[Peace-discuss] impeachment

Sun Mar 17 18:51:18 UTC 2019

Who is going to "bring the troops home"?

If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who is going
to do it?

If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the calculations of
the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to on this stuff.

I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or one
Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself, unless
we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have
to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're elected.

But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the Trump and
the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second of all,
we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a useful
message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going to do to
you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it.

===

Robert Reuel Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high crimes
> and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section four -
> says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s silly to
> spend time doing so.
>
> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes will
> continue.
>
> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the  ‘intelligence
> community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. ) want you to
> concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s  meant to
> distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic elite -
> the one-percent -  whose agent that establishment is.
>
> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he
> represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war
> provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the
> Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and
> reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like
> Pompeo and Bolton achieved power.
>
> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin
> Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the
> previous administrations, with largely verbal changes.
>
> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the melodrama of  a
> presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about their war and
> austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it.
>
> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being of all
> Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free
> education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money.
>
> —CGE
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > That is an excellent analysis and strategy !
> >
> > David J.
> >
> > From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM
> > To: David Johnson
> > Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh
> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment
> >
> >
> > Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One thing
> is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing is her
> political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her line],
> which is fueled by money, exactly as you say.
> >
> > But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting,
> psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that
> they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is
> not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work
> effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it -
> like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule
> over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is
> potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House
> Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The
> moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The
> Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC
> doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are
> catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear
> dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi.
> A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that
> ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So
> she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real
> fight among House Democrats about impeachment.
> >
> > Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi and the
> AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody" expected
> Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course. In a
> confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side and
> Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC
> Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC
> Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi
> and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork
> in it, it's done.
> >
> > But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there was
> an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support for
> Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing
> singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have
> a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be
> against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out
> Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the
> uprising.
> >
> > And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So we can
> try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule
> over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end the
> wars and prevent new ones.
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > Policy Director
> > Just Foreign Policy
> > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > (202) 448-2898 x1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> >> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ;
> >>
> >> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the Democratic
> party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage switched
> live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to the
> podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is off
> the table, impeachment is off the table “.
> >>
> >> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE and
> CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via corporate
> campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES make a
> difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment resolution.
> >>
> >> David J.
> >>
> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net]
> On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss
> >> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM
> >> To: C G Estabrook
> >> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh
> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this.
> >>
> >> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT.
> >>
> >> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House. A
> resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged resolution,
> JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM AN
> UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor
> insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT.
> >>
> >> See here:
> >>
> >> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War
> >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656
> >>
> >> ===
> >>
> >> Robert Reuel Naiman
> >> Policy Director
> >> Just Foreign Policy
> >> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> >> (202) 448-2898 x1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> >>> <https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/>
> >>>
> >>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American
> president would have been hanged."
> >>>
> >>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course Trump
> should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under Nuremberg’s
> defintion.
> >>>
> >>> —CGE
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh <noreply+feedproxy at google.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Ian Welsh
> >>> > There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats
> >>> > Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT
> >>> > Nancy Pelosi recently said:
> >>> >
> >>> > Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s
> something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we
> should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not
> worth it.
> >>> >
> >>> > I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching George
> Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent with her
> record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be
> pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted
> by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs
> include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers
> (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.)
> >>> >
> >>> > But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have
> control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate,
> but impeachment is certainly possible.
> >>> >
> >>> > Why would they want to?
> >>> >
> >>> > Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the period of
> the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually nothing done,
> except by executive fiat.
> >>> >
> >>> > Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate months of
> news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked, corrupt and
> cruel thing that Trump has done.
> >>> >
> >>> > This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there
> isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans
> control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get
> most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine.
> >>> >
> >>> > Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass for
> months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that spend
> months talking about every shitty thing he has done.
> >>> >
> >>> > Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans “want to
> see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made for
> decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly
> can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to.
> >>> >
> >>> > In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the mud,
> crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle,
> impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do.
> >>> >
> >>> > And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the very
> least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from being
> President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put
> everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly
> profiting from his Presidency.
> >>> >
> >>> > Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached.
> Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about
> consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.)
> >>> >
> >>> > Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger of
> making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I hope
> I’m wrong.
> >>> >
> >>> > The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food
> isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Facebook  Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn
> >>> >
> >>> > You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh.
> >>> > To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.      Email
> delivery powered by Google
> >>> > Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United
> States
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20190317/b8ddc340/attachment-0001.html>