The NeoLiberals screw us too

If you want to know all about AIPAC and the Neocons (and the Neolibs) your best resource is Antiwar.com

Pelosi's Capitulation
by Patrick J. Buchanan
March 20, 2007

If George W. Bush launches a preemptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.
Pelosi's capitulation came in the Appropriations Committee.
What went down, and why?

"Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy," wrote The Associated Press' David Espo and Matthew Lee.
"Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is a widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which … has expressed unremitting hostility to the Jewish state.
"'It would take away perhaps the most important tool the U.S. has when it comes to Iran,' she said of the now-abandoned provision.
"'I don't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize in a civilized way,' said Gary Ackerman of New York."

According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come."
Nichols does not exaggerate.

If Bush now launches war on Iran, he can credibly say Congress and the Democrats gave him a green light. For Pelosi, by removing a provision saying Bush does not have the authority, de facto concedes he does have the authority.
Bush and Cheney need now not worry about Congress.
They have been flashed the go sign for war on Iran.

Pelosi & Co. thus aborted a bipartisan effort to ensure that if we do go to war again, we do it the constitutional way, and we do it together.
Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress – before launching all-out war.
Now Pelosi has, in effect, ceded Bush carte blanche to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It's all up to him and Cheney.

For this the nation elected a Democratic Congress?

Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.

The Washington Times agrees as to who bully-ragged Nancy into scuttling any requirement that Bush come to the Hill before unleashing the B-2s on Arak, Natanz, and Bushehr:

"Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she badmouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran."

This episode, wherein liberal Democrats scuttled a bipartisan effort to require Bush to abide by the Constitution before taking us into a third war in the Middle East, speaks volumes about who has the whip hand on Capitol Hill, when it comes to the Middle East.

Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran, because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for Profiles in Courage.

As for the presidential candidates, it is hard to find a single one willing to stand up and say: If Bush plans to take us into another war in the Mideast, he must first come to Congress for authorization. And if he goes to war without authorization, that will be impeachable.

All retreat into the "all-options-are-on-the-table" mantra, which is another way of saying, "It's Bush's call."

The corruption of both parties is astonishing. Republicans used to be the party of the Constitution: "No more undeclared wars! No more presidential wars!"

Democrats used to be the party of the people. The people don't want this war. They don't want another. The Jewish community voted 88 percent for Democrats in November, and 77 percent oppose the war in Iraq.

So says Gallup. Yet, just because the Israeli lobby jerked her chain, the leader of the Peoples' House has decided she and her party will leave the next war up to Bush.

Sam Rayburn must be turning over in his grave.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10701

Pelosi Invades Iran
Tom Gilroy
01.31.2007
published on the Huffington Post

There's an interesting note in yesterday's New York Times article about the latest efforts of the White House to get around having to answer to the law, the Congress, or the will of the people.
In yet another stunning example of his ceaseless march to circumvent the Constitution and exert a totalitarian grip on every aspect of American life---be it access to information in libraries, gas prices, education, a free Internet, the environment, media, science, privacy, or civil liberties, imprisonment, torture--President Bush signed a directive giving the White House even greater control over the rules and policy statements the government develops to protect public health, workplace safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.
In short, our lives.

Historically, agencies like the EPA or OSHA issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress, but now that Congress is 'democrat' as Bush called it in his State of the Union address---thereby insulting roughly half of the Union---there's suddenly a slim chance that one of these agencies might actually break free from W's stranglehold and get back to doing what its supposed to do; enforce federal regulations----you know, the rules that protect the American people.
Well, the White House can't have that, hence this directive.

Remember, the White House isn't the government.

It is one part of a government that consists of three equally powerful branches, designed to insure an environment of compromise. Those clichés from history class-- 'balance of power' and 'checks and balances'--are drummed into our heads to remind us the Framers felt it central to our democracy and freedom that no branch of government should get more powerful than the others.
But the White House has been doing just that for 6 years.

With the implementation of this new directive, the federal rules and regulations we count on for our safety will only be issued or enforced if the Bush appointee installed to look over the shoulder of the given agency says its okay. Oh, and no one in any agency can tell the public about any findings--scientific or otherwise--unless one of these brown shirts gives the go ahead, either.
Sound like freedom to you?

"Having lost control of Congress," said Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, "the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch." The order "achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government."

Does this sound familiar? It should--the Nazis did it, like so many other things we've found ourselves doing lately, like water boarding, removing habeas corpus, and tapping the phones of Quakers.

Ignore for the moment that this is what the president chooses to do with his time when we're averaging about 30 deaths a day in Iraq, and look at this quote from the Times article;
'Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations.'Huh? The 'burden of federal regulations?'

Isn't that, you know, the 'burden of obeying the law?'

When did it become the job of the White House to help business get around obeying the law?

You know, I'd like to reduce the burden of federal regulations on me, too, but I can't afford a lobbyist. I'd like to get around the federal law that says I have to pay taxes that pay for torture. I'd also like to get off the airplane I'm kept waiting in on the runway for 45 minutes forced to watch Everybody Loves Raymond. I'd like to start a pot farm and hand out free joints to cancer patients. I'd like to speed through the tollbooth when the line is too long without paying. I'd like to go see what's so scary about Cuba. I'd like to see any doctor I want and have my HMO pay for it. I'd like to shoot down the traffic helicopter hovering over my house every morning at 5 am, and I'd like to waterboard Ann Coulter. The only problem is, federal laws and regulations prohibit these things.
Man, this burden is such a drag. Too bad I'm not a business.

Remember how Bush claimed he'd "taken a thumpin'" after he lost Congress, how he was ready to usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation? When exactly is that era beginning? It's been about a month with this new Congress and already he's gone after Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security (again!), spit in the face of the Iraq Study Group, escalated the war in Iraq in full defiance of the will of the American citizenry, and brought us closer to war with Iran.

And those are just the biggies. They're still undermining the truth about global warming, the FDA just lifted the ban on silicon breast implants for women despite proven health risks, and W's bogus 'health care' fix turned out to be just another transparent ploy to eliminate employer-funded health benefits once and for all.
Phew. Imagine if he didn't want to cooperate.

This is the man Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to impeach. Everywhere you look--other than the think tanks of Washington, that is---from opinion polls to the internet, restaurants to gyms, football games, letters to the editors, church bulletins, graffiti, mass transit---even the comment section of the Wall Street Journal online!--- citizens are demanding the guy has got to go, but Nancy Pelosi's decided impeachment is off the table.

The White House shows no sign of stopping, or even being chastened. It has been long one endless assault on constitutional democracy, and they don't take no for an answer.

Don't want to privatize Social Security? He'll come back with a new plan to privatize it.
Don't approve his appointees? He'll appoint them anyway.
Science says global warming exists? He says it doesn't.
Don't want to send more troops to Iraq? He sends them anyway.
Don't want to invade Iran? ___

It's not a lame duck Madam Speaker is giving a free ride to, it's an armed, insane, arrogant asshole duck and he has his webbed foot on the trigger of a third world war.

Only impeachment can stop him.

Only impeachment can stop this assault on democracy.

Only impeachment can stop the erosion of our constitution, our rights, our international stature, the impoverishment of our schools, the degradation of our air and water, the bankrupting of our future with mountains of debt, and the escalation of death to our soldiers, and to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

What more is it going to take for Nancy Pelosi to stand up? How low do we have to go? Maybe Madam Speaker can play nice-nice and robotically sit, stand, sit, stand, applaud, sit, and stand with a smile plastered on her face after W insults her and her 'democrat' congress in full view of the nation, but I've had it.

From this day forward, Ms Pelosi and my two Senators--one of whom will be running for President--will receive either an email, a letter or a phone call EVERY DAY demanding the impeachment of the most loathed global figure in the world. EVERY DAY. And I pledge to get one friend a week to take up this challenge.
Will you join me?