more. But should we condemn The Nation in full, or be open to reading an article or two when it serves our purpose? This is kind of a silly example, but it demonstrates my point. Radicals can sometimes come off sounding like Nazi book burners in their screaming about how compromised the liberal/progressive media is. Yes, the general observation is 100% true. The liberal/progressive media is truly screwed-up. But it's not 100% screwed up, and it also happens to be a potential ally.

I've written more than I planned. I'll stop here, but one final note:

You know, I read messages like yours and conclude that it's possible you are either:

1) Honest, coming from a high standard of radicalism;

2) posting what amounts to a COINTELPRO style message

In your case, I think #1 is operating. But it's worth pointing out that it's relatively easy for people to take the stand you take and be #2. There's nothing more the right-wing junta would like than to have the powerful political organizers from the radical ranks to sit out, to have radicals not organize and embrace some "lesser" strategies.

more on Online Journal 26.Jan.2003 12:26


I need to say a little more. Bev Conner, the woman that runs that gig, doesn't make money from it, and isn't on any mainstream Democratic party payola gravy train. Online Journal has been VASTLY more progressive (and occasionally, radical) than publications like The Nation (which is never radical, and often not even honestly progressive).

Online Journal has been pushing Radio Internet Story Exchange and Mike Ruppert's thesis about the way "peak oil" is changing the geopolitical map (that's not fake progressive journalism). Online Journal has been publishing a great many scathing stories about what happened on 9-11.

Online Journal has much more in common with QuestionsQuestions.Net than 99.99999999999999% of all other media. QuestionsQustions.Net has been the leading online media outfit to put the CIA foundation money story out on the net.

I point out all of the above just to show you that you're not even fully familiar with the target of your criticism, and as such, you need to be a little bit more humble, a little less bound by ideology and more open to empirical review.

"x" Has Got it Right 26.Jan.2003 15:07


Bushco Inc. continues to overplay its hand. I can only guess as to why; perhaps thinking that they are bound to get some fraction of what they are after, so best to load the pot as fat as possible; perhaps thinking that they have assumed full control, and have an opportunity to grab it all; maybe they realize that their broad and extreme agenda has forced them into an Enron-like shell game, and any substatial downturn in their political "stock" may well trigger an unmanagable card-house collapse.

The Bushco Inc. model for global domination, contempt for humanity, and plunder of resources has provided thoughtfull people with an excellent opportunity. These guys have become the poster children for an unsustainable course; something that would have not occurred if Gore/Lieberman were in control, only to persue similar policies in a not-so-in-your-face way.

Bushco policies cannot withstand the light of day. This is the real power of those who oppose them. Once the curtain is pulled, the Wizzard has relatively little hope of regaining his hold on the masses. Information is our greatest weapon/tool for change.

Self defense instructors often seem to teach students to redirect the strength and momentum of their opponent, against that opponent. In my opinion, that is what is needed here. An impeachment hearing of the 'fab-4' would undoubtedly shed some much needed light on their agenda, and could very well delegitamize it on a widespread basis. This puts a major burden on anyone that follows and seeks to follow the same path, whether Demopublican or Republicrat, Anarchist, Green or Purple.

Smashing the State offers no guarantees that what follows will be any better, and the State has us ridiculously outgunned anyways. If the opposition insists on fighting an extreme agenda with an equally extreme sollution, we run a disasterous risk of losing the audience. The real possibilty for lasting change here comes with achieving mundane, yet still formidable goals, such as convincing the majority of the American public that Saddam did not topple the World Trade Center.
"x" Has Got it Right
"x" Has Got it Right



You can read this :


And the text of Steve Grey :


It is time for revolution!


Dick Cheney looks like the Wizard of Oz 26.Jan.2003 16:54


Hey, thanks y-naught. That's a very cool picture. And it just made me realize that Dick Cheney actually looks quite a bit like the Wizard of Oz character. How funny and ironic. Here, life is imitating art, decades later no less.

hey Mr. *do* .... 26.Jan.2003 17:39


You are sure making a big effort to paste your message after the handful of postings I made around the net. Hmmmm.... Interesting. Very interesting. ;-)

Putting Pressure on the American Government. 26.Jan.2003 21:31


I am all for putting pressure on the American government, but the real question is: Which method is most effective?

Does anyone here actually believe that Congress is actually going to file Articles of Impeachment against Bush? If so, which Congressperson is going to do this? Cynthnia McKinney...er...maybe...um...how about Trent Lott?

YOu know very well Congress will never file impeachment charges against the Bush Regime, BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE BUSH REGIME AGENDA. Unless, of course, public protest against Bush mounts and the price becomes "too high" and they decide to "cut their losses" and dump Bush--just as the American political establishment did with Nixon.

What Liberals always want to do is to appeal to this or that Political faction in the American Empire to DO THE RIGHT THING. This is nonsense. The American Political Establishment fundamentally acts according to the interests of the American Empire. Period.

You are seriously deluded if you think Congress can be begged or appealed to do the right thing. Didn't Congress ignore public opinion and the overwhelming public sentiment against the War which flooded their offices in the form of letters, faxes, e-mail, etc...right before thety voted to give a green light to Bush to attack Iraq?

If you want to put pressure on the American government (and not just Bush) you need to get out in the streets and mobilize the masses. This is the only thing that you can count on.

So what, then? 27.Jan.2003 02:21


So, if we are going to overthrow the government, how are we going to do it? Are you just talking out you're ass, or do you actually plan to do something? Oh, and by the way, getting Nixon out of office stopped the vietnam war. It wouln't fix the problem to try to impeach bush, but it would be a start. It's better than sitting around talking about overthrowing the whole system, and not doing anything. Peaceful protests with permits are not going to do it. Think French Revolution, not The Sixties. And as for the whole republican/democrat argument, I have to put my two cents in. I had a job, a right to an abortion, and a chance for decent education under Clinton, and he wasn't getting us into war. WE had mental health care coverage for poor people, some kind of decent disability program, and many other perks some of you seem to have taken for granted. These are all being taken away, and we went from a surplus to a deficit. Yeah, OK, he's pretty bad too, but not nearly as bad as this admin. But maybe we all needed to hit bottom to get off our asses and do something.



"So, if we are going to overthrow the government, how are we going to do it? Are you just talking out you're ass, or do you actually plan to do something?"

Yeah, get the fuck out in the streets. And I am not talking about some lame "Peace is Patriotic" officially sanctioned protest. Think Detroit or Watts during the 1960s or Los Angeles in 1992.

"Oh, and by the way, getting Nixon out of office stopped the vietnam war. It wouln't fix the problem to try to impeach bush, but it would be a start."

What ended the Vietnam War was the ferocious resistance of the Vietnamese people who made life a living hell for the American military. Hopefully the Islamic/Arab peoples are made of similar stuff.

"It's better than sitting around talking about overthrowing the whole system, and not doing anything. Peaceful protests with permits are not going to do it. Think French Revolution, not The Sixties. And as for the whole republican/democrat argument, I have to put my two cents in. I had a job, a right to an abortion, and a chance for decent education under Clinton, and he wasn't getting us into war."

Didn't Clinton Attack Yugoslavia in 1999? Didn't Clinton invade and attack Somalia in 1993? Didn't Clinton bomb Iraq periodically throughout the 1990s including Operation Desert Fox in 1998?

Your comments that Clinton didn't get "us" into any war is typical of the ignorance and arrogance that American Pigs all possess. Tell that to the TENS OF THOUSANDS of people murdered around the world by your beloved Clinton and your American Empire.

close to the vest 27.Jan.2003 10:00


word to the wise: "when you can: speak instead of writing, nod instead of speaking, and wink instead of nodding."

indy is a great forum for these discussions, but ashcroft is just waiting, licking his lips, for your to "launch a revolution."

why get your ass in a sling?

you'd be better of reading a few books, "grain of mustard seed" by Marcio Moreira Alves, and Lenin, for example.

bush and cheney aren't political invulnerable. indeed, their tax cutting and promising to maintain spending, while at the same time attacking other countries and fomenting chaos is not exactly, shall we say, the most tactful way to succeed in politics. personally, i think this is the best opportunity we have to bend our legislators over a barrel and DEMAND that the constitution be upheld, the patriot act repealed, and the REAL PEACE DIVIDEND be wrenched out of the hands of the super-rich. right now the most important legislation to fight is corporate welfare, off-shore tax havens for companies seeking federal contracts, and abolition of the inheritance tax. if you stopped ranting about revolution and attached them on these issues, they are going to crumble! that would be A BILLION TIMES more important then getting your pimply ass in jail.

What ended Vietnam 27.Jan.2003 14:22

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

In the US Army in Vietnam, working-class grunts were dying rapidly because middle-class officers would gladly sacrifice their own troops in order to get a precious promotion. This led directly to a violent, deadly insurrection within the US forces. It was called "fragging" because usually fragmentation grenades would destroy any evidence of how the commanding officer died. Prices were put on the heads of those hardheaded officers who didnt care about the lives of their soldiers. Grenade pins would be left of the officer's beds or pillows as a warning, smoke grenades as a second warning. But by 1970 they had stopped counting the number of officers fragged because it was so common by then. Officers started killing their own troops when in the field - usually the most active in organisation of troops.

What effect did all of this have? The army couldn't do a damn thing. Officers had to negotiate every order they gave their troops, under fear of death. The army was useless and even the Pentagon knew this.

VIOLENT REVOLT on th epart of the troops themselves did a majority of the work towards ending the Vietnam war.


The fact that the working class at home in the US was regularly losing their relatives to the war was also made the protests against the war much much bigger than the previously middle-class-only protests.

Carter (democrat) went on record as supporting the Vietnam war - Kennedy (democrat) started it and Johnson (democrat) made it bigger. Nixon inherited a schitt-storm in Vietnam.

Clinton was a better p[olitician, a better propagandist, than Bush. Both are heartless and selfish in nature, but Clinton comes off as a friendly town drunk rather than the smirking fratboy that George The Second still is.

Considering the appetite of crude oil that the US has and the job of the Presidency, and who the president's employers are, endless war in inevitable, democrat or republican. Economies do better under democrats, historically speaking, true.

I'd do a booty-dance of happiness if Dubya gets ousted, but I'd do a moonwalk of sadness since his successor will be much the same. Changing the biggest cog in a machine leaves the machine the same, with the same functions.

At very least, I hope the outrages that Dubya has committed will open the eyes of the public. But that's no consolation.


Good Discussion 27.Jan.2003 21:43


one point however, about the French Revolution and revolutions, in general. Be careful of the result. With the French Revolution, the poor still got screwed. Those who took over were not much better.

History of the Rulers 16.Feb.2006 02:48

Wake up to history and to Benjamin Freedman afn34085@afn.org

Of all things, people just don't get it right when it come to Who's running our lives. History don't lie if you dig deep enough to learn the path of where we are heading. As much as I have dig into the past to ancient times, lets start at beginning of civilization of Mesopotamia (Iraq). Artifact have been discovered in Iraq and other location. Saddam would not share with the world which PREDATES the story of the old testament. The line of jews copy the story from the Mesopotamia creation of life and rewrote the creation of the old testament. And therefore everybody follow the old testament story and never look farther back before the old testament. Vola - the war in Iraq to cover there ass and all the artifact were rob from site to keep away from the public was shown on CNN and nobody stop them. This is just a tip of the ice berg. Now comes the big ice berg.

People do yourself a favor and look up for Benjamin Freedman. A Zionist jew himself which he dis-sociated himself away from the Zionist clans and spent the rest of his life trying to tell the people what going on. Look it up.

Jerry Keller