What next…what more… 28 August 2007Posted by marisacat in Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, U.S. House.
Madman caught the Conyers appearances today with Amy:
[S]o, if you believe in, yearn for, a country that pursues justice, not control; if you believe we should reach out with diplomats, not bullets; if you fervently wish that your nation was a force for human rights, and not a serial destroyer of the same; if you want this war to end and habeas corpus restored and for there to be real political debate …
… if you really believe and want those things and more, then you cannot vote for this worthless Donklephant party any longer. You MUST withhold your vote from any national office holder who doesn’t fight for justice, accountability and human rights.
The hoi polloi can effect change by buying it (like through increasingly worthless national “advocacy” organizations), by violence or by weight of numbers, either through protest or the vote. However, you can make a statement not just by voting FOR someone, but also by withholding your vote. A strike, if you will.
Conyers and the rest promise, and then threaten. They hold out hope, then dash it as soon as you’ve rubber-stamped them again. They are running a protection racket on you.
DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR VOTE
Remember that justice came to women and minorities thanks to those who COULDN’T vote … they FORCED change, and they did it by demonstrating and raised voices and blood. Why would you sully those sacrifices by kow-towing to people who betray everything you believe? Why would you sully that ballot by voting for more blood, more injustice, more lies? Why do you reward criminals and their accomplices? [snip]
[graphic is from Madman's LSF post... a big "snip", but less than a third of his post]
Consortium News had a guest piece today by Sam Provenzano, one of the Abu Ghraib whistle blowers:
No One Accountable
In keeping with the Rumsfeld adage “Stuff Happens,” and the Senate Armed Services Committee timidity, no senior U.S. Army officer or defense official is likely to be held accountable for the torture, “ghost” prisoners, and other abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Only the bad apples at the bottom; none of the ones at the top.
Not the Commander in Chief, who authorized torture by Memorandum of Feb. 7, 2002, announcing and implementing a new policy that detainees be treated “humanely, as appropriate, and as consistent with military necessity.”
Not then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, nor his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, nor U.S. pro-consul Paul Bremer, nor troop commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, nor Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller (in charge of Gitmo-izing Abu Ghraib), nor Sanchez’s intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, nor National Security Council functionary Frances Townsend.
All of the above visited Abu Ghraib during the torture year of 2003 before the photos surfaced the next year.
Had it never occurred to them that their incessant pressure on Army interrogators to find non-existent WMD in Iraq and nonexistent ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, together with the expanded list of torture techniques duly approved by hired-gun lawyers in the Pentagon, the Office of the Vice President, and the Department of Justice, would lead to the abuses of Abu Ghraib?
I will add other things thru the evening/night