Friday, May 30, 2008

A Guest Post From Dr. Steve Porter: Is Nancy Pelosi Surprised By Anything In Scotty's Book?


In 2006 Dr. Porter was the progressive Democratic candidate in northwest Pennsylvania. Although he didn't win, he came close enough to deserve another shot at pathetic rubber stamp incumbent Phil English. But, like many Americans, he was frustrated and sickened by the lack of follow-through from the Democrats who did win. In fact, he was so frustrated and sickened that he quit the Democratic Party and is running for the seat as an independent. English is a contemptible rubber stamp for Bush and for the avaricious corporate interests who feed him. The "Democrat" in the race is an anti-choice reactionary with as little to offer towards tackling our country's problems as English. A victory in Erie for Dr. Porter with send an unmistakable message to both out of touch and imperious political parties. If he wins in November it will be the most significant message the grassroots could possibly send to Washington short of open revolt. I was curious about Dr. Porter's take on the brouhaha over Scott McClellan's new book. His point of view isn't what you're hearing from the corporate media. He shares it with us below:

Today’s outrage over Scott McClellan’s new book is misplaced. The Republicans are furious over McClellan’s revelations that Bush and his administration manipulated intelligence to lead us into war. Predictable but rather irrelevant. The press is all agog about asking McClellan to explain his revelations further. Again, predictable and irrelevant.

The real question ought to go to Nancy Pelosi, and it ought to be this: "In the light of McClellan’s book-- and several others like it-- why did you take impeachment investigations off the table two years ago when you became the Speaker of the House?"

That the Bush Administration has mangled our Constitution and led us into military and economic disaster is no longer the point. The tragedy equally appalling is that the Democrats, who came to power promising to hold Bush accountable, have done nothing in the last two years except to contribute to the deaths in Iraq and sit idly by while gas prices have risen and our jobs have continued to be exported.

Before the 2006 elections, the Democrats in Congress fairly salivated at the chance to hold impeachment hearings. In fact, senior Democratic Congressman John Conyers did hold them-- at least mock inquiries in the basement of the Capitol Building. On March 2, 2006, Conyers said this: “People think of Watergate or Iran-Contra as constituting crises… Today the crisis is substantively and systematically far worse. The alleged acts of wrong-doing-- lying about the decision to go to war; manipulation of intelligence; facilitating and countenancing torture; using confidential information to out a CIA agent; open and flagrant violation of wiretap laws-- are more egregious than any I have witnessed in my 41 years in Congress… We could simply ignore the myriad transgressions…or we could do everything in our power to call attention to and document these grave abuses…I opted for the latter."

But the day after the Democrats got control of both houses, Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," as she said. In other words, all the pre-election hullabaloo was just a ploy to gain political power. Pelosi and the Democrats had no intention of stopping the war and devoting their attention to the American economy. And they are counting on the voters in 2008 to turn to them for the “change” they have failed to deliver. Laughable.

I hope that the American people understand how corrupt both parties have been, and how poorly we have been led. Neither party deserves our support. They are both cut from the same cloth. Both are willing to play with our lives for power. Disgusting.

-by Dr. Steven Porter


Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and someone serious about impeaching Bush, would like to have McClellan testify under oath about some of the assertions in his book. The House Judiciary Committee is investigating the manipulation of prewar intelligence in the run up to Bush'a ttack on Iraq. So far all they have gotten from the Regime is a total lack of cooperation and a refusal by any of the potential war criminals to testify. The Regime's bogus claim of "executive privilege" would be moot in McClellan's case because he has already written about the issues the committee is looking into.
McClellan's new memoir, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," is scheduled for publication Monday. In it he says the administration became mired in "propaganda" and political spin and played loose with the truth at times.

In his book, McClellan wrote that President Bush decided to go war with Iraq shortly after the September 11 attacks and then ordered his aides to make the arguments for it.

"I think very early on, a few months after September 11, he made a decision that we're going to confront Saddam Hussein, and if Hussein doesn't come fully clean, then we're going to go to war. There was really no flexibility in his approach," McClellan said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday, referring to the former Iraqi dictator. "Then it was put on the advisers: How do we go about implementing this; how do we go about doing this?"

Although it is expected that the Regime will somehow try to prevent him from testifying, McClellan said he would "be glad" to.

Labels: , , , ,


At 8:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dunno... didn't Pelosi say impeachment was "off the table" *before* the election, not after? If so, it was simple election pandering - trying to get people in the red states to vote for the Blue Dog Dems without fear of launching another impeachment process. That seems to be the way I remember it anyway.

At 9:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here here! This is *the* issue that nobody is talking about. The utter corruption of our Republic. How can anything else be more important than that? Yet no one running will address it, or even acknowledge its existence.

At 2:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I'm not buying it. The difference between Porter and English in 2006 was 12%. That's not close. Running as a independent, he'll be lucky if he gets 5-6% of the vote.


Post a Comment

<< Home