Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (187139)	5/23/2006 9:25:49 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Rove Strategy Isn't Unimpeachable __________________________________________________________ by Jesse Jackson Published on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 by the Chicago Sun Times There they go again. The Republican National Committee, the right-wing noise machine and their spear carriers in the mainstream media, have been in attack mode over the last few weeks. This time their target is Rep. John Conyers, the distinguished senior Democrat who will become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee if Democrats win the House back this fall. With the president and the DeLay Congress about as popular as big oil CEOs, the RNC is desperate to demonize Democrats. So they cooked up a campaign claiming that if Democrats win the House, Conyers is geared up to impeach the president. This threat, they suggest, will rouse the disaffected Republican base and bring them out to vote in large numbers. The mainstream media fell for the bait. The ever-cooperative Tim Russert grilled Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi, suggesting that Conyers should take down the Web site explaining his resolution providing for a bipartisan committee to investigate the administration and to recommend whether or not impeachment hearings should begin. (Pelosi, to her credit, didn't fold. She said the Democrats would investigate the handling of intelligence leading up to the war, the corruption in the war and other administration misdeeds. She reminded Russert that checks and balances were the essence of the Constitution.) But Democrats were spooked. Their excitable inside-the-Beltway strategists began worrying that the Democratic left would blow the election by alienating voters in swing districts. Pelosi then had her spokesperson announce that ''impeachment wasn't in the cards'' if Democrats took back the House. It is hard to sort out which is more pathetic: the RNC for hyping this gambit, the press for falling for it or Democratic leaders for cowering at the first sign of a dustup. I'd say let the RNC run the fall election on the issue of saving Bush's neck. ''This election isn't about you,'' Republican candidates would say, ''or your jobs, your skyrocketing health care and gas costs or your stagnant incomes. And it's not about the country being mired in a costly occupation of Iraq, saddled with record foreign debt, accelerating outsourcing and a $1 trillion trade deficit this year alone. No, this election is about George Bush. Vote to protect him and Dick Cheney from accountability. Vote Republican. We may not do much for you, but we'll keep George Bush and Dick Cheney above the law.'' The doyens of the press fell for the RNC's line that this pap would turn out their base, without a shred of evidence to support it. Ironically, just as the RNC's Conyers-demonization campaign was winding down, conservatives like Richard Viguerie and James Dobson were threatening that conservatives might stay home in the fall. Defending the president from impeachment was not high on their agenda. Moreover, investigation and impeachment of the president isn't about election tactics. It is about preserving the Constitution, the Republic and defending our liberties. This president has made a sweeping claim to national security prerogatives in a war on terror that has no end. He says he can make war without Congress, surveil you without a warrant, lock you up without a lawyer, keep you in jail so long as the unending war goes on without a hearing. The Republican Congress has utterly failed to provide even a minimum of oversight and accountability. Their concern has been to protect their party and their president before protecting the Constitution and its people. A Democratic Congress would have a constitutional duty to investigate and challenge the president's claims. Investigating potential high crimes and misdemeanors isn't partisan. It isn't about ''settling scores.'' It's about protecting the Constitution and preserving the republic and the rule of law. White House political guru Karl Rove suggests that Republicans run this fall by creating a choice: Democrats will raise your taxes, cut and run from Iraq and impeach the president. Republicans will defend the president's tax cuts and economy, keep troops in Iraq till at least 2009, and keep the president above accountability. Let's have Rove's election. It surely would help Democrats take back the House.

To: geode00 who wrote (187139)	5/23/2006 9:37:41 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes; my point is that environmental doom-saying, however fashionable, flies in the face of a number of facts. Furthermore, to say that there is a "consensus" around global climate change, as if someone just published Newton's Law of Climate Change complete with proofs, is to wildly overstate the case. There is consensus that the climate has been growing warming since about 1750, and more quickly for the last century. There is consensus that man's activities are responsible for some part of this warming. But there is no consensus on how big a part, or how much the warming will be, or what the underlying mechanisms are. Even if there were such a consensus, there is no reason to believe that the Kyoto treaty would be a good idea, since it would have a small effect on the atmosphere, but a large negative effect on the US economy, and would not touch India or China, new major pollution sources. Perhaps we should just figure out how to adapt to the coming changes - but to do that, we need to know how big they will be, and what effect they will have on the weather, and the models can't tell us that.