Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Noe Admits Illegally Funneling Donations To Bush

Rare-Coin Dealer Pleads Guilty In Investment Scandal

POSTED: 5:46 pm EDT May 31, 2006
A prominent GOP fundraiser at the center of an Ohio political scandal changed his plea to guilty Wednesday on federal charges that he illegally funneled donations to President George W. Bush's re-election campaign.

Tom Noe, a rare-coin dealer, still is charged in an ill-fated $50 million coin investment that he managed for the state workers' compensation fund. The investment scandal has been a major embarrassment for Ohio's ruling Republicans and given Democrats a better shot at winning state offices this year, including the governor's office that has been under GOP control since 1991. Once a powerful political figure who also raised money for a slew of Ohio Republicans, Noe admitted arranging a contribution scheme to fulfill his promise to generate $50,000 for a Bush fundraiser.

He had asked on May 10 that he be allowed to change his not guilty plea. He said Wednesday that he decided to plead guilty to "spare my family and many dear friends" the ordeal of a trial. He was charged with exceeding federal campaign contribution limits, using others to make the contributions, and causing the Bush campaign to submit a false campaign-finance statement.

Federal prosecutors said in October the case was the largest campaign money-laundering scheme prosecuted under the 2002 campaign finance reform law, which set limits on donations. Prosecutors said Noe gave $45,400 directly or indirectly to 24 friends and associates, who made the campaign contributions in their own names, allowing him to skirt the $2,000 limit on individual contributions.

link

Top Methodist Leader Demands Bush Impeachment

From the American Spectator:

Jim Winkler, head of United Methodist Board of Church and Society with eight million members revs up and calls BS on the "illegal war of aggression" in Iraq.

"Impeach President Bush!" urged Jim Winkler, head of the Capitol Hill-based United Methodist Board of Church and Society. Winkler was speaking earlier this spring here in town to an "Ecumenical Advocacy Days" rally for liberal religious activists, organized by the National Council of Churches, mainline denominations, several left-wing Catholic orders, and Jim Wallis's Sojourners group.

Winkler, ostensibly a spokesman for 8 million United Methodists, whose numbers include both Bush and Vice President Cheney, said impeachment is the correct response to an "illegal war of aggression" that was "sold on lies." He also cited the NSA's "spy program," which he insisted is "unconstitutional."

"These are actions far more serious than a failed land deal on the White River or a sexual indiscretion with a White House intern," Winkler said, comparing Bush to Clinton, whose impeachment was never urged by Winkler's agency. Had the Iraq war been led by John Kerry or Al Gore, Winkler surmised, the "Limbaughs and Gingriches of the world would be screaming for their impeachment."

link

Gore: Bush is 'renegade rightwing extremist'

Oliver Burkeman and Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday May 31, 2006
The Guardian

Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists".
In an interview with the Guardian today, the former vice-president calls himself a "recovering politician", but launches into the political fray more explicitly than he has previously done during his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming.

Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: "If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right."

link

The Bush Administration's Smoky Back Room

Meet the Bush administration's Keyser Soze
Katharine Mieszkowski
Salon - June 30

A close aide to Dick Cheney screens legislation before it ever reaches Bush's desk, the Boston Globe reported Sunday. David Addington, Cheney's legal advisor and chief of staff, now that Scooter Libby is gone, is the leading architect of some 750 "signing statements" amended to bills to hoard executive power:

"The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution," the Globe explains. "The Bush-Cheney administration has used such statements to claim for itself the option of bypassing a ban on torture, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and numerous requirements that they provide certain information to Congress, among other laws."

U.S. News & World Report also has a profile of David Addington this week, calling him "the most powerful man you've never heard of," and noting that "Addington is viewed as such a force of nature that one former government lawyer nicknamed him 'Keyser Soze,' after the ruthless crime boss in the thriller 'The Usual Suspects.'"

link

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 29 May 2006

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.

link

Bush Gets More Bad News From Iraq

By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer

May 29,2006 | WASHINGTON -- Just when President Bush was trying to accentuate the positive in Iraq and declare a new beginning in the war on terror, a rash of bad news comes from multiple fronts in the global struggle.

New details are emerging in the killings of two dozen Iraqi civilians at the hands of Marines. Anti-American protesters are staging riots in Afghanistan after a U.S. military convoy rammed into several civilian cars. And a reported 75 military detainees at Guantanamo Bay are on a hunger strike to protest their continued imprisonment without charges.

Add the trouble to the continuing daily violence in Iraq -- at least 33 were killed in a series of bombings Monday, including two from a CBS News crew -- and Bush could be in danger of losing even more support for his mission.

Bush has tried to keep the nation behind him with repeated talk about the importance of defeating the terrorists abroad so they cannot attack the United States again. He has expressed confidence that the U.S. will prevail and spread democracy. And he has acknowledged costly mistakes along the way.

In the past week, Bush has spoken about a new chapter in the nation's relationship with Iraq since a new government has taken control. But that hasn't kept the violence and unrest out of the headlines every day, and some in the White House have been arguing that he needs to do more to push back. His public relations blitzes on the war have helped build support in the past, according to public opinion polls taken before and after his campaigns.

At a press conference last week, Bush said the war has featured personal mistakes -- specifically his "tough talk" about capturing Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" and challenging U.S. foes to "bring it on." And he said the worst mistake the country has made in Iraq was the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. "We've been paying for that for a long period of time," Bush said.

He has not yet commented publicly on an incident in Iraq that Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Marine war veteran and prominent critic of Iraq policy, has contended could undermine U.S. efforts there even more than Abu Ghraib did.

Murtha, D-Pa., has spoken critically about reports that Marines killed two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, last November in Haditha, a city western Iraq that has been plagued by insurgents. The congressman also believes that the deaths were initially covered up by the military.

The killings came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine. Marines then shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into homes and shot other people, according to Murtha, who has been briefed by officials.

The Pentagon is investigating the deaths in Haditha, along with the events in Afghanistan that sparked rioting there Monday.

Witnesses said the incident began when a convoy of at least three U.S. Humvees came into the city from the outskirts, then rammed into a rush-hour traffic jam, hitting several civilian cars. There were disputes about the number of deaths, but at least one person died.

The crash sparked a riot by dozens of stone-throwing Afghans who shouted "Down with America." Witnesses said U.S. forces then fired on the crowd, and the violence escalated.

Hundreds of Afghan army troops and NATO peacekeepers in tanks were deployed around the city, as chanting protesters marched on the presidential palace and rioters smashed police guard boxes, set fire to police cars and ransacked buildings.

The military also is dealing with defiant prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who are trying to draw attention to the fact that some have been held for up to 4 1/2 years without charges and with little contact with the outside world.

The U.S. military holds about 460 men at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. Human rights groups say many innocent people have been swept up in the Bush administration's war on terrorism and sent to the prison at the Cuban base in Guantanamo Bay, with no end in sight to their incarceration. Only 10 of the detainees have been charged with crimes.

Their military trials, the first held by the United States since the World War II era, are set to begin within months. The Supreme Court, however, is expected to rule in June on whether Bush overstepped his authority by ordering war-crimes trials for some of those held at Guantanamo Bay.

 - Nedra Pickler covers the White House for The Associated Press.

Monday, May 29, 2006

Memorial Day 2006: The Bush Administration and it's Absence of Credibility

On this Memorial Day after watching Don Rumsfeld and President Bush stand shoulder to shoulder at Arlington Cemetery I could not help but keep thinking about these two very important words.... "Credibility Gap"

Last year the following was posted at the Think Progress.org site. Ah Geez -- The irony . . .

- more -

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Wrong Way Bush

By Larry Johnson
Truthout | Perspective
Friday 26 May 2006

    Let's give credit where credit is due. George W. Bush finally admitted some mistakes last night. For instance, he noted that tough talk, such as challenging the Iraqi insurgents with the retort, "bring 'em on," sent the wrong signal and was counterproductive. The road to recovery, whether from addiction or failed policy, starts with admitting one has a problem. It is time for the President to do more than admit rhetorical mistakes. It is time to call a halt to our mistaken policy in Iraq.

    It is becoming increasingly clear that when it comes to Iraq, President George W. Bush is the Wrong Way Riegels of the 21st Century. Wrong Way Riegels was a football player who became infamous for running the wrong way and scoring a safety for the opposing team. During the 1929 Rose Bowl game between Georgia Tech and California, Riegels, the center of the California Bears, grabbed a fumble, was hit and spun around, and proceeded to run 64 yards to the wrong end zone. Riegels' mistake gave the championship to Georgia Tech.

    Like Riegels, George Bush is an amiable, enthusiastic player. Unlike Riegels, however, Bush's actions have weakened the military, damaged our nation's prestige, and unleashed forces in the Middle East that pose long term threats to the United States. Let's face it: Bush has scored a touchdown for Iran, our nemesis.

    As we enter Memorial Day weekend it is time to take stock of the progress, or lack of progress, in bringing peace to Iraq. The "new" government is one in name only. The Iraqi factions have failed to agree on who will control the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Interior. While Iraq politicians squabble, Iraqis with close ties to Iran are moving forward. Moqtada al Sadr, for example, is working quietly behind the scenes to infiltrate and seize de facto control of the police, the intelligence services, and the military. It appears he has made significant progress in this regard.

continued link

Friday, May 26, 2006

Hinchey Introduces Measure to Force Bush Administration to Reveal Who Blocked Justice Dept. Probe of NSA Warrantless Surveillance Program

    Measure would require President, Attorney General & Defense Secretary to hand over documents related to closure of investigation.

    Washington, DC - In an effort to find out who blocked an internal U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation of the agency's role in the National Security Agency (NSA) warrantless surveillance program and the reasons for doing so, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today introduced a resolution of inquiry in the House that would force top members of the Bush administration to turn over all materials related to the termination of the probe. In January, Hinchey and three of his House colleagues requested that DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) conduct the investigation. OPR Counsel H. Marshall Jarrett informed Hinchey in February that a probe was underway, but on May 10 he wrote the congressman to say that the investigation had been closed because OPR was denied the necessary security clearances.

    According to a National Journal article published online today, all of the information that OPR was seeking was already in DOJ's possession and did not involve any top secret data. However, OPR was still blocked from conducting its investigation. Top administration officials have refused to explain who denied the security clearances for OPR investigators that effectively closed the probe and have also failed to offer a substantive justification for shutting down the investigation. Since the administration has not been forthcoming, Hinchey introduced his resolution to require President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to turn over to Congress all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, personnel records, and records of internal discussions related to the termination of OPR's investigation.

link

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Playing the Impeachment Card

By William Rivers Pitt
Thursday 25 May 2006

"All in all, the framers would probably agree that it's better to impeach too often than too seldom. If presidents can't be virtuous, they should at least be nervous."

        - Joseph Sobran

    Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan is a small and soft-spoken man.    One gets the definite sense upon meeting him that here is a man who could probably have made a fortune in Hollywood, had he chosen a different direction in life, playing the role of the wise and kindly grandfather. He wound up in public service, and today - if you listen to Karl Rove and the GOP - he is easily the most terrifying man in America.

    Back on May 10th, Howard Fineman wrote for MSNBC: "Then there is the attention being paid - and it's just starting - to obscure Democratic characters such as Rep. John Conyers of Michigan. As of now, only political junkies know that Conyers, an African-American and old-school liberal from Detroit, would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats regain control of the House. Few know that Conyers has expressed interest in holding hearings on the impeachment of the president."

    A direct-mail piece from Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) popped up several days ago. In the mailer, Dole warned that unless the faithful donate money for the midterm elections, rampaging Democrats were going to, "increase your taxes, call for endless investigations, Congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush."

    A Fox News online editorial acknowledges the very real possibility of a Democratic takeover of the House, and proposes several steps the Democrats should take    in such an event, in order to do right by the country. "Step one,"  reads the Fox editorial, "would be for the Democratic leadership to definitively put to rest any loose talk of impeaching President Bush. They should say in one and two syllable words that impeachment will not happen once they are in the majority and thus take away a potential rallying cry for the beleaguered Republicans."

    This may be, when all is said and done, one of the funniest moments in time in all of American political history.

    Approval ratings for the Bush administration are at historic lows, and approval ratings for the Republican Congressional majority currently languish in a root-cellar beneath those historic lows. There are 159 days until the November 7th midterm elections, and the Republican majority has absolutely nothing to run on. The economy? They say it is strong but no one believes them, and rising gas prices don't do their arguments any favors. Immigration? This is a self-inflicted brawl that has ripped a wide rift down the middle of the Republican coalition. National security? Iraq.

    On top of this big three, the White House and the Republican Congressional majority are also walking around with NSA domestic spying, the investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame, the now-axiomatic belief that Bush left New Orleans to die, and a half-dozen other millstones hanging around their necks.

    The White House can't shed these millstones, because just about all of these catastrophes came out of 1600 Pennsylvania. The Republican Congressional majority can't shed them, because they stapled themselves to this White House a long time ago, and there are no pliers in the world large enough to extricate them from that association.

    The abandonment of Congressional oversight is a lot of the reason we are in such a sorry state, and that abandonment was authored by Republicans who were stupid enough and opportunistic enough to trust that Bush and his people would lead them to the promised land of a permanent majority. This won't be forgotten by November.

    Beyond that, few people are going to rise in response again to the waving of the bloody shirt of September 11. The Cunningham and Abramoff scandals continue to grow, chopping down Republicans left and right. The GOP's usual electoral strengths - morality and security - are gone, and the Republican base is abandoning them. The cupboard is just about empty.

    What's left? Vote for us, or else we'll be held accountable! That's just funny.

    Usually, the Republican National Committee has to roll out horror stories about mandatory abortions, the planned annihilation of every Bible in the land, and the prospect of Jack and Joe's civil union eviscerating the sanctity of millions of unhappy marriages everywhere. To be sure, these themes will be played throughout the upcoming election seasons, but clearly the GOP overmind is not confident that the masses will dance to the tune.

    Thus, the warning: if the Republicans lose in November, Bush will be impeached, and the Earth will immediately thereafter hurtle into the sun. This isn't just a lot of smoke and scare-tactics, however. The Republicans are genuinely worried about what will happen if the Democrats re-take the House in November. They have ample cause for concern.

    Beyond the specter of John Conyers doing an impersonation of Peter Rodino should Conyers become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee - in an interesting historical quirk, Conyers sat on the Judiciary Committee when Rodino shepherded it through drafting the three articles of impeachment against Nixon, and voted  "Yes" on all three articles - lie a number of other House Democrats  whose rise to a chairmanship would be devastating to the White House.

    Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) sits on the Committee on Government Reform, and will become chairman should the Democrats re-take the House in November. Waxman, in 1998, founded the Special Investigations Division within the minority offices on this committee, "to conduct investigations into issues that are important to the minority members of the Government Reform Committee and other members of Congress."

    There are more than fifty investigations that have been performed and continued to be performed by Waxman's Special Investigations Division. Among these are investigations into the torture at Abu Ghraib, Cheney's notorious energy task force meetings, a variety of Halliburton payoffs, electronic voting, the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, and the vast scandal surrounding administration abuse of Iraq intelligence and the exposure of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

    There is enough meat on that bone to keep Rep. Waxman, armed with subpoena power, busy as a beaver for the foreseeable future. It is also worth noting, when considering the formidable arsenal of information Waxman can bring to bear against the Bush White House, the legacy of Dan Burton.

    Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) became notorious as chairman of Government Reform during the Clinton administration. He fired off enough subpoenas to fill an oil tanker, almost all of them inspired by baseless and scurrilous accusations. Without actually proving much of anything, beyond the fact that subpoena power is an astonishingly large stick to hand to someone, Burton managed to keep the Clinton administration tied in knots for years.

    Burton was throwing mud. Waxman will be throwing fire, if handed the opportunity. Beyond Waxman and Conyers, there will be Barney Frank chairing the House Financial Services Committee. There will be Louise Slaughter chairing the House Committee on Rules. There will be Charlie Rangel chairing the Ways and Means Committee. This list goes on, and on.

    As amusing as the GOP's fear of impeachment is, the truth is that this Constitutional doomsday device is the least of their worries. Conyers does not have to impeach George W. Bush to throw a few torpedoes into the side of the Republican battleship. All he has to do, along with Waxman and the other chairs, is investigate with subpoena power. Tell the truth in public hearings with the principals under oath. Let the facts come to light in a way we have not seen for many years.

    The result of this would be an even greater Democratic Congressional victory    in 2008, and an incredible series of obstacles for any Republican presidential nominee to overcome. A drumbeat of truth about Iraq, Katrina, Abu Ghraib, Halliburton, Plame and all the rest of it would have every Republican who has ever uttered Bush's name in public fleeing for their lives. The long-sought permanent majority lusted after by the GOP would be transformed into a cemented minority, reminiscent of the shattered state of the Republican party in the aftermath of Watergate.

    All of this only comes to pass, of course, if the Democrats re-take the House. What was considered an incredible long-shot even a few months ago has become    an even-money proposition. Nothing is guaranteed by any stretch, and events may well transpire that swing the electorate back in favor of Bush and his Congressional allies. The fiasco that is electronic voting and the Help America Vote Act will stand in favor of the GOP come November, as it always has. If the Democrats want to win in November, they will have to work harder than they ever have before.

    For now, it is enough to be amused by the smell of fear emanating from the GOP. This newest tactic - warning people about the potential for impeachment - begs one simple question: if they have nothing to hide, what are they afraid of? The answer, clearly, is John Conyers. He is, you'll hear soon enough, a terrifying man.                  

link

Ken Lay -- Guilty; George Bush- -- Guilty

The Nation
John Nicols - The Online Beat
5/25/05

The man who paid a lot of the bills for George Bush's political ascent, Enron founder Kenneth Lay, has been found guilty of conspiracy and fraud almost five years after his dirty dealings created the greatest corporate scandal in what will be remembered as an era of corporate crime.  

On the sixth day of deliberations following the conclusion of a long-delayed federal trial, a Houston jury found Lay guilty on six counts of fraud and conspiracy. In a separate decision, US District Judge Sim Lake ruled that Lay was guilty of four counts of fraud and making false statements.  

The same jury that convicted Lay found Enron's former chief executive, Jeffrey Skilling, guilty on 19 counts of fraud, conspiracy, making false statements and engaging in insider trading.  

Lay, who President Bush affectionately referred to as "Kenny-boy" when the two forged an alliance in the 1990s to advance Bush's political ambitions and Lay's business prospects, contributed $122,500 to Bush's gubernatorial campaigns in Texas. Lay would later explain to a PBS "Frontline" interviewer that, though he had worked closely with former Texas Governor Ann Richards, the Democrat incumbent who Bush challenged in 1994, he backed the Republican because "I was very close to George W."      

Needless to say, once Bush became governor, Lay got his phone calls returned. A report issued by Public Citizen in February, 2001, months before the Enron scandal broke, identified Lay as "a long-time Bush family friend and an architect of Bush's policies on electricity deregulation, taxes and tort reform while Bush was Texas governor."  

No wonder Lay had Enron give $50,000 to pay for Bush's second inaugural party in Austin in 1999 -- a showcase event that was organized by Karl Rove and others to help the Texas governor step onto the national political stage.  

After Bush gave Enron exactly what it wanted in 1999, by signing legislation that deregulated the state's electrical markets, Lay knew he had found his candidate for president  

When Bush opened his campaign, Lay opened the cash spiggots.  

As a "Bush Pioneer" in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, Lay was a key member of the Bush campaign's fund-raising inner circle. Under Lay's leadership, Enron ultimately gave Bush $550,025, making the corporation the Texan's No. 1 career patron at the time the 2000 election campaign began, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Lay personally pumped almost $400,000 into Republican hard- and soft-money funds, while Enron slipped another $1.5 million into the GOP's soft-money cesspool.  

But that was just the beginning. Lay sent a letter to Enron executives urging them to contribute to Bush's campaign. More than 100 of them -- including Skilling, a major Bush giver since 1993, when he cut his first $5,000 check to GW's gubernatorial campaign -- did just that. Dozens of spouses wrote, including "homemaker" and frequent $10,000 donor Linda Lay, gave as well, making the Enron "family" a prime source of the money that gave Bush his early advantage over Republican rivals such as Arizona Senator John McCain.  

All told, it is estimated that, over the years prior the company's bankruptcy, Lay, his company and its employees contributed close to $2 million to fund George W. Bush's political rise.  

Lay found other ways to help, as well. He put Enron's corporate jets at the disposal of the Bush campaign in 2000. He kicked in $5,000 to pay for the Florida recount fight, while a top Enron "consultant," former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, ran the Republican's recount effort. He even paid for his own bookkeeping, chipping in $1,000 to help the Bush-Cheney campaign comply with campaign-finance laws. And Lay and Enron gave $300,000 to underwrite the Bush-Cheney inauguration festivities in 2001.  

Did all that giving pay off? You bet!  

Lay was appointed as one of five members of the elite "Energy Department Transition Team," which set the stage for the Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force and administration policies designed to benefit corporations such as Enron. A report on "Bush Administration Contacts with Enron," compiled at the request of Congressman Henry Waxman, D-California, by the minority staff of the Special Investigations Division of the House Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, found evidence of at least 112 contacts between Enron and White House or other Administration officials during the month prior to the corporation's very-public collapse in late 2001. At least 40 of those contacts involved top White House officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, presidential advisor Karl Rove, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey, White House personnel director Clay Johnson III, and White House energy task force director Andrew D. Lundquist.  

As Waxman explained in a 2001 interview, "The fact of the matter is that Enron and Ken Lay, who was the Chief Executive Officer of Enron, had an extraordinary amount of influence and access to the Bush Administration. Lay was called a close friend by both the President and the Vice President. When the Vice President chaired an Energy Task Force, Ken Lay had an opportunity to meet privately with the Vice President and to have a great deal of influence in their recommendations."  

Bush and his aides have worked hard since the Enron scandal broke to suggest that Lay was just another generous Texan. But the attempts to deny linkages to the now-convicted corporate criminal never cut water with Lone Star-state watchdog Craig McDonald, the director of Texans for Public Justice.  

"President Bush's explanation of his relationship with Enron is at best a half truth," McDonald said after Bush first tried to distance himself from Lay and other Enron executives. "He was in bed with Enron before he ever held a political office."  

As governor and president, Bush maintained that intimate relationship.  

Now that his strange bedmate have been convicted of fraud, isn't it time for the president to end the fraud of claiming that he was ever anything less than a political partner of Lay and the Enron team?

link

Too dangerous for the "Voice of America" to be in Iraq

As the talk from the Bush administration that the media is not reporting any good news in Iraq continues, here's a report that should wake up media critics. The U.S. government-run Voice of America has had no correspondent in Baghdad for six months.

Transcript from COUNTDOWN:

Olbermann: Meantime, we noted here 24 hours ago that this seems to be an administration that is outwardly unsusceptible to irony or charges of hypocrisy. But even that Teflon coating is facing a heavy-duty fried-egg stain. While the Bush press office and responsive reporters and talk show hosts desperately continue to accuse the, quote, "mainstream media" of ignoring the, quote, "good news from Iraq," "The Washington Post" has revealed that for the last six months, the Voice of America, the U.S.  government-run news organization, has not had a correspondent in Baghdad because it's just too dangerous.

video

Iran, Bush & Nuremberg

by Peter Dyer; Consortium News
May 25, 2006

        One of the most pernicious consequences of the invasion of Iraq is that in the United States it is now apparently accepted virtually without challenge that aggressive war is a legitimate tool of American foreign policy.

        I have seen nothing in the mainstream American media discussion of the pros and cons of a "preemptive" assault on Iran by the United States which deals with the possibility that this may be illegal or even morally wrong. So far this is simply not part of the debate.            

        We Americans are afflicted with historical, legal and moral amnesia. It used to be that most of us thought it was wrong to invade a country which had neither harmed us nor was imminently ready to harm us. There is a solid legal and moral foundation for this belief. Crucial to this foundation are:

        Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..."

        Chapter 1, Articles 3 and 4 of the United Nations Charter: a treaty which the U.S. not only signed but had a major role in bringing to life: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

        This language was incorporated into the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty which the U.S. also signed and had a major role in bringing to life.

        The Nuremberg Charter, Section II Article 6: "The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) Crimes Against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties..."

        In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 95 (1), affirming "the principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal."

        The Bible: Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 13: "Thou shalt not kill".

        Unfortunately, it couldn't be more clear that those people who are responsible for the war in Iraq, and who are now calculating the cost/benefits analysis of an American attack on Iran, leaving "all options on the table", are operating on the premise that they are allowed to start killing other people any time they want.

        And it couldn't be more clear that they are wrong. It boils down to two fundamentals: 1) Nobody is above the law and 2) Thou shalt not kill.

        The calls for impeachment of President Bush and other architects of the war of aggression in Iraq are growing. What we really need to do though, in my opinion, is to arrest them and put them on trial for this crime.

        Again, from the Nuremberg Charter, Section II, Article 7:  "The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment."

        In November of 1945 in his opening statement at the first Nuremberg trial, chief American prosecutor U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said: "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

        The men and women in the Bush administration are not possessed of  any unusual innate or acquired characteristics or privileges which render them above the law. To the contrary, they are public servants and we hired them to preserve, protect and defend the law.

        And while many Americans may have difficulty visualizing these people under arrest and on trial, the legacy of the Sixth Commandment, of Nuremberg, of the U.N. Charter and of the U.S. Constitution is clear.

link

Cheney may be called to testify in CIA leak case

From Capitol Hill Blue
May 25, 2006

As speculation over an indictment of Presidential guru Karl Rove turns out to be just that -- speculation -- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed Wednesday Vice President Dick Cheney could be called to testify in the CIA leak case involving his former chief of staff.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told a federal court that Cheney's hand-written notes on a newspaper article referring to Valerie Plame shortly before she was exposed as a CIA operative were uniquely relevant to the issues in the case.

Fitzgerald was referring to a July 6, 2003, article written by Plame's husband, Bush administration critic and former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Shortly after the article appeared, Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative was leaked to journalists. Fitzgerald is investigating whether Bush administration officials broke the law by disclosing Plame's identity.

"At the time, the vice president, rather than other potential witnesses, was upset that his personal credibility had been attacked unfairly in his view," Fitzgerald said.

Cheney's former aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby was charged with obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents and a grand jury during the investigation. He has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in January.

Fitzgerald said understanding what conversations took place between Cheney and Libby in the week after Wilson's opinion piece was published was critical to determining whether Libby thought it was necessary or appropriate to disclose Wilson's wife's CIA status with reporters.

A spokesperson for Cheney was not immediately available for comment.

Cheney, whose name has surfaced in other court documents as well, told the Fox News Channel in February that he may be called as a witness in the case.

In the court filing, Fitzgerald said Libby has acknowledged that he and the vice president discussed Wilson's article.

"Here as defendant has acknowledged, the vice president communicated to defendant the facts he considered notable, and also directed defendant to get out to the public 'all' the facts in response to the Wilson Op Ed," Fitzgerald wrote in the court filing.

"The state of mind of the vice president as communicated to defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson's employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue," Fitzgerald said in the court filing.

However, Fitzgerald noted that the government has not commented on whether it intends to call Cheney as a witness.

Fitzgerald's latest moves comes after two weeks of speculation that his grand jury handed down an indictment against Presidential advisor Rove. The report, published May 13 in the partisan web site Truthout, spurred two weeks of frenzy and speculation on most left-wing blogs and bulletin boards but could not be confirmed by a single professional news organization.

The story was written by Jason Leopold, a writer with a checkered past, including admitted bouts with mental instability, drug dependency, theft and decision. Salon fired Leopold as a free-lance reporter after the web site found he fabricated an email used as the basis of a story about Enron and copied information from the London Financial Times.                      

link

Decision to impeach Bushnot a political one

Portland Morning Sentinal
MaineToday.com
Scott Austin
Thursday, May 25, 2006


I always read and respect the opinions expressed by Jim Brunelle, but his column of May 11 leaves me wondering. As one of the Kennebec County Democrats voting to impeach Bush and Cheney, I think Brunelle is missing an important point.

This isn't about politics.

What it is about is the accumulation of substantial evidence that this administration has broken its pledge to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States on many issues. A thorough investigation is warranted and past due.

Our decision to take action is further compounded by a willingness of the Republican-controlled House and Senate to rubber stamp everything the Bush administration proposes. Our call for impeachment proceedings is a grassroots effort to force an investigation that Congress refuses to do.

Our country was created on a system of checks and balances among three branches of government. The Republican-controlled Congress is doing an embarrassing job of protecting what may be the most corrupt and secretive executive branch to ever occupy the White House. If Congress refuses to accept its responsibility to assert and exercise its powers, then action must come from the citizens.

If laws were broken, then it is our duty as citizens to rock the boat and force Congress to put this nation through an impeachment proceeding now, as uncomfortable as Brunelle thinks that may be.

That's where the Kennebec County Democrats are coming from.

Scott Austin
Winslow

link


Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Impeachment? No. Impalement!

Published on The Progressive
By Will Durst
June 2006 Issue

I don't know about you guys, but I am so sick and tired of these lying, thieving, holier-than-thou, rightwing, cruel, crude, rude, gauche, coarse, crass, cocky, corrupt, dishonest, debauched, degenerate, dissolute, swaggering, lawyer shooting, bullhorn shouting, infra-structure destroying, buck passing, hysterical, criminal, history defying, finger pointing, puppy stomping, roommate appointing, pretzel choking, collateral damaging, aspersion casting, wedding party bombing, clearcutting, torturing, jobs outsourcing, torture out-sourcing, election fixing, women's rights eradicating, Medicare cutting, uncouth, spiteful, boorish, vengeful, jingoistic, homophobic, xenophobic, xylophonic, racist, sexist, ageist, fascist, cashist, audaciously stupid, brazenly selfish, lethally ignorant, journalist purchasing, genocide ignoring, corporation kissing, poverty inducing, crooked, coercive, autocratic, primitive, uppity, high-handed, domineering, arrogant, inhuman, inhumane, inbred, inept, insipid, incapable, incompetent, ineffectual, insolent, insincere, know-it-all, snotty, pompous, contemptuous, supercilious, gutless, spineless, shameless, avaricious, noxious, poisonous, imperious, merciless, graceless, tactless, brutish, brutal, Karl Roving, backward thinking, persistent vegetative state grandstanding, nuclear option threatening, evolution denying, irony deprived, consciously depraved, conceited, perverted, peremptory invading, thirty-five day vacation taking, bribe soliciting, hellish, smarty pants, loudmouth, bullying, swell headed, ethics eluding, domestic spying, medical marijuana busting, Halliburtoning, narcissistic, undiplomatic, blustering, malevolent, demonizing, Duke Cunninghamming, hectoring, dry drunk, Muslim baiting, hurricane disregarding, oil company hugging, judge packing, science disputing, faith based advocating, armament selling, nonsense spewing, education ravaging, whiny, insane, unscrupulous, lily livered, greedy (exponential factor fifteen), fraudulent, delusional, CIA outing, redistricting, anybody who disagrees with them slandering, fact twisting, ally alienating, betraying, chickenhawk, sell out, quisling, god and flag waving, scare mongering, Cindy Sheehan libeling, smirking, bastardly, voting machine tampering, sociopathic, cowardly, treasonous, Constitution shredding, oppressive, vulgar, antagonistic, trust funding, nontipping, tyrannizing, peace hating, water and air and ground and media polluting (which is pretty much all the polluting you can get), deadly, traitorous, con man, swindling, pernicious, lethal, illegal, haughty, venomous, virulent, mephitic, egotistic, bloodthirsty, yellowbelly, hypocritical, Oedipal, did I say evil, I'm not sure if I said evil, because I want to make sure I say evil . . . EVIL, cretinous, slime buckets in the Bush Administration that I could just spit. Impeachment? Hell no. Impalement. Upon the sharp and righteous sword of the people's justice. Make it a curtain rod. Because it would hurt more.

Yes, political comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host Will Durst received a thesaurus for his birthday, but he didn't need it.

link

Indicted Bush Appointee Secretly Worked for Jack Abramoff

FOX News: Wednesday, May 24, 2006

WASHINGTON — A top procurement official in the Bush administration abandoned his duty to the public in order to serve lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and the official later concealed his conduct from investigators, a federal prosecutor said Wednesday.

At the start of the first trial in the Abramoff influence peddling scandal, prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg told a jury that David Safavian provided substantial amounts of information about government-controlled properties that the lobbyist wanted for himself or his clients.

Using his official position, Safavian "worked first and foremost for a rich, powerful" lobbyist and personal friend and then he "lied and concealed in order to keep the truth from the public," Zeidenberg told the jury of 10 women and two men.

Abramoff "constantly dangled" the prospect that Safavian could return to the private sector and join Abramoff's lobbying operation, "where he would make a great deal of money and he would play a great deal of golf," Zeidenberg told the jury.

Safavian was chief of staff to the administrator of the General Services Administration, later moving to the White House and becoming administrator of the office of federal procurement policy. He left the government around the time of his arrest in the Abramoff scandal.

Justice Department prosecutors intend to use hundreds of e-mails to paint a picture of corruption in the Safavian case and apparently won't call confessed felon Abramoff to the witness stand.

While prosecutors try to bury Safavian in e-mails he exchanged with Abramoff, Safavian's lawyers plan to depict the Justice Department as overreaching in bringing charges against the procurement official.

With several members of Congress under investigation, prosecutors appear to be holding Abramoff back for bigger cases they are trying to pull together. Keeping Abramoff away from the courtroom for now also means the disgraced lobbyist won't be subjected to cross-examination by Safavian's lawyers, who are unlikely to take the risky step of calling Abramoff themselves.

A five-count grand jury indictment says Safavian concealed from investigators his assistance to Abramoff, who wanted to acquire part of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Silver Spring, Md., and to lease a downtown Washington landmark, the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Safavian's lawyers say prosecution excesses began early in the probe when investigators were looking for Abramoff associates who might be able to implicate the lobbyist in wrongdoing.

Prosecutors believe Safavian was in that category, so they brought a weak case against him in an effort to pressure him into turning on his old friend, the defense has said.

Safavian chose to fight rather than cooperate. And his possible cooperation against Abramoff became a moot point when the lobbyist entered guilty pleas early this year in Washington, D.C., and Florida.

The constant e-mail traffic between the two men will put Abramoff's aggressive tactics on display, showing how he badgered Safavian for information about the properties while showering his longtime friend with invitations, including a trip to Scotland that Safavian accepted.

Abramoff wanted the Maryland property for a private school he founded. He sought a lease of the Old Post Office for some of his Indian tribal clients who wanted to develop it as a luxury hotel.

Abramoff is now the government's main weapon in an investigation aimed primarily at Capitol Hill.

link

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Lobbying Trial to Look Inside White House

Tuesday, May 23, 2006; 3:36 PM
Pete Yost - AP

WASHINGTON -- The first trial in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal will offer a raw look inside a Washington lobbying operation, with prosecutors contending the results implicate the top procurement official in the Bush administration.

Abramoff himself is unlikely to testify. With a number of members of Congress under investigation, prosecutors appear to be holding him back for bigger cases they are trying to pull together.

In the trial that starts Wednesday, hundreds of e-mails will show Abramoff's aggressive tactics as the lobbyist badgered David Safavian, the defendant in the case, about two government controlled properties.

Abramoff wanted the properties for himself and for his clients, and he showered Safavian with invitations including a trip to Scotland. Safavian accepted the trip, which has become the focus of the trial.

A jury of 10 women and two men will hear opening arguments in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman. The trial is expected to last two weeks.

As prosecutors try to bury Safavian in the e-mails he exchanged with Abramoff, the government is expected to keep the disgraced lobbyist off the witness stand to avoid having him cross-examined by defense lawyers.

Safavian's lawyers plan to depict the Justice Department as overreaching in bringing charges against the procurement official who is a longtime friend of Abramoff.

A five-count indictment charges Safavian with covering up the fact that Abramoff was interested in land in Maryland and in a downtown Washington landmark, the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania Avenue. The two properties are controlled by the General Services Administration, where Safavian was the administrator's chief of staff. Safavian later moved to the White House where he was administrator of the office of federal procurement policy.

The defense team says prosecution excesses started over a year ago when investigators were looking for Abramoff associates who might be able to implicate the lobbyist in wrongdoing.

Prosecutors believe Safavian was in that category, so they brought a weak case against him in an effort to pressure him into turning on his old friend, the defense has said.

Safavian chose to fight rather than cooperate. And his possible cooperation against Abramoff became a moot point when the lobbyist entered guilty pleas early this year in Washington, D.C., and Florida.

Abramoff is now the government's main weapon in an investigation that is aimed primarily at Capitol Hill.

A former aide to Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, is expected to testify this week about a suggestion from Safavian for inserting language into legislation that would have conveyed to Abramoff GSA-controlled property in Maryland, federal prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg said at a pretrial hearing.

Neil Volz, Ney's former chief of staff, has pleaded guilty to conspiring to corrupt the congressman on behalf of Abramoff. Ney, who has denied wrongdoing, also is to be investigated by the House ethics committee.

The committee's leaders have said they also would have investigated the financing of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay's overseas travel had the Texas Republican not decided to leave Congress on June 9 to fight an indictment on a separate investigation in his home state.

Records have shown that Abramoff or his clients financed some of DeLay's travel. DeLay has denied any misconduct.

link

Columnist Blasts the Bush Administration and the Media


Editor and Publisher


Published: May 23, 2006 11:45 AM ET

NEW YORK A former Reagan administration official has written another blistering column about the Bush administration -- and the U.S. media.

Creators Syndicate columnist Paul Craig Roberts said in a Monday piece: "The American public has been trained to obediently accept their government's lies fed to them by their government's handmaiden, the U.S. media. No statement or claim by a Bush regime official is too outlandish to be received with acceptance. Consider the claim by Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. secretary for war and aggression, made to the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on May 17, that Iran was to blame for the instability in Iraq.

"Did the senators laugh Rumsfeld out of the room? No. Did the media remind the 'informed public' that it was actually the U.S. invasion and unsuccessful occupation, together with mass detentions, torture, slaughter of citizens and invasions of their homes, destruction of infrastructure and entire cities, such as Fallujah, and removal of Saddam Hussein's government, which kept the three Iraqi factions from each other's throats, that destabilized Iraq? Needless to say, no."

Roberts -- assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Reagan and a former editor at The Wall Street Journal and National Review -- added: "The only person in the Senate committee room who spoke the truth called Rumsfeld a liar and was hauled off by the police."

The columnist continued: "Freedom of expression still exists in America, but only on behalf of lies. Truth is forbidden, except on the Internet. The Internet is still free, because Americans are accustomed to believing what they hear on TV and read in the news columns of newspapers, whereas the Internet is new and iffy to most Americans and of less concern to the government. The mainstream media, which serves as a government propaganda organ, and the Internet are two parallel universes."


link


Gathering to urge impeaching Bush

The News & Observer
Raleigh - Durham NC

PITTSBORO - A group calling for the impeachment of President Bush will take its case to the Chatham County Courthouse at 7 p.m. today.

The N.C. Grassroots Impeachment Movement has won support from the Chapel Hill Town Council and Carrboro Board of Aldermen.

Tonight's meeting will feature Voices of Chatham Youth; the Rev. Carrie Bolton, a justice advocate; civil rights attorney Al McSurely; former congressional candidate Kent Kanoy; and singer-songwriter Janet Bratter. Also, the Raging Grannies will perform.

For more information, visit www.impeachbushcheney.net/#hearings.


link

Control of Congress: Winning by losing or losing by winning in November

Bruce Bartlett
May 23, 2006
originally posted on townhall.com

A number of political analysts are saying that enough congressional seats are now in play to give Democrats a realistic chance of retaking control of the House of Representatives this fall. Interestingly, many Republicans don't necessarily think that is altogether a bad idea, while many Democrats are not so sure they really want the prize just yet.

There is deep, deep frustration in both parties at the moment. The Republican Party's conservative base is disgusted by profligate spending, failure to control the borders and a general sense that its elected representatives are treating the cesspool of Washington like a hot tub. The Democratic Party's liberal base believes its leaders are gutless and feckless, afraid or unwilling to confront the White House on Iraq, torture, wiretaps, tax giveaways to the rich and other issues.

Republicans are hoping to calm their base by getting an immigration bill passed and forcing votes on red-meat issues like prohibiting gay marriage and repealing the estate tax permanently. They also plan to bring up some high-profile judicial appointments for votes in order to remind conservatives how important it is to keep control of the confirmation process.

The point on judges is well-taken, but of course that only requires control of the Senate, and it is highly unlikely that Democrats will be able to win enough seats to gain a majority there this November. Moreover, even if Democrats get control of the House, they will almost certainly have a very, very thin margin. The leadership may well be at the mercy of the few remaining Democratic congressmen from the South who occasionally vote with Republicans.

If Democrats get control of the House, they are also going to be beset by pressures from their base to immediately launch massive investigations of every suspected wrongdoing President Bush, Vice President Cheney and every other administration official may have committed over the previous six years. Many Democrats are salivating at the thought of being able to subpoena administration officials and perhaps even bring up articles of impeachment -- payback for Bill Clinton.

Democratic leaders know that this sort of talk turns off moderates and energizes the Republican base. Consequently, John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, who would likely chair the House Judiciary Committee in a Democratic Congress, recently wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Post denying that he would push to impeach President Bush. But this only depresses the "Daily Kos" crowd and makes them wonder what the point of Democratic control of the House is. ( Dailykos.com is a Website popular among extreme left-wing Democrats.)

At the same time, some Democratic strategists are wondering whether control of the House might play into the Republicans' hands in 2008. They figure that Democrats won't be able to do much to advance their agenda, but will give Republicans a foil and an excuse for their own failures. This could end up helping Republicans keep the White House in 2008 and possibly retake control of the House.

On the other hand, strategists say, winning a few seats this fall, but not enough for control, might be optimum for the Democrats. They would bloody the Republicans, embolden the Democratic base and put them in a better position to win it all in 2008 -- the White House and Congress.

But even that possibility worries some Democrats. They fear that retaking the White House before the Iraq War is resolved will force them to do all the dirty work of cleaning up the mess. They worry that the Democratic Party could end up with all the blame for a war it didn't start in the same way Republicans ended up with most of the blame for Vietnam.

Other Democrats worry that the fiscal disaster Republicans have created will require politically unpopular tax increases and spending cuts during the next president's term. They note that the first baby boomers will qualify for Social Security in 2008 and Medicare in 2011. Better to let the Republicans fix this problem, too, before regaining power, some Democrats argue.

Undoubtedly, the vast majority of Democrats think that if they can regain power, they should. It's hard to win by losing in politics. Nevertheless, there are those in both parties who always think it is better to lose for principle than win, and sometimes they can make a difference.

A more important concern for both parties has to do with turnout, which is a function of voter intensity in off-year elections. Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 mainly because so many Democrats sat out the election. Since it is mainly the ideologues that vote in such elections and since turnout is lower than in presidential elections, each party's wings are more crucial to the outcome.

In the end, the election may turn on which party's base is less dispirited this year.

Bruce Bartlett is the author of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.

link


Impeach the president

The Mississippi Press
OPINION

Impeach the president
Tuesday, May 23, 2006

To the editor:

This president deserves impeachment over the fake energy crisis of 2001, for lying about WMDs, for illegal spying, for making us weaker and carrying out the most self-destructive foreign policy in at least 100 years. Stand up for what is right, stand up to impeach George W. Bush, and remove Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice.

Steve Shepard

Ocean Springs

link

Monday, May 22, 2006

Sounds: Listen, Neil Young has something to say

LIVING WITH WAR
Neil Young (Reprise)

Ron Lockwood
The Toledo Blade - May 21 2006

Neil Young's anti-war bromide is agit-pop performed at its highest level.

If you're a George W. Bush supporter you're going to be seriously agitated at Young's relentless assault on the President. If you're against Bush, and by extension the war in Iraq, then "Living With War" is a call to arms and a rallying cry for peace.

There's nothing surprising about this disc, Young's 40th. The guitars are cranked up to about 11, and even though he's not working with his usual rock band, Crazy Horse, the sound is typical of Young when he rocks out. The rough edges are not buffed out and his voice is a keening wail against a backdrop of fuzzy noise.

Starting with a few electric guitar rumbles that sound like an old car getting warmed up, Young comes out kicking hard and sad with the elegiac "After the Garden," which imagines life after we've ruined just about everything. "Shock and Awe," a rager that looks back in anger at the early days of the war, is one of the best hard rock tunes he's ever delivered.

Over the course of the disc's 10 songs, Young dips liberally into the protest singer's toolbox. He name-drops Bob Dylan, co-opts a few patriotic standards ("Star Spangled Banner," "America the Beautiful") and sets a rant ("Let's Impeach the President") to a sunny, catchy melody that sticks in your brain (and your craw, if you're pro-Bush) for days.

Any judgment of Young has to account for the obvious fact that this is the work of an artist who is passionate about America's future and who mourns for its soul. We need him, whether we agree with him or not, because he speaks the truth as he sees it, regardless of commercial considerations. That it took a Canadian to produce such a polemic is an irony that should be lost on no one.

- ROD LOCKWOOD

link

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Be a Part of the Growing Pro-Impeachment Grassroots Movement

Be a Part of the Growing Pro-Impeachment Grassroots Movement      

David Swanson
PDA National Board Member / Co-Founder, AfterDowningStreet.org
May 21, 2006

Remarks at Progressive Democrats of America Lobby Training, May 21, 2006, Washington, D.C.

On Friday our President attended a fundraiser in Virginia Beach for a Republican Congress Member. But the Congress Member didn't show up. This has happened a number of times, with both Bush and Cheney. Yesterday, the LA Times ran an article on the way in which AH-nold is backing away from Bush. Republicans are beginning to understand that being associated with Bush and Cheney is a liability.

About two-thirds of Republicans and one-third of Americans still approve of Bush, and about half that many people still approve of Cheney. Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Independents, and a third of Republicans disapprove of Bush. And Americans' number one concern is the war, which strong majorities believe Bush lied us into and want to get us out of.

A majority of Americans support an investigation into grounds for impeachment, and a third of Americans – even in the most slanted Washington Post poll, conducted three or four scandals ago – want Bush impeached and removed from office. That is to say, a third of the country, prior to any real action in Congress or the media, has already jumped out ahead of an investigation, ahead of impeachment proceedings in the House, and ahead of a trial in the Senate. Those people are ready to convict the President and send him back to his so-called ranch to await criminal prosecution.

While a third of the nation is significantly more than wanted Clinton impeached and removed from office even following saturation pro-impeachment media coverage, many more than a third of Americans believe that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses.

After all, the impeachable offenses are remarkably blatant and open. Bush has readily confessed to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, promised to continue doing so, and nominated one of his fellow law breakers to run the CIA. The evidence that Bush and Cheney intentionally deceived the public and Congress about reasons for war is overwhelming. Numerous new pieces of evidence have emerged and been posted on www.afterdowningstreet.org since Congressman John Conyers released his report "The Constitution in Crisis" late last year. The primary excuse offered repeatedly by media outlets for neglecting new pieces of evidence is that everyone already knows we were lied to.

Conyers' report found that "there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

"There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

"While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment."

That is to say, Congressman Conyers, like anyone else who's paying any attention, knows that Bush and Cheney have committed offenses that are decidedly impeachable if anything other than sex is ever to be impeachable again. But before detailed charges can be drawn up, a real investigation with subpoena power must be conducted – something the Republican Congress has never done during this administration.

To make the case for impeachment painfully obvious, over three years after Bush launched a war based on lies, and after he himself has labeled each of his justifications for the war a well-intentioned mistake, he's still fighting the war and has begun another one in Iran without any legal authorization whatsoever. He's still killing Iraqis and Americans every day even though he himself has acknowledged that his claims about WMDs and ties to 9-11 were false, and all but the most loyal Fox viewers are aware of that fact. He continues to torture, to detain without charge, to use illegal weapons, to target civilians, to spy on Americans, and to violate untold dozens or hundreds of U.S. laws. Having never vetoed a bill, he has written several hundred signing statements declaring his intention not to obey the bills he signs into law. He's daring us to impeach him. The public is accepting the dare. And Republican Congress Members are reluctant to be seen in the same room with him.

All of this might lead you to expect every Democrat in Congress to be lined up behind John Conyers' call for an investigation. The Republicans have not allowed a serious investigation of any of Bush and Cheney's apparent crimes in either house of Congress. If the Democrats were all lined up for an investigation, can you imagine the pressure that Republicans in moderate districts would be under to join in? I'm sure you can, unless you are a Democratic Congress Member or staffer, because in that case you will have been heavily trained to think only in terms of defense, never offense.

If the mountains of available evidence are misleading us, an investigation would allow the President to clear his name and maybe even persuade above 30 percent of us to support him. An investigation is not even an indictment, an impeachment, something for which there is clearly probably cause. An investigation is a minimal claim on continued existence for the Congress as something more than a collection of courtiers and court jesters. There is no reason that Congress Members of all political parties should not immediately get behind a demand for oversight, for checks and balances, for the system of government established by the Constitution. Thus far 37 Members support H Res 635. After your lobbying on Monday, that number should increase.

Where are the other 398 Congress Members or even the other 166 Democrats or even the other half of the Progressive Caucus? We can ask the same question about any anti-war bill. They're busy campaigning for re-election as non-Republicans, blissfully unaware that that is how Democrats have lost elections for decades. Even the 37 who've stepped forward are playing defense. Even our heroes, like John Conyers, are playing defense. Congressman Conyers wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post last week denying Republican charges that he is set on impeachment, explaining that his position is, and has long been, that we need an investigation. Conyers did criticize the Republicans for their lack of oversight, but he could not do so on behalf of the Democratic Party since most of it is not with him yet. Despite the Democratic Party's refusal to back him, Conyers backs it. He declined to say anything to urge recalcitrant Democrats to join his efforts.

The Washington Post is an efficient operation. In the course of a week or so, it promoted RNC lies about impeachment being good for Republicans, published Conyers' defensive response, and then printed a column by Howard Kurtz that quoted all sorts of rightwing bloggers claiming that this shows that Conyers knows impeachment is bad for Democrats.

But let's be clear about something. John Conyers is walking a line between voters' demands for impeachment now and the demands of his party's spineless so-called leadership to let the war criminals off the hook. He's doing a good job of walking that line. It sometimes makes sense for Congress Members and their staffs to walk such lines. But it never makes sense for citizens to do so.

If we citizens back off from demanding impeachment, if we pretend not to know that the evidence is overwhelming, if we turn ourselves into amateur political advisors and advocate self-censorship until after the elections, then candidates and Congress Members will take two steps back from that position. The role of the citizen is to openly speak the truth. We know the President and Vice President should be behind bars, that with them in office the war cannot be ended, and that H Res 635 is a step in that direction, a very reasonable and moderate step for Congress Members whose paymasters oppose interference with the war machine.

Anyone who believes that H Res 635 is a Trojan Horse being used to sneak impeachment and other such radical notions through the gates of power is someone who believes that an investigation of the President and Vice President would lead to indictable evidence of bribery, treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors. Such a person, of either party, has sworn an oath of office that obliges them to put a check on such abuses.

When you lobby on Monday, whether and in what way you push for cosponsorship of H Res 635 should depend on what Congress Member you're dealing with and what else you're asking of them. But you should never hesitate to politely inform your elected representative that you want them to support a bill. If you think they are more likely to support some lesser bill on your list of asks, then letting them know what you really want turns that other bill into a compromise. Your concern is not to avoid offending your representative, but to encourage them to stop offending you.

Toward that end we have various carrots and sticks at our disposal. We have the threat of defeat in a general election, something future Congressman Tony Trupiano can tell you about in the panel following this session. We have the threat of defeat in a primary, something PDA-member and future Congresswoman Marcy Winograd is teaching Los Angeles about right now. And for every member of Congress, even one you might decide to hold your nose and vote for as a lesser evil, we have the carrots of praise, popularity, media attention, and blogosphere attention, and the sticks of condemnation, embarrassment, and civil disobedience.

Over 1,200 impeachment activists have joined PDA's Impeachment Working Group, which is working together with a team that After Downing Street, ImpeachPAC, ImpeachBush TV, and other groups have assembled, a team of researchers, web managers, PR practitioners, and mentors for local activists working to pass city and state resolutions for impeachment, resolutions that can motivate Congress Members, such as Bernie Sanders, to sign onto Conyers' bill. Go to www.afterdowningstreet.org/resolutions for an activist kit.

We have also assembled a list of speakers who can take part in public forums on impeachment, and you should get in touch with me if you want help with such an event. Go to www.afterdowningstreet.org/speakers for the list.

We also regularly post on After Downing Street planned public appearances of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice. These war criminals should not be allowed to come to your part of the country without major disruptions and nonviolent opposition.

We'll talk more tomorrow about how to lobby for H Res 635.  For now, let's have questions and discussion.

Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org

link

As we survey the crumbling ruins

As we survey the crumbling ruins

By MOLLY IVINS
Creators Syndicate
Sun, May. 21, 2006

AUSTIN - Looking at the wreckage of the Bush administration leaves one with the depressed query, "Now what?"

The only help to the country that can come from this ugly and spectacular crack-up is that, in theory, things can't get worse. This administration is so discredited that it cannot talk the country into an unnecessary war with Iran as it did with Iraq. In theory, spending is so out of control that it cannot cut taxes for the rich again; the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bushies is among its lasting legacies.

As we all know, things can always get worse, and often do.

It's going to be up to the Democrats to hold the metaphoric hands of this crippled administration until it limps off stage. The Republican National Committee has a new scare tactic for the faithful: You must give to the party, or else the Democrats will spend the next two years investigating the administration (horror of horrors). Those who recall the insanely trivial investigations of the Clinton years may indeed regard this as the ultimate waste of time and money (as even Ken Starr concluded, there never was anything to Whitewater), but in fact it could be a therapeutic use of the next biennium. In fact, the offenses are not comparable.

Suppose we stopped to investigate why and how and who is responsible for this administration's lies, deformed policies and inability to govern. There is a wealth of lessons to be learned about the dangers of ideological delusion and contempt for governance.

Trouble is, the world is not apt to hold still for two years. It seems to me pointless to impeach George W. Bush. The Republicans so trivialized impeachment into partisan piffle that it would look like little more than payback. And Dick Cheney is seriously off the rails, apparently deeply paranoid -- let's not put him in charge.

The minimum we should expect of Bush in return for dropping impeachment (or not) is that he cease breaking the law. Despite the opinions of Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, etc., the president of the United States does not have the authority to set aside the law.

(If Bush were impeached, I would use as evidence his astounding statement in March that the matter of getting American troops out of Iraq "will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq." What a contemptible statement.)

It would be easier to contemplate a two-year holding period if Bush hadn't already wasted so much time. Of particular note in this department is "the inconvenient truth": global warming.

Wasting eight years in the face of what we already knew when Bush came in is not only insane but also unforgivable. A recent poll showed the majority of Americans believe that the war in Iraq will be the overriding issue of Bush's presidency. I suspect that future historians will fixate on his global warming record -- not only doing nothing to stop it but letting the hole get dug deeper as well.

Barring emergency, I suspect that the wisest thing Democrats can do in the next two years is to begin steadily undoing what Bush hath wrought -- on tax and spending, on global warming, and on surveillance and other illegal lunges for power. Bush ran in 2000 as a moderate. He did not bother to inform us at the time that he felt the government of this country needed a much stronger executive above the law. Congress has sat by passively while this administration has accrued more and more power. If members of Congress think the legislative branch should be equal, it's time for them to stir their stumps.

Am I jumping to conclusions? Can Karl Rove yet steer his party away from electoral disaster in the fall? I do not think George W. can be put together again, so Rove's only option is go negative against the Democrats -- no surprise there. They could attack Democrats on almost anything, but that would leave the large question "Compared to what?" It would be interesting to see an election in which Bush is not a factor and the whole fight is over what Tom DeLay and the K Street Project have made of the Congress. If ever a gang of corrupt jerks deserved to be held accountable, it's this one.

link

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

By Charles Babington

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; A06

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Some House Democrats, including ranking Judiciary Committee member John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, have called for impeachment hearings into allegations that Bush misled the nation about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and that he violated federal law by approving warrantless wiretaps on Americans. In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

GOP activists seized on the remarks to warn potential donors of Bush's possible peril if Democrats pick up the 15 net House seats they need to become the majority.


link