Comments on: Russell Mokhiber

By: Eugenio Ziehm

Eugenio Ziehm — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 19:11:11 +0000

Aw, this was a very nice post. In idea I want to put in writing like this additionally – taking time and precise effort to make an excellent article… however what can I say… I procrastinate alot and not at all seem to get one thing done.

By: darryl

darryl — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:58:04 +0000

there is no chace in hell they will prosecute him the entire congress has as much blood on their hands as cheney and bush

By: Chris Baker

Chris Baker — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:18:58 +0000

I will be watching the Lakers and the Celtics.

By: ingrate

ingrate — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:27:47 +0000

U.S. Constitution – Article 2 Section 2
“… and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

How does the “except in Cases of Impeachment” work here? If Nixon had remained in office and faced impeachment, he would not have been able to have pardoned himself, if I understand this correctly. What if Bush finds himself facing impeachment and decides to resign? Can the Legislature refuse to accept his resignation and leave him unable to be pardoned? Is it saying he has no powers of pardon when he is under impeachment proceedings?

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:05:11 +0000

This interview really underscores the frustration I have with many in the anti-Iraq-war camp. They’re mostly hardcore statists. They have problems with personalities in government (like Bush), but they have no principled objection to the state so defacto, they aren’t truly anti-war. They’re only against this, Republican led war.

For example?:
“Bush is the only president in this century who actually wanted to go war!”

Well, technically this is a correct statement since Bush is the ONLY US president this century who’s engaged the US in a full-scale war (I suppose Clinton probably was up to military shenanigans in 2000-2001, but for the sake of argument, let’s not consider any of those “war”). But I think it’s clear that he’s referring to the past 100 years and in this case, it displays a tragic, self-induced blindness to American foreign policy for the past century. EVERY PRESIDENT WHO ENGAGED THE US IN MILITARY ACTION WANTED TO DO SO. There has not been a war fought by the US in the past 100 years that was necessary for our defense. All US Presidents have lied to and manipulated the public to get us into war. Do you really think Wilson didn’t want us in WWI? FDR in WWII? That involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq War 1, Somalia, etc.. etc… was something the sitting president was resistant to? No, War is indeed a Racket and the US President has ALWAYS been in favor of keeping the racket going.