Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum?
Would the country be any better off under Pelosi than the neo-conservative warmongers?
"Impeachment fever rises," wrote John Nichols in a recent issue of The Nation. He observed, "When Nancy Pelosi announced last autumn that impeachment was "off the table", official Washington accepted that the primary avenue for holding lawless presidents to account had been closed off by the new Speaker of the House."According to Nichols, the public has had enough of Bush's ongoing disregard for the demands of the electorate, the Congress and the Constitution.
Those in state governments, like Vermont, who have taken the issue seriously have also realized if proceedings were started for impeaching Bush that Cheney would also have to be impeached. Cheney is as guilty as Bush, if not more so, of the impeachable offences of the administration.
How, then, could Nancy Pelosi, next in line for the presidency, support impeachment? Successful proceedings would make her commander-in-chief.
Even if a grassroots effort were to pressure more than the 10 state legislatures who have already called for impeachment, the issue would be the kind of government Nancy Pelosi might administer. Would the country be any better off under Pelosi than the neo-conservative warmongers?
She has one good deed in her favour, and one not so laudable spot on her record. The good deed was her meeting with Syria's President Hafiz Assad. That showed ability on her part to deal diplomatically with foreign governments with which we have problems, rather than being threatening.
The not-so-good deed was her commitment to Israel made at the annual America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meeting in Washington. As Mark Gaffney asked in Common Dreams News Center, since the Democratic Party is supposed to represent the grassroots, "What is the Democratic leader of the House doing, anyway, giving a pep talk to the second largest lobby in Washington? Indeed, to the lobby of a foreign power?”
Gaffney points out that Pelosi repeats the untrue mantra about Israel's survival being the biggest issue. He adds that, “According to Pelosi, the biggest danger to Israel today comes from Iran, whose nuclear ambitions, though still unproved, also threaten the U.S."
There was absolutely nothing in Pelosi's speech to AIPAC that was remotely critical of anything that Israel is doing or has done. She never mentioned the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, nor the illegal settlements, nor the proliferation of Israel's nuclear arsenal.
When are the grassroots going to get fed up with every politician in Washington yielding every bit of integrity they might have to AIPAC and Israel? Impeachment proceedings won't solve the greatest problem America has.
Pelosi is either very ignorant or she is as much of a fabricator as Bush and Cheney, or she would not have said, "There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist."
Pelosi cannot possibly be that uninformed and have reached the exalted position she holds. Her concluding statement was an insult to the rest of the world: "The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and forever."
The lies and distortions and the manic behaviour of Bush and Cheney evolved out of, among other motivations, their desire to appease AIPAC and Israel. If they were impeached for that behaviour and replaced by Pelosi, nothing of consequence in the USA’s Middle East policy would change.
Pelosi’s next goal in this part of the world is the same as Israel’s and AIPAC’s. The aim of all, in the words of Senator John McCain, is “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Neo-conservative or neo-liberals—what’s the difference, Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum?
No comments:
Post a Comment