Letters and Comic

BOX:
A Rogue is a Rogue is a Rogue
You tell me stories no one else would dare to share.
Stories that make me realize life is a bunch of stuff waiting for
me to figure out
what means the most?
Your different angles flow into my world each month and make
things more complete.
Most of your stories are rattling leaving me free to think them
over philosophically.
Rogue Voice I’m glad you’re here; unhomogenized, organic and
searching.
An inky muse spewing forth froth and foam from the sea.
Never to be tamed.
Never to be safe and normal.
Always to be unsettling
-Always to be arousing-
Always to be strangely comforting to me.
Thank you Rogue Voice, visionary in my eyes.

With Kindest Regard,
S.T. Harris
Wichita, Kansas


Give Rush a chance
Stacey:
You have just got to stay away from that McClatchy newspaper chain.
I know that you pride yourself on independent thought, but that last “Rant” [“Before we move on…” Jan. 2008] was right from the “MoveOn.Org” talking points, or perhaps you have been listening to too much “Air America” radio.
Stay away from all of them! Give Rush or even Mike a listen to now and then. Try to be a little more “Fair and Balanced.”
With the exception of that last “Rant,” I have enjoyed reading every issue. Keep up the excellent work.
Thank You,
Fred
Morro Bay, California

Stacey responds:
Actually, this argument comes directly from conservative Republican Constitutional law expert Bruce Fein, who served under Reagan as deputy attorney general and later drew up the first articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton.
Fein argues vehemently for impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney, saying their violations against our constitutional form of government demand action from all parties. This is not a party issue. It’s a constitutional issue, he says.
Imagine Hillary Clinton as president, he argues, demanding the same illegal powers of the executive that Bush has claimed. Bruce Fein is highly respected in both liberal and conservative circles and deserves a hearing.
Thanks for your note.

Editor’s note: An edited version of Stacey’s commentary calling for impeachment was later published on the online journal, CounterPunch.org. The following letters were received from CounterPunch readers.

It’s never too late
Dear Mr. Warde:
The Senate’s judgment in impeachment cases may extend, not only to removal from office, but to disqualification to hold ANY other federal office, whether of “honor, trust or profit”—which just about covers the bases.
Thus, an impeachment would NOT be mooted by expiration of a term of office, or by a resignation. Indeed, the clause of the Constitution paraphrased above was likely inserted for the very purpose of PREVENTING departure from office from terminating impeachment proceedings.
Why is this important? Because the investigatory powers of both House as prosecutor and Senate as court are at their height during impeachment proceedings.
One tactic, which hasn’t yet been tried: proposed Senate resolutions, calling upon the House to send over Articles of Impeachment for Senate consideration.
The Senate could even suggest the subjects they want the House to address via impeachment.

Respectfully,
Bruce Tyler Wick
Attorney at Law; Registered Parliamentarian
Fairview Park, Ohio

Nothing’s changed
I’m glad to hear that someone shares at least some of my opinions. However, I have no expectation of those opinions ever being acted on by the fascist system we have lived under for well over 100 years, one that is putting the finishing touches on the police-state model. I have lived through decades of too many pardons, Nixon, the Iran Contra traitors, Libby, to name a few, to believe that justice will ever be delivered in this country with its sorry parody of a justice system.
I believe that the only hope is for an international war crimes tribunal, far beyond the reach of presidential pardon, is the only hope, and that hope is forlorn as long as our brutal military continues to receive funding at it current levels…about one-fourth that would be more in line with the protection we actually need. Ideally, the defendants would include not only those from the current executive, active or not at the moment, and their enablers in “congress” for their criminal complicity in approving continuing funding, but would also include monsters like Robert McNamara and Henry Kissinger, both of whose hands are dripping with blood.

Harvey Reading
Shoshoni, WY

Only scratching surface
If you don’t understand that government complicity and high treason occurred on 911, you in effect defend the Bushites by self-censoring the most despicable crimes they have committed.
Specifically, you go on and on about the CIA tape scandal. Yet, none of you ask the most obvious, blatant question: What was on the tapes? What did Zubaydah actually say?
Since Gerald Posner (questionable source, but not necessarily wrong) has Zubaydah naming three Saudi government princes and a Pakistani Air Force officer—as his handlers/contacts—who all ended up very dead under very mysterious circumstances shortly after. ...You need to dig deeper.
Saudi agents and Pakistani intelligence are exposed in several places, which everyone SHOULD know. More than 200 Israeli agents were active here as well, and this has never been explained. The entire official 911 scenario has massive holes in it, big enough to fly 767s through.
I don’t know you, or where you stand. I do know Alexander Cockburn/Counterpunch and that he is doing the devil’s work attacking the 911 skeptics in a most irrational and vulgar manner, which would seem pretty inconsistent with the rest of his body of work. Would seem.
With Sibel Edmonds naming names, describing numerous conspiracies and high treason directly related to 911, the Bush White House and Pakistani ISI among others, this should be the front-page outrage everywhere, and should grind this treasonous machine to a halt. As long as people are deterred from investigating 911 in a serious way, the perps can get away with mass murder, even right here on U.S. soil and pretty much anywhere else they decide to act. Sad but true.
John Doraemi
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at: www.crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

False history
Dear Rogue Voice:
I am one of those Republican Conservatives that your so-called “literary journal with an edge” continually bashes and ridicules through your articles and cartoons. However the intent of my letter is not political but rather setting the facts straight. Thank God we are living is a free country that allows freedom of speech and journalistic expressions.
As a journal that tries to entertain and “inform” it’s readers of current affairs, it does and must have the responsibility to make sure that the commentaries and relevant daily affairs/news that it prints are somewhat factual (irrespective of its political inclinations). The commentary “Abdul, Elijah and the Great White Hunter” by Jean Gerard printed in your January 2008 issue has information regarding the Middle East and in specific Israel, that is biased and historically un-true.
Mr. Gerard should know, irrespective of his so-called indirect references to the Bible, that history shows Israel goes back over three thousand years and it is not a new phenomenon created by “several of the most powerful nations in the world.”
Regarding “Elijah’s people were happy to receive this free land,” it was not free. Although the state of Israel belonged to the Israelites for thousand of years, through out the centuries it was constantly attacked, ransacked, and occupied by many nations. During all these times there has always been a majority of Jews living in Israel (even at the Balfour Declaration period and prior to the re-establishment of the statehood of Israel in 1948). During the last century, those Jews living in Israel, with the help of American and European Jews, bought back some of the land that was stolen from them throughout the centuries. The partition of the mandate of “Palestine” into two states did not give Israel any extra land, only it rearranged the borders so the Muslims could have their own and separate land from Israel. In essence, Israel proper lost some of its land to the “Palestinians.” By the way, the words “Palestine” or “Palestinian” are used incorrectly today. The group of people we call Palestinians are Arabs. The original (Biblical) Palestinians were totally different people and are not in existence today. The Arabs are not descendents of the Palestinians.
Regarding “these benefactors betrayed promises they had made to Abdul’s people,” the benefactors did not betray any promises. The so called “Palestinians” and the Arabs as a whole betrayed themselves by first, when they received the free land not to do what Israel did which is to build their State, but they preoccupied themselves with hatred and envy and attacking Israel right off the bat. The Arabs mistrust, anger, apprehension… has nothing to do with Israel or the United States. It’s all internal and their own doing.
Last, Gerard’s statement “Professing deep belief in a Jewish seer who had become known as the Prince of Peace…” is a typical escape-goat mentality that throughout ages has been the opiate of the mass during hard times. Blaming the Jews for everything from killing Christ to the black plague and now the “Palestinian” plight.
It behooves the Rogue Voice if they made sure that they do not print unfounded information and false history in the guise of commentaries.
David Levy
Gorda, Calif.

Change and hope
When hate pinches the human soul, rational thought cannot occur.
The Iraq War stands out as the most identifiable blunder that is shoving this great nation toward financial bankruptcy and into an inescapable decline. Hillary Clinton claims she followed the Bush administration and supported this war because her information was flawed. Before she approved a preemptive war, before she gave the OK to risk lives, national resources and international respect…BEFORE THE KILLING STARTED…shouldn’t she have made sure the “facts” were reliable? This manufactured information was disputed by worldwide reputable sources and she knew it. She still refuses to take any responsibility for her war support and has yet to apologize or ask forgiveness for the horrific consequences that have followed.
John Edwards continually admits how ill-advised his vote was. Barack Obama, then an Illinois legislator went against public opinion, risked a political future and voted against war. The Clintons ask us to vote for her because of her experience. Is her’s the kind of experience we can depend on to provide rational leadership during times of crisis? When we go to the polls, we have a clear choice. We can vote for “Business as Usual” or we can choose “Change and Hope.”
Congressman Dennis Kucinich took an unpopular, career risking, anti-war stand. He exercised moral courage while others refused to risk ridicule and political retribution. Time has vindicated his vision and sound judgment.
Kucinich’s own party and the media have done everything possible to silence his voice in this campaign. He still serves as our national conscience.
W. Duane Waddell
Cayucos, Calif.