BOSTON GLOBE: NADER GETS ON THE IMPEACHMENT BANDWAGON!

[BigBearJohn]

The 'I' word
By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese | May 31, 2005

THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.

Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.

The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"

If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ''high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.

Original: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word?mode=PF

[jackstraw45]

1. Screw you, Ralph but well said.

:)

[sellitman]

2. Screw Nader and horse he road in on!

This bastard has done nothing but assist * in two elections. I hate the son of a bitch and could care less what he thinks.

[ronnykmarshall]

5. Amen!

I have no respect for that asshole.

[Mnemosyne]

10. Any help is great! IMHO n/t

[malaise]

12. At least Ralph is not in the hands

of corporate America. HE did not support the invasion of Iraq.

[sellitman]

20. He did worse.

He supported * , who is in the pockets of corporate Amerika and invaded Iraq.


A pox on King Ralph!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. He "supported Bush"? When did that happen?

Or, is that the chestnut about drawing off "leftist" votes from Kerry who voted for the war?

[noiretextatique]

50. why i do believe it is

let's review shall we?
it's nader's fault that republicans stole the election and also nader's fault that democrats supported the war.
:shrug: but nader voters are naive :shrug:

[bpilgrim]

52. nader HATERS

merrily exposing themselves in public, eww

:hi:

peace

[noiretextatique]

54. what an image

:rofl:
:hi: nice to see you, bpilgrim :hi:

[Tinoire]

58. LMAO!

:rofl:

:hi:

[stevedeshazer]

62. Bingo

Typing the letters N A D E R here causes a visceral reaction here even if he is right.

It's like going to Free Republic and starting a Hitlery Klintoon thread. The usual suspects fly out of the woodwork every time.

[Melodybe]

3. Kick! High time we did it

[1956]

7. Hope this is one of many high profilers that climb on board

One thing Nader was right about though, is to remove corporate America from government, would be a great leap in a positive direction!!!

[bpilgrim]

4. Thank you St. Ralph for speaking TRUTH to POWER

AGAIN :toast:

peace

[Wickerman]

6. Serious impeachment articles might just be what wakes folk up

I think sometime the folks who don't pay attention believe that it can't be as bad as it looks because no one is doing anything about it. Maybe if Ralph gets others off their asses people will finally recognize what a mess this country is in.

[BigBearJohn]

8. the BOSTON GLOBE published this -- REJOICE!

Who cares if Nader's name is involved.

THE NEWS IS GETTING OUT THERE.

[Mnemosyne]

9. You are so right.

I don't care if it is Goebbels himself, we need all the voices we can get.

[TaleWgnDg]

14. Huh? See post # 13 . . . sheesh. This is NOT unusual.

[AuntiBush]

18. I'm with you. We'll take all the help we can get to GET THE WORD OUT!

Thank you Boston Globe...

Aha! "It will slowly trickle through," quoting Congressman John Conyers on C-Span w/regards to this very issue last week. Seen the re-run (from last Tue) when he and other Dem's held a committee meeting allowing those like Randi Rhodes, Al Franklin and other's speak-out!

Unsure how to see reruns but hear their at http://www.c-span.org/

Time to thank the Boston Globe and the Seattle.

[TexasLawyer]

11. E-mail this to your newspapers, people

This is "news" and it should be reported in the news, both the fact that Nader is calling for impeachment and the reason WHY he's calling for impeachment.

The real news is, of course, the Downing Street Memo-- and how it incenses everyone who finds out about it. Your mission today is to get the Downing Street Memo into your local newspaper.

[TaleWgnDg]

17. Uuummm, this is an op-ed piece! Not journalism! n/t

[TexasLawyer]

24. The fact that Nader came out in favor of Bush's impeachment

is the news item. The Nader op-ed itself is not the news article, but it is clearly the starting point of an actual news story-- that Nader advocates impeachment, where, when and how he made this position known, and that his reasons for advocating impeachment are x,y, and z.

Then the reporter can insert his/her own details-- requests for follow-up information, comments from, say, RNC officials saying Nader is all wet, that the Downing Street Memo is unreliable for some reason (which reason is bound to be bogus), etc...

[TaleWgnDg]

13. What the hell is the matter? Nader wrote an opinion-editorial . . .

.
What the hell is the matter? Nader wrote an opinion-editorial (op-ed) article on the opinion pages of The Boston Globe newspaper today, Tuesday, May 31, 2005. (notice the url states "editorial-opinion/oped/articles" ??????)

Lemme get this straight: in no way does Nader's opinion article mean that the Boston Globe wants to, means to, or desires to impeach President George Walker Bush!

Does the OP in this DU thread understand WHAT opinion-editorial (op-ed) pages in newspapers mean? Does the OP understand what is the distinction between fact and opinion?

Merely because Ralph Nader (or anyone) writes an op-ed piece in a newspaper does not then mean that the newspaper endorses that op-ed piece and/or its contents! As for the Boston Globe, its opinion-editorial pages contain rightwing zealots, leftwing zealots, moderate zealots and others, as do other newspapers.

If the Boston Globe wanted to write an opinion piece, it would do so under its Editorial section of the opinion-editorial pages. The Boston Globe has not endorsed an impeachment of President George Walker Bush.

.

[bpilgrim]

16. they have found th idea worthy of publishing, though

and for that they get credit, too :toast:

cept St. Ralph get's most :P

peace

[TaleWgnDg]

25. You don't get it. Op-ed pages . . .

.
You don't get it. Op-ed pages . . . particularly in the Boston Globe contain extremist opinions, moderate opinions and others opinions. The Boston Globe has published off-the-wall rightwing articles from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others, as well as extremist views on the leftside. It publishes opinions from all views. Its letters to the editor steam about this rightwing cause or whatever on those very same op-ed pages since they, too, are merely opinions from people, not necessarily facts.

Its NOT journalism. Its not factual per se. Geezuz. What is so hard about this? Opinion pages are included to give folks a forum upon which to rant, period. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

Therefore, merely because it's published on the op-ed pages does not then equate that The Boston Globe "found the idea worthy of publishing" as you stated.

(No wonder why folks cannot discern the distinctions between news as fact and bantering opinions about "news" in today's television-as-pseudo "news!")

.

[bpilgrim]

28. they PUBLISHED it, hello...

how many impeachment editorials in main stream media can you point to?

Therefore, merely because it's published on the op-ed pages does not then equate that The Boston Globe "found the idea worthy of publishing" as you stated.

on it's face it does, it's in PRINT ain't it...

peace

[TexasLawyer]

33. You're exactly right on this point

But I think people can in any event be happy that Nader's article was published in the Boston Globe because it has a significantly greater readership than, say, the Cedar Rapids Gazette. Also, there are some very influential people who read that paper.

I wonder what John Kerry thought when he read this in his hometown newspaper. Kerry hasn't made a PEEP about the DSM as far as I know.

The more exposure that the Downing Street Memo gets, the better.

[BigBearJohn]

19. Ok - I changed the title of the thread... better?

Although I could care less if the paper ENDORSES
impeachment -- AS LONG AS THEY PRINT THE NEWS ABOUT IT!!!

I DON'T CARE IF EVERY RIGHT-WING NEWSPAPER FAILS TO ENDORSE
IT -- AS LONG AS THEY PRINT THE NEWS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO
IMPEACH HIM.

AT THIS POINT WE NEED TO GET THE NEWS OUT.

WHETHER OR NOT THE BOSTON GLOBE ENDORESES IMPEACHMENT --
IT **did** PRINT THE NEWS!!!!!

[bpilgrim]

29. looks good

:toast:

peace

[TaleWgnDg]

30. BigBearJohn, again, the op-ed pages are not news, period.

.
BigBearJohn, again, the op-ed pages are not news, period. You are mischaracterizing what appears on opinion-editorial pages of newspapers. Here, the Boston Globe.

Journalism is factual. Opinion-editorial is not factual. That's journalism 101, and law school 101 too.

Ralph Nader wrote his opinions (which are not fact, per se) in an opinion-editorial (op-ed) article which he submitted to the Boston Globe newspaper to include in its opinion-editorial pages. Not its journalism (factual) pages.

Therefore, an opinion-editorial article which appears in a newspaper is not news by definition.

.

[bpilgrim]

34. FYI: that's why it's in GD

and Editorials ;->

peace

[TexasLawyer]

36. See my post # 24

The fact that Nader has taken this position is most certainly news.

[BigBearJohn]

38. I give up. YOU Post the thread then that meets your guidelines.

[TaleWgnDg]

48. I apologize, BigBearJohn. I did not mean to undermine your

.
I apologize, BigBearJohn. I did not mean to undermine your position that Ralph Nader wrote an article about impeachment of George W. Bush. As a lawyer, I was picking away at the mischaracterization that you gave to Nader's article, news and opinion.

The article appeared in today's opinion/editorial (op-ed) pages of the Boston Globe which is not its news/journalism pages. The Boston Globe often has rightwing and leftwing causes in its opinion pages.

However, all of that need not minimize that in Nader's opinion President George Walker Bush should be impeached as well as Vice President Cheney. One may give Nader's politics whatever weight one wishes. He is but one who stands for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.

Peace.

.

[BigBearJohn]

55. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Regarding the concept of "news" --

I was only thinking of news as something that was "previously unknown" -- or "material reported in a newspaper." I am no journalist and don't claim to be. However, the fact that a major newspaper published the fact that Ralph Nader says the President should be impeached is "news" to me.

If I were *, I would not like hearing the fact that an ex-presidential candidate was calling me a candidate for impeachment.

Thanks again for your candor.

[Coexist]

49. this thread is fine - we all know what op/eds are

and what they are not - what is important is that it is in print.

A few weeks ago, Robert Koehler's column about election reform was nixed from his paper. Now, he is a columnist - who writes opinions. But having that opinion out there for people who do not dig up news and keep informed like DUers do is huge. If opinion pieces don't matter, they wouldn't get axed.

Thanks for the news BigBear - ANY news on this is good news to me!

[Pacifist Patriot]

22. Good point, but I'm still delighted to see the idea in print.

[TaleWgnDg]

39. As am I. However, John Dean has been calling for *'s impeachment

.
As am I. However, John Dean has been calling for *'s impeachment for years now. John Dean is the ex-whitehouse counsel (attorney) for Nixon who spilled the beans in a congressional hearing during Watergate in the mid-1970s. Attorney Dean writes opinion pages for findlaw.com's Writ Pages.

Others, too, have called for *'s impeachment. This is nothing new. I've written extensively in legal blogs about it. So what? LOL

Whether or not the Boston Globe's opinion-editorial pages has given Nader a forum upon which to rant, it doesn't hold much weight. Seriously, it doesn't.

I just cannot believe the naiveté of the many in here that believe that merely because an opinion piece is granted a forum in the Boston Globe indicates that it is worthy or not. Sheesh.

.

[bpilgrim]

44. how many times was JD in the globe?

thats the point...

fyi: this ain't the first time St. Ralph has talked about it either :P

peace

[BigBearJohn]

46. An ex-candidate for president says the current one should be impeached

that is NOT news? Please tell me what meets your definition of news.

[earth mom]

15. Glad he did this...

and I can't stand him either, BUT he did this.

We need more people like him to stand up and say it right now!

[leftchick]

21. He used the word "MINUTES"!!!

Instead of Memo! Very Crucial!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[bpilgrim]

32. he ain't no dummy ;-)

like most M$MWs :evilgrin:

very important word to get right :hi:

peace

[donheld]

23. Too bad he didn't spend his time and money on this

During and before last November 2.

[Sapphire Blue]

26. Impeach Central

Impeach Central: http://impeachcentral.com /

Urgent!! Write your Representative to demand the truth about why the Bush Administration invaded Iraq; Urge Congress to Investigate Bush's Iraq War Lies: http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/39

[IndianaGreen]

31. For the Nader haters consider this: He is calling for impeachment

Instead of refighting Campaign 2000 in another jerk circle, you guys should be calling on your Democratic representatives (the Republicans are a waste of time) to join Rep. Conyers in demanding that Bush explains his conspiracy with Tony Blair to cook the intelligence in order to lure the public into supporting their war on Iraq.

I did such a thing with Senator Bayh, and I am waiting for an answer.

[trumad]

42. Ahhh but just think how better off we'd be if old Ralph stuck to Airbags?

Ralph's just got a guilty concious...

BTW: How ya been Indy?

[IndianaGreen]

45. Nader was not a factor when it came to who counted the votes

To this day I am convinced Gore carried Florida in 2000 and Kerry carried Ohio in 2004.

I find it interesting that Deep Throat's identity was revealed today. The lesson of Watergate is that crimes by a President cannot be tolerated. Let's apply the same standard to Bush, a man whose crimes overshadow all of the evil things Nixon did.

I am fine and ready for battle, trumad! Let's go hunt elephants!

[shockra]

35. Nader had a petition to impeach Bush on his website.

During the last election.

[La Coliniere]

37. Imagine that...

Ralph Nader speaking truth to power. Again.
I harbor no grudges against Nader. None of the Democrats, holding any office anywhere has publically stated what so many of us feel is the correct thing to do. I know Conyers has initiated an impeachment process, but that's gone nowhere. You go Ralph!

[oxbow]

40. Media Blitz!

We finally have a high profile American talking about the DSMemo and impeachment. What are we waiting for?! This story just got its second wind.

Spread it far and wide DU!

[WLKjr]

41. Ralph, your always a day late and a dollar short n/t

Take note Ralph, don't take money from Republican Donors who support Bush and his cronies.

[ooglymoogly]

43. but, but, but, isn't it because of ralph that

we have an idiot for a pres (1600 dead and counting+countless Iraqis) ...and gee didn't he pile onto the shaivo fiasco....sounds like a loose screw. ralph has been a total disaster for democrats.

[lonestarnot]

47. Oh it will be successful now....

:sarcasm:

[Independent_Liberal]

51. Listen to this prediction...

I found this to be very interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

>>>>snip

The 2000 election and its aftermath divided the nation bitterly, and many feel that George W. Bush, was selected, not elected--and therefore his presidency is "illegitimate." If re-elected, (or reselected), W’s position is precarious: As outlined earlier, President Bush is in the throes of his second Saturn return, a time of reckoning and balancing. One must be up to the task at hand when Saturn shows his face -- or face the consequences! Furthermore, Bush was elected in 2000 under Tecumseh's curse and might be lucky to leave the White House before embarking on a second term, one that history suggests he’s unlikely to finish. To complete the picture, next October (2005) Mars is in Taurus and turns retrograde for three months for the first time since late 1973 and early 1974, the time of Nixon’s unraveling. If Bush remains in Washington, the stage is set for a repeat performance.

[BigBearJohn]

56. If Nader's statement can persuade his followers to join hands with us --

to throw more attention on getting this pushed, then I say MORE POWER to him.

[IndianaGreen]

60. Who is "us"?

Your post, BigBearJohn, made me think of who the "us" was.

"Us" is anyone that is not one of "them"!

Who is "them"? Anyone that supports Bush and/or thinks that that G-d wants them to turn America into a theocracy, their version of course.

What does this mean for "us"?

It means that we must present a united front when confronting the rightwing. It means that we must work together to defeat Republican candidates for Congress in 2006. It means that while we may disagree on who the Democratic nominee ought to be in 2008, that we must work our asses off to get him/her elected. It also means that we must start now to work on electoral reform, paying particular attention on the way the votes are tallied, and by whom.

Pat Buchanan has said that there is a cultural war on. The problem with "us" is that we have allowed one side to wage that war on us.

It is time for "us" to go elephant hunting!

[noiretextatique]

53. impeachment is warranted

unfortuantely, since kerry or gore didn't write this op-ed, most of the locksteppers here won't let go of there constant mantra.
thanks, mr, nader...i concur.

[BigBearJohn]

57. Kick for the 5 o'clock folks

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

59. gets on the bandwagon?

ralph's been talking this for at least 2 1/2 years

[bpilgrim]

64. thats TRUE

but you know how the conventional wisdom runs in regards to St. Ralph.

he's been speaking out and up his whole life and some 'progressives' HATE him for it and blame him for all the ills of our gov :crazy:

peace

[Mnemosyne]

61. Hang in there! n/t

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Itsthetruth]

63. Here's An Interesting Article About Impeachment

War Crimes and Constitutional Punishment
It's Time to Get Serious About Impeaching Bush
By NORMAN SOLOMON

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3755814