View Full Version: Georgie, There`s A Crowd Downstairs

arnzilla >>All Skate >>Georgie, There`s A Crowd Downstairs


<< Prev | Next >>

Nas78- 10-25-2006
Georgie, There`s A Crowd Downstairs
"Every day in every city and town across America, progressives get up in the morning and go about the work of fighting racism and homophobia, defending the environment, organizing trade unions and tackling corporate hegemony. Sometimes they win--on the picket line, at the ballot box, in the streets and outside the WTO meetings in Seattle. The purpose of The Online Beat is to report regularly and with immediacy on the political, social, economic and cultural activism that too often goes unremarked in so much of the mainstream media. The ultimate goal? To reveal the hidden reality that there is a left in America, and that it's active, growing and winning more consistently than the pundits or the politicians want you to know." "Voting for Impeachment" (By John Nichols) "From Vermont to Illinois to California, voters this fall will be deciding the fate not just of candidates for Congress but of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Communities that are home to more than 1 million Americans will have an opportunity to cast ballots on the question of whether Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president. Only the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach a member of the executive branch, and only the Senate can convict the targeted official and remove him from office. But the founders always intended for citizens to have a voice in the process. Thomas Jefferson, who argued that power must ultimately rest in the people, as they alone are the surest defenders of the republic and its democratic aspirations, observed, "It behooves our citizens to be on their guard, to be firm in their principles, and full of confidence in themselves. We are able to preserve our self-government if we will but think so." Duly troubled by a president and vice president who have launched wars without congressional declarations, who have spied without warrants, who have disregarded and disdained the Constitution, citizens across the country have put themselves to the task of preserving self-government by raising the call for impeachment. Dozens of communities have considered resolutions calling on Congress to act, and this fall's referendums will raise the volume. The precise wording of the questions varies from town to town. Prepared with the assistance of activists with the Constitution Summer project (www.constitutionsummer.org), the propositions in San Francisco and Berkeley read like actual articles of impeachment. In urging members of the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, for instance, San Francisco's Proposition J goes far beyond now standard complaints regarding abuses of power related to invasion and occupation of Iraq and argues for holding the administration to account for the mismanagement of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. The proposal is more to the point in tiny Pittsville, Wisconsin -- population 866 -- where voters will be asked to vote "yes" or "no" on a local resolution that declares: "The U.S. House of Representatives should start an impeachment investigation against President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney now." If the voters say yes, says Bob Hoch, organizer of the Wood County Impeachment Coalition's petition drives, a call to act will be dispatched to the state's congressional delegation -- two of whom, Madison Democrat Tammy Baldwin and Milwaukee Democrat Gwen Moore, have already joined a House call for an impeachment inquiry. There are those who will suggest that referendum votes in handful of communities as distinct as San Francisco and Pittsville can't possibly mean much to the national discourse. But, surely, the cynics are wrong. The referendums in those communities, and Montpelier, Vermont, and Urbana, Ill., and other locales across the land are classic illustrations of the petitioning for the redress of grievances that the Constitution does not merely protect but in fact encourages. The impeachment-from-below movement is the modern-day expression of the oldest of American ideals: No man, be he pauper or president, shall stand above the law. And it is wholly appropriate that it is beginning at the municipal level. Former Harper's magazine editor Lewis Lapham, was asked during a recent visit to San Francisco: "Do you think that's the way we should go about impeachment -- municipally?" "I don't see why not," Lapham, one of the Republic's most thoughtful and consistent defenders, replied. "I don't see any other way to go about it. I think that the impetus for any revival for democratic government is going to come not from a national level but from a municipal and state level." There is something satisfying about the fact that the communities that are voting on impeachment -- which range from urban centers to college towns to rural towns -- cannot be stereotyped. That is as it should be, says Buzz Davis, the Veterans for Peace activist who has been leading the impeachment campaign that has qualified two referendums for the November ballots in Wisconsin cities and hopes to qualify many more for next spring's local election ballots. "Impeachment is not a partisan issue but a question of whether our nation will live under the rule of law as our Founding Fathers believed," argues Davis. James Madison said that "it may, perhaps, on some occasion, be found necessary to impeach the president himself." It would come as no surprise to Madison or Jefferson that citizens are the first to recognize the occasion and to call upon Congress to act. Nor would this trouble the founders; indeed, they would say that the impeachment-from-below movement is the truest expression of the patriotism that alone will preserve the republic." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Send Neocons Home Take Your Country Back Good Luck

Nas78- 10-29-2006

"Torture And The Nation's Soul" (By Kathleen McTigue And Donna Berman) "If we think of the soul only as an individual matter, then questions of moral choice become focused only on the personal level. We tend to forget that we can go astray not only in our small and solitary ways, but in large and collective ones as well. We do not live in isolation but in community. As a whole people, we are capable of immoral decisions and grievous acts. In a democracy, where we as citizens have the privilege of choosing our own leaders, this truth is particularly relevant. The grave errors of which we are capable as a whole nation are the ones that must urgently compel our attention today. Why? Because none of us personally has ever tortured another human being. None of us has kidnapped a person and sent him to another country to be tormented. Individually we have never locked men and women into nameless and unidentified prisons around the world, nor held foreign prisoners as "unlawful enemy combatants" without charges or legal recourse. Alone, we have never lobbied for the right to ignore or rewrite the Geneva Conventions. But our government has done all of these things in our names. On Oct. 17, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, which was rushed through Congress just in time for the campaign season. By undermining the moral values and legal traditions on which America was founded, this shameful law threatens the soul of our nation. Three Connecticut Representatives and one of our Senators voted for this law: Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons and Joe Lieberman. The new law will allow torture to continue to be carried out in our names. When challenged, these legislators argue that the law explicitly forbids the practice of torture. And indeed, there is language in the law that provides this political cover. But taken in its entirety, the Military Commissions Act allows prisoner abuse to continue. It grants impunity to the civilians who authorized, tolerated and perpetrated torture since 9/11, and makes it much less likely that future torturers will be held accountable for their actions. The law is riddled with loopholes, three of which are particularly glaring. First, the law denies due process to current and future detainees imprisoned as "unlawful enemy combatants." Non-citizens can be imprisoned without charges or fair representation, and without the chance to challenge their imprisonment - or their treatment - in a court of law. This silences the prisoners and renders abuse of all kinds, including torture, even more invisible and therefore more likely. Second, the law authorizes President Bush to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions." It allows him to decide which "aggressive interrogation techniques" are torture and which are not. So American interrogation methods will be guided, not by the Geneva Conventions honored by every other democracy on earth, but by President Bush, who has repeatedly circumvented the laws meant to prevent prisoner abuse. And third, the law retroactively grants immunity to civilian interrogators who violated the Geneva Conventions after 9/11, and it allows the information they acquired using abusive techniques to be presented as evidence. Our own military leaders, arguing against passage of this law, have declared that such evidence is notoriously unreliable, and that our use of coercive practices will put our own soldiers at greater risk of similar abuse. Torture is an act of desecration that degrades all of those involved - policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. And even those of us who only cast a vote. Those politicians who voted for the Military Commissions Act, along with President Bush, have made torture more imaginable and more likely: torture at American hands, in the name of the American people. As American citizens we must hold our elected officials accountable for their lack of moral leadership on this issue. Nothing less than the soul of our nation is at stake". "The Torture Election" (By Jonathan Schell) "The Congressional campaign of 2006 slouches toward election day through a grotesque landscape of torture and excuses for torture, scabrous messages from a Congressman to young boys, a Congressional cover-up of the same, murder and countermurder every day in Iraq (a heart-stopping 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion, according to a Johns Hopkins study), and nuclear fallout from North Korea (of the political if not the literal kind). The stakes, as President Bush likes to say--and on this point he is correct--could scarcely be higher. But they include one stake he never mentions: the future of constitutional government in the United States, which his presidency and his party have put in serious jeopardy. The old (lower case) republican system of checks and balances and popular liberties, you might say, is in danger of replacement by a new (upper case) Republican system of arbitrary one-party rule organized around an all-powerful presidency. That many-sided danger, of course, is the subject of this series of articles. It is simply impossible to know in advance when, in a great constitutional crisis, the decisive turning point--the irrevocable capsizing--might come. We are left wondering whether we are witnessing just one more swing of the familiar old American political "pendulum," bound by its own weight to swing back in the opposite direction, or whether this time the pendulum is about to fly off its hinge and land us with a crash in territory that we have never visited before. There are strong arguments on both sides of the question. Yet there can be little doubt that the election on November 7 will be an event of the first importance in the story. If, by handing one or both houses of Congress to the Democrats--something that current polls say is likely--the public breaks the Republican Party's current monopoly on government power, an important beachhead of resistance will have been gained. But if the public assents to the status quo--confirming and deepening the ratification of Republican one-party rule already conferred in 2002 and 2004 (we cannot count the election of 2000, since Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote that year), it will be hard to see where the path away from the precipice lies. As the decision has neared, every important institution of the republican system--the Supreme Court, the presidency, the Congress, the press--has been swept into the crisis. Also critical is the President's bid to achieve global military dominance by the United States, presented to the public as a kind of colossal footnote to the war on terror. The interplay, enacted on the electoral stage, between the attempt at dominance abroad and one-party rule at home is probably the most important specific mechanism of the crisis. Its evolution so far has had many surprising twists, turns, sudden spurts forward and reversals; and some recent events, though each perhaps familiar in itself, reveal a striking new pattern. Of special note is a remarkable yearlong, step-by-step process of trial and error in which the Administration, far from concealing its abuses of power, including the torture of prisoners, wound up giving them top billing in its electoral strategy". "Torture as Politics" "Bush placed the detainee issue, with its de facto defense of torture, at the center of his attack. The White House hastened to send a bill to Congress before its adjournment so that the necessary distinction between the parties' votes could be dramatized in the campaign. In a press conference, the President pinpointed the heart of the issue. Whatever Congress did, it must protect "the program." The program was the CIA program he had ordered in which forms of torture, such as waterboarding, had been practiced. ("Unfortunately," he said, "the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program in question. That's another reason I went to Congress. We need this legislation to save it.") If anyone doubted that Bush was standing up for the practice of torture (though of course without embracing the word "torture"), those doubts should have been put to rest by the following infamous exchange between him and NBC journalist Matt Lauer. Lauer: But it's been reported that with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he was what they call waterboarded. Bush: Um, I'm not going to talk about techniques that we use on people. One reason why is because we don't want the enemy to adjust. The American people need to know we are using techniques within the law to protect 'em. The President of the United States, given a chance to repudiate the practice of a form of torture, refused to comment. Apparently, the need to keep suspects confused regarding the degradations that awaited them was more important than the American people's right to know what outrages were being committed in their name". "What Is at Stake" "No one can really know until after the polls close, but November 7 has taken on the shape and feel of a fateful election. We hope the results add up to repudiation--the beginning of the end of the disastrous, corrupt reign of George W. Bush. If Democrats fail to recapture at least a working share of Congressional power, they and their party will rightly be cast into disrepute, too, and distressed citizens may reasonably begin looking for other options. But hope is good, a whole lot better than perennial gloom. If the Democrats do succeed in winning a majority in the House of Representatives and possibly even in the Senate, then the country has a chance to begin the fundamental task of restoring democracy and the constitutional order that Bush & Co. did so much to desecrate. We emphasize the "country" because this challenge is too profound to leave to wobbly politicians in Washington who acquiesced so easily to Bush's extremes and to the powerful interests that rule the status quo. Americans who want a restored democracy and rehabilitated Constitution will have to fight for it, starting now. If Democrats do win, the first order of business will be to stop cold the long march of right-wing ideological goals. Reversing the great damage to law and government and healing the social injuries will be far more arduous tasks. But if Bush is confined to ceremonial bleats, it will allow the country to change the subject and begin to think anew about restoring and creating. Democrats could revive what used to be a staple of representative democracy--accountability, the power of Congress to question the chief executive and demand answers for misdeeds and misguided policies. A tall stack of outrages, lies and potentially criminal abuses awaits examination. Manipulation of intelligence. War profiteering. Energy policies that ignore global warming and fatten oil-industry hogs. The destruction of constitutional rights. The cynical neglect of citizens injured in New Orleans and elsewhere. The looting of the Treasury by lobbyist fixers and wholesale tax giveaways. A healthcare system that serves drug manufacturers and insurance companies instead of people. The list goes on and on. Some of the House members who would gain control of key committees with a Democratic victory--John Conyers at Judiciary, Henry Waxman at Government Reform, John Dingell at Energy and Commerce, Barney Frank at Financial Services, George Miller at Education and the Workforce, and others--are superbly equipped for digging out the truth. Enacting legislation would be much more difficult, given that Bush will still have two more years in office and the power to veto anything Democrats might get through Congress. Even so, the legislative process can be a powerful engine for change, re-educating people on the political possibilities, vetting new ideas and building support for more ambitious goals. In the event they triumph, we urge Democrats to deliver on their promises: a minimum-wage increase, reform of Medicare drug benefits and other meat-and-potatoes issues. Just as important, they could work to design and perfect far larger measures: universal healthcare, financial regulation to clean up corrupt corporations, a rational military budget and other neglected concerns. If party leaders appear reluctant, citizens should press them--hard. Should Democrats choose caution over risk-taking, their resurrection might prove short-lived. An off-year Congressional election that seemed less than enthralling only a few months ago has morphed into potential opportunity. It might change the flow of politics in ways nobody anticipated. It could suddenly open political space that has been closed for at least a decade. It could re-energize our imaginations and raise our expectations. This is a big deal. We hope". - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Send Neocons Home Take Your Country Back Good Luck

Nas78- 11-08-2006

Congratulations For The House Congratulations For The Senate Congratulations For Doing The Right (aka Left) Thing This Is A Great Day For US, For The World And For Democracy Well Done http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=72447441&cdi=0 http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=72447327&cdi=0 http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=72447339&cdi=0 http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=72447035&cdi=0 http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=72446681&cdi=0

margot122- 11-09-2006

Nas I think it's good news for all of us!

Nas78- 11-28-2006

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney 1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths. 2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross. 3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel. 4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm. 5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. 6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress. 7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. 8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution. 9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus. 10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impeach07 Campaign Launched http://www.impeach07.org A growing network of organizations and individuals has launched a new campaign to pursue the immediate impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney through widespread public pro-*test*-('"), creative dissent, media activism, education, and coordinated lobbying. Members of the Impeach07 campaign believe that Bush and Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, including - among many others - misleading the nation into an aggressive war, spying in open violation of the law, and sanctioning the use of torture. The campaign is demanding that Congress Members hold Cheney and Bush accountable through the Constitutional remedy of impeachment. Impeach07 exists to organize people throughout the U.S. to demand that Congress impeach. Newsweek reported in October that a majority of Americans favor impeachment, and in January that 58% said they wished the Bush administration were over. Impeach07 will draw on this energy to mobilize people from all walks of life. As Howard Zinn, noted historian, has said, "Only a great popular upheaval can push both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will." Speaking of the significance of Impeach07, Debra Sweet, Director of The World Can't Wait—Drive Out the Bush Regime, said: "To end the war in Iraq, prevent Bush from widening the conflict to Iran, stop the dangerous direction of this administration, Bush and Cheney must be impeached. If we do not demand this now, not only will the death and destruction continue for two more years, but all that Bush has done will be legitimized and we will send a terrible message of impunity. We will not accept war crimes being committed in our name." On March 17, the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, Impeach07 will mobilize for a march on the Pentagon to demand: "End the War and Impeach Bush Now!" Throughout the spring, Impeach07 will spread across the country through a variety of projects. April 28 will be a nationwide day of pro-*test*-('") in towns and cities across the country. Preparations have begun for a massive outpouring of creative dissent including rallies, concerts, public forums, street theater, and more. Initial participating organizations represent hundreds of thousands of antiwar, impeachment, military family, peace, youth and women activists and lawyers. They include After Downing Street, Backbone Campaign, Center for Constitutional Rights, Citizens Impeachment Commission, CODE PINK Women for Peace, Constitution Summer, Consumers for Peace, Democrats.com, Democracy Rising, Gold Star Families for Peace, Green Party of the United States, Hip Hop Caucus, Impeach the President, ImpeachBush.org, Military Free Zone, National Lawyers Guild, Patriotic Response to Renegade Government, Progressive Democrats of America, Independent Progressive Politics Network, Velvet Revolution, and World Can't Wait: Drive Out the Bush Regime. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- United for Peace and Justice http://www.unitedforpeace.org UFPJ Statement on Impeachment George Bush, Dick Cheney and other top administration officials have committed impeachable offenses. These include leading the country into war under false pretenses, ordering violations of the Geneva Conventions, the U.N Charter and International law; violating the civil liberties of U.S. people in an unconstitutional manner; lying to the people of the U.S. and the world; and other high crimes and misdemeanors. There is growing awareness of these facts among the U.S. people. From across the country there are demands that the Congress act on the principle that this is a government of laws, not of individuals. There is a grassroots movement demanding that Bush and Cheney and others be impeached. Since its formation, UFPJ’s central mission has been working to end the war in Iraq and other wars of which George Bush is Commander in Chief. We welcome the growing movement to impeach him and others in his administration who have aided and abetted his crimes. Some of our member groups and friends are already active in Impeach07, an umbrella forum in the impeachment movement. Others may see ways to incorporate impeachment efforts into their antiwar agendas, and we encourage them to do so. http://www.impeach07.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why Congress Must Impeach the President (By Dave Lindorff) Many well-intentioned and patriotic Americans, including progressives and liberal Democrats, have expressed opposition to the idea of impeaching President Bush, arguing that it is a diversion from more important issues like ending the war in Iraq, or taking effective action on climate change. Their concern is understandable, as these are indeed important issues, but they are wrong. Fortunately, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who knows this, is beginning the impeachment process next week by calling for a hearing to examine one of the president’s crimes: abuse of power. Fortunately too, several state legislatures in places as disparate as New Mexico, Vermont and Washington, are considering passing resolutions calling on the House to initiate impeachment hearings. There are important reasons why this president must be impeached and they include those very urgent issues that people are afraid will be shunted aside by an impeachment battle. The key reason this president must be impeached is that his offenses against the Constitution and the nation are so serious that the very survival of Constitutional government and the separation of powers on which it is based are at risk. Let’s take the war in Iraq. The president clearly lied and tricked both the Congress and the American people into allowing him to invade that country. He and Vice President Dick Cheney carefully cherry-picked half-truths and known falsehoods to lay out as “evidence” that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and that he was in league with Osama bin Laden. His White House orchestrated a campaign to damage the reputation of an honest critic, ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had discovered that a key piece of that “evidence” --some alleged documents from the country of Niger--had been forged, and even “outed” Wilson’s CIA-agent wife. These lies have led directly to the pointless deaths of nearly 3100 American men and women in uniform and to the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. Bush also illegally pulled American troops and equipment out of Afghanistan, right at the height of a Congressionally authorized campaign to capture or kill bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization (fatally crippling that effort), and sent them to the border of Iraq in preparation for his war there. If this president is allowed to do such things, unchallenged and unpunished, we can expect subsequent presidents to do so in the future. Indeed, many experts and members of Congress believe that Bush is getting close to repeating this criminal behavior himself, this time with an unprovoked attack on Iran. Clearly, in order to stop such abuse of presidential authority and such a second national and international disaster, Congress will have to impeach the president. Then there’s the so-called “signing statements.” These are the letters--not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution--which Bush and his crony attorneys in the White House and Justice Department claim allow him to invalidate all or part of any bill passed by the Congress. Bush has used signing statements to do this over 1200 time during his presidency, for everything from refusing to accept a Congressional ban on torture to giving himself the power, in clear violation of federal law, to monitor first- class mail. Once again, if this president is not impeached for this outrage assertion of presidential absolute power, all future presidents will feel free to do the same thing, simply ignoring acts of Congress. The Constitution is crystal clear on this matter: Article I says “All legislative powers granted herein shall be vested in Congress of the United States," and Article II says the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Note that the Constitution does not say that “some” legislative powers or “most” legislative powers are vested in the Congress. It says “all.” Nor does it say that the president shall execute “some” of the laws. For Congress to let this blatant abuse of power to go unpunished would be to leave future Congresses as little more than vestigial debating societies. As for the warrantless spying which the president has authorized the National Security Agency to engage in since the fall of 2001, in blatant violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, here is a case of the president unapologetically violating federal law and committing a felony. He is, here, simply daring the Congress to confront him. So far, they have been too cowardly to stand up to the challenge. And yet, if Bush is allowed to get away with this crime, all future presidents will argue that they too are above the law, and that they may pick and choose what laws they will honor and what laws they will break. No Constitutional system, no democratic system, can long endure under such circumstances. The same can be said for the president’s willful violation of the Geneva Conventions barring torture. It is clear that the president both authorized torture, as defined under the Conventions, and failed to take action to prevent even the most heinous of torture acts, which reached the point of lethality, when they were brought to his attention. These, it must be pointed out, are not merely crimes which violate international law. The US is a signatory (and author) of the Geneva Conventions, and as these have been adopted by the Senate, under the Constitution they have full force of law within the U.S. Furthermore, the Republican Congress in 1996 specifically incorporated the Geneva Code into the U.S. Criminal Code, making it all the more clear that the president’s actions—and his inaction—on torture are criminal acts under U.S. law. As such they must be prosecuted, if the law is to have any meaning, and that requires, as a first step, impeachment of the president. There are many other reasons that the president should be impeached--his criminal negligence in sending American troops into battle with inadequate armor, his criminal negligence in failing to plan for the occupation of Iraq, his extreme criminal negligence in failing to act to rescue the trapped and drowning citizens of New Orleans following the landfall of Hurricane Katrina, his refusal to provide evidence requested by the 9-11 Commission (and his administration’s lies to that commission), the massive and unchecked corruption in Iraq which has so extravagantly enriched administration campaign contributors, White House corruption linked to the Abramoff and other scandals, illegal use of taxpayer funds for a program of administration propaganda using government agencies, and perhaps an orchestrated campaign of stealing elections, etc. These should all be investigated. Some are easier to document than others, but all deserve a hearing. Meanwhile, however, it is essential that the key crimes be introduced as bills of impeachment in the House as quickly as possible, so that hearings can begin. Critics of impeachment have argued that it is pointless to call for impeachment since removal from office would require a vote by two-thirds of the Senate, which is 49 percent Republican. That ignores the impact of truth and fact on a group of politicians who will be looking at 2008 very anxiously. When impeachment hearings began for President Richard Nixon, a scant one in four Americans thought he should be impeached. During the Clinton impeachment farce, support for the president’s removal from office never topped 36 percent. Yet a Newsweek poll taken last fall found that a remarkable 51 percent of the American public felt this president should face impeachment (including 29 percent of Republicans!), and than only 44 percent opposed impeachment. The likelihood is that, once impeachment hearings began, they would have the same impact on Republicans this time around as they had on Republicans in Congress during the Nixon impeachment. That is, as the depth of administration perfidy and criminality was exposed on live television, through the -*test*-('")imony of White House staff talking under oath, honest Republicans facing re-election soon would feel compelled to cut their ties and support for Bush and his cronies. Who knows? Some might even support impeachment for reasons of principle and patriotism as the facts came out. The real reason Bush must be impeached, though, is that if he is not impeached, this usurper will simply ignore any bills passed by Congress, will act despite any resolutions passed by Congress, and will break any law that he thinks gets in his way. Furthermore, future presidents, Democrat and Republican, will use Bush as a precedent to ignore Congress and break laws themselves. The real question for impeachment skeptics then, is: “What are you waiting for?” ---------------------- <i>DAVE LINDORFF is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" ------------------------------------------------------------ Impeachment: The Case in Favor (By Elizabeth Holtzman) "Approximately a year ago, I wrote in this magazine that President George W. Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached and removed from office. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996. Since then, the case against President Bush has, if anything, been strengthened by reports that he personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. In addition, courts have rejected some of his extreme assertions of executive power. The Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees, and a federal judge ruled that the President could not legally ignore FISA. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's recent announcement that the wiretapping program would from now on operate under FISA court supervision strongly suggests that Bush's prior claims that it could not were untrue. Despite scant attention from the mainstream media, since last year impeachment has won a wide audience. Amid a flurry of blogs, books and articles, a national grassroots movement has sprung up. In early December seventy-five pro-impeachment rallies were held around the country and pro-impeachment efforts are planned for Congressional districts across America. A Newsweek poll, conducted just before election day, showed 51 percent of Americans believed that impeachment of President Bush should be either a high or lower priority; 44 percent opposed it entirely. (Compare these results with the 63 percent of the public who in the fall of 1998 opposed President Clinton's impeachment.) Most Americans understand the gravity of President Bush's constitutional misconduct. Public anger at Bush has been mounting. On November 7 voters swept away Republican control of the House and Senate. The President's poll numbers continue to drop. These facts should signal a propitious moment for impeachment proceedings to start. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table." (Impeachment proceedings must commence in the House of Representatives.) Her position doesn't mean impeachment is dead; it simply means a different route to it has to be pursued. Congressional investigations must start, and public pressure must build to make the House act. This is no different from what took place during Watergate. In 1973 impeachment was not "on the table" for many months while President Nixon's cover-up unraveled, even though Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But when Nixon fired the special prosecutor to avoid making his White House tapes public, the American people were outraged and put impeachment on the table, demanding that Congress act. That can happen again. Congressional and other investigations that previously found serious misconduct in the Nixon White House made the public's angry reaction to the firing of the special prosecutor--and the House response with impeachment proceedings--virtually inevitable. Early in 1973, once it appeared that the cover-up might involve the White House, the Senate created a select committee to investigate. The committee held hearings and uncovered critical evidence, including the existence of a White House taping system that could resolve the issue of presidential complicity. The Senate also forced the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Other committees looked into related matters. None of the investigations were prompted by the idea of impeachment. Still, they laid the groundwork for it--and the evidence they turned up was used by the House impeachment panel to prepare articles of impeachment against Nixon. The same approach can govern now. Senate and House committees must commence serious investigations that could uncover more evidence to support impeachment. The investigations should ascertain the full extent of the President's deceptions, exaggerations and lies that drove us into the Iraq War. (They can simply in effect resurrect Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous questions about Richard Nixon: "What did the President know and when did he know it?") Congress should also explore the wiretapping that has violated the FISA law, the President's role in mistreatment of detainees and his gross indifference to the catastrophe facing the residents of New Orleans from Katrina. Investigations should also be conducted into Vice President Cheney's meetings with oil company executives at the outset of the Administration. If divvying up oil contracts in Iraq were discussed, as some suggest, this would help prove that the Iraq War had been contemplated well before 9/11, and that a key motivation was oil. Inquiries into Halliburton's multibillion-dollar no-bid contracts should also be conducted, particularly given Cheney's ties to the company. White House documents about Katrina that have not already been turned over to Congress should be sought to document further the President's failure to discharge his constitutional duty to help the people of New Orleans. Our country's Founders provided the power of impeachment to prevent the subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has subverted and defied the Constitution in many ways. His defiance and his subversion continue. Failure to impeach Bush would condone his actions. It would allow him to assume he can simply continue to violate the laws on wiretapping and torture and violate other laws as well without fear of punishment. He could keep the Iraq War going or expand it even further than he just has on the basis of more lies, deceptions and exaggerations. Remember, as recently as October 26, Bush said, "Absolutely, we are winning" the war in Iraq--a blatant falsehood. Worse still, if Congress fails to act, Bush might be emboldened to believe he may start another war, perhaps against Iran, again on the basis of lies, deceptions and exaggerations. There is no remedy short of impeachment to protect us from this President, whose ability to cause damage in the next two years is enormous. If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy." --------------- Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman is the author of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush." --------------------------------------------------------- "Sean Penn Speaks Up for Impeachment" "On Receiving the 2006 Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award By Sean Penn" "The Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award. For the purposes of tonight and my own personal enjoyment, I'm going to yield to the notion that I deserve this. And in the spirit of that, tell you that I am very honored to receive it. And for this I thank the Creative Coalition and my friend Charlie Rose. It does seem appropriate to take this opportunity to exercise the right that honors us all - freedom of speech. Note for later: The original title for the Louis XVI comedy called "Start The Revolution Without Me" was one of my favorites. That original title was "Louis, There's a Crowd Downstairs." But I'll come back to that... Words may be our most civil weapons of change, when they connect to actions of sacrifice, or good will, but they have no grace or power without bold clarity. So, if you'll bear with me, borrowing a line from Bob Dylan, "Let us not talk falsely now - the hour is getting late." Global warming Massive pollution Non-stop U.S. war in Iraq Attacks on civil liberties under the banner of war on terror Military spending You and I, U.S. taxpayers, spend 1 1/2 billion dollars on an Iraq-war-'focused' military everyday, while social needs cry out. Health care Education Public transit Environmental protections Affordable housing Job training Public investment And, levy building. We depend largely for information on these issues from media industries, driven by the bottom line to such an extent that the public interest becomes uninteresting. And should we speak truth, we stand against government efforts to intimidate or legislate in the service of censorship. Whether under the guise of a Patriot Act or any other benevolent-sounding rationale for the age-old game of shutting down dissent by discouraging independent thinking and preventing progressive social change. The most effective forms of de facto censorship are pre-emptive. Systemically, we are encouraged to keep our heads down, out of the line of fire - to avoid the danger, god forbid, that someone in the White House, on Capitol Hill, or a media blow-hard might take a shot at us. But, as a practical matter, most of the limits on creative expression and other forms of free speech come from self-censorship, where the mechanism of corporate clout offers carrots and brandishes sticks. We avoid a conflict before the conflict materializes. We reach for the carrots and stay out of range of sticks. Decades ago, Fred Friendly called it a "positive veto" - corporations putting big money behind shows that they want to establish and perpetuate. Whether in journalism or drama, creative efforts that don't gain a financial "positive veto" are dismissible, then dismissed. We may not call that "censorship." But whatever we call it, the effects of a "positive veto" system are severe. They impose practical limits on efforts to bring the most important realities to public attention sooner rather than later... We're beginning to see more revealing images of this war. But it's later now, isn't it? What we have to pay attention to are the results of these "practical limits." One, is that wars become much easier to launch than to halt. I've got a feeling about how we can begin to change this process and I want to pass it by you. Children grow up in our country -- many by the way, under conditions of extreme poverty -- and are told from a very early age "You will be accountable!" "With freedom, comes responsibility!" And so the lecture goes...Democratic and Republican alike. Lie-cheat-steal, and there will be consequences! Theft will be punished. Actions that cause the deaths of others will be severely punished. The message, from leaders in Washington, news media, mom, dad, and church is clear. Criminals MUST be held accountable. Now, there's been a lot of talk lately on Capitol Hill about how impeachment should be "off the table." We're told that it's time to look ahead - not back... Can you imagine how far that argument would go for the defense at an arraignment on charges of grand larceny, or large-scale distribution of methamphetamines? How about the arranging of a contract killing on a pregnant mother? "Indictment should be off the table." Or "Let's look forward, not backward." Or "We can't afford another failed defendant." Our country has a legal system, not of men and women, but of laws. Why then are we so willing to put inconvenient provisions of the U.S. constitution and federal law "off the table?" Our grea-*test*-('") concern right now should be what to put ON the table. Unless we're going to have one set of laws for the powerful and another set for those who can't afford fancy lawyers, then truth matters to everyone. And accountability is a matter of human and legal principle. If we're going to continue wagging our fingers at the disadvantaged transgressors, then I suggest we be consistent. If truth and accountability can be stretched into sham concepts, we may as well open the gates of all our jails and prisons, where, by the way, there are more people behind bars than any other country in the world. One in every 32 American adults is behind bars, on probation, or on parole as we stand here tonight. Which is to say that, globally, the United States is number one at demanding accountability and backing up that demand with imprisonment. But, when it comes to our president, vice president, secretary of state, former secretary of defense...this insistence on accountability vanishes. All of a sudden, what's past is prologue. And we're just "forward-looking." But some people can't just look forward. Men and women stationed in Iraq at this moment, under orders of a Commander-in-Chief so sufficiently practiced in the art of deception, that he got vast numbers of American journalists and the most esteemed media outlets of this country, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and PBS to eagerly serve his agenda-building for war. And the process also induced vast numbers of artists and performers (probably even some in this room tonight) to keep quiet and facilitate the push for an invasion in Iraq. I'm sure many people who I met in Baghdad, both in my trips prior to and during the occupation, now similarly cannot just look forward. With lives so entirely shattered by a violence of occupation - an ongoing U.S. war effort and the civil war that it has catalyzed. All on the back of a crumbled infrastructure, following eleven years of devastating U.N. sanctions. And, where is the accountability on behalf of the American dead and wounded, their families, their friends, and the people of the United States who have seen their country become a world pariah. These events have been enabled by people named Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice, as they continue to perpetuate a massive fraud on American democracy and decency. On January 11, 2003, I made an appearance on Larry King's show following my first trip to Iraq. I suggested that every American mother and father sit down with a scrap of paper and pencil and scribble the following words: Dear Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so -- We regret to inform you that your son or daughter so-and-so, was killed in action in Iraq. I then asked that those mothers and fathers complete that letter in whatever way might comfort them should they receive it. When one considers what a bewildered continuation of those words a parent might attempt to write today, it seems inconceivable that this country could've ever bought into this war. Who were those mothers and fathers believing in?! We know it's not the administration alone, but a culture at large, cloaking itself in self-righteousness, religion, and adolescent hero-dreaming machismo. Would they have believed Rush Limbaugh if they'd known he was high as a kite on OxyContin? Would they have believed the factually impaired Bill O'Reilly if they knew he was massaging his rectum with a loofah while telephonically harassing a staffer? Hannity, had they known he was simply a whore to the cause of his pimps - Murdoch and Ailes? Or the little bow-tie putz, if they knew all he was seeking was a good laugh from Jon Stewart? Maybe our countrymen and women were listening to Ted Haggert while he was whiffing meth and boning a muscle-headed gigolo? Or Mark Foley seeking junior weenis? Joe Lieberman, sitting Shiva? And Toby Keith, singing about how big his boots are? "Oh, there goes Sean...he had to go and name-call. They say he can't help himself." Or, did I name-call? Maybe I just quickly summed up 7 or 8 little truths. Oh, no, you're right - I name-called. I said, "putz". I take it back. Or, do I? Did I say "whore?" Pimp? These are questions. But, the real and great questions of conscience and accountability would not loom so ominously -- unanswered or evaded at such tremendous cost -- without our day-to-day failure to insist on genuine accountability. Of course we'd prefer some easy ways to get there. But no easy ways exist. Not a new Congress. Not Barack Obama. And, not John McCain. His courage in North Vietnamese prison makes him a heroic man. His voting record in Congress makes him a damaging public servant. We have gotta stand the fuck up and show the world how powerful are the people in a democracy. That's how we regain our position of example, rather than pariah, to the world at large. And that is how we can begin to put up our chins and allow pride and unification to raise our own quality of life and security. They tell us we lost 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Is that enough? We're about to match it. We're within weeks, if not less, of killing 3,000 Americans in Iraq. I ask Speaker Pelosi, can we put impeachment on the table then? Without former FEMA chief Mike Brown being held accountable, post Katrina (scapegoat though he may have been) we'd have had the same chaos and neglect when Rita hit Houston. Think about it. And, the same people who trumpet deterrence as a justification for punishment when we speak of "crime and punishment," will boast their positive thinking when dismissing the deterrent qualities of an impeachment proceeding. What is impeachment? It's not a Democratic versus Republican event. Not if used responsibly. If the House of Representatives votes to impeach this president, is he thrown out of office? No, he is not thrown out of office. That is not what impeachment is. Impeachment is the opportunity to proceed with accountability and give our elected senators, democratic and republican, the power to pursue a thorough investigation. The power to put the truth on the table. Mothers and fathers are losing their kids to horrifying deaths in this war every single day. Horrible deaths. Horrible maimings. Were crimes committed in enlisting the support of our country in this decision to go to war? For the moment we're living the most spineless of scenarios; where the hawks abused impeachment eight years ago, now, the rest of us politely refuse to use it today. Let's give the whistle-blowers cover, let's get the subpoenas out there, and then, one by one, put this administration under oath. And then, if the crimes of "Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" are proven, do as Article 2, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides, and remove "the President, Vice President and...civil officers of the United States" from office. If the Justice Department then sees fit to bunk them up with Jeff Skilling, so be it. So...look, if we attempt to impeach for lying about a blowjob, yet accept these almost certain abuses without challenge, we become a cum-stain on the flag we wave. You know, I was listening to Frank Rich this morning, speaking on a book tour. He said he thought impeachment proceedings would amount to a "decadent" sidetrack, while our soldiers were still being killed. I admire Frank Rich. And of course he would be right if impeachment is all we do. But we're Americans. We can do two things at the same time. Yes, let's move forward and swiftly get out of this war in Iraq AND impeach these bastards. Christopher Reeve promised to get out of that chair. Well, I don't know about you, but it feels like he's up now and I wouldn't be standing here if it weren't on his shoulders. Let it be for something. Georgie, there's a crowd downstairs. Thank you and good night". "Sean Penn Impeachment Letter" "Sissy Riffin America has suffered the erosion of the constitutional equal rights for all. This great United States has experienced a severe separation of Constitutional privilege spurred by the Bush Administration. The Country no longer finds unity in the Bill Of Rights or the Constitution of the United States of America! Power at the top of the pyramid...the New Undemocratized Nation has diminished the freedoms we cherished. A government open, informative and scrutinized by the People ended! A Congress and House of Representatives representing King Bush. A Senate creating the basis for narrowing control of the people and giving control to Bush and his appointees, ruling against the Constitution of the United States of America. Those in power are not truly Republicans with moderate and conservative economic values. They are Neocons, Extreme Fundamentalists where Greed became their God. It is the New Repulsican Party. Could not get any closer to Totalitarian governing! The result of that great concentration of power in ONE Man, the President who would be King, and all the King's men, has left chaos for those who have recently been elected to Congress! And chaos for the people. The crimes against the Constitution screams out for impeachment!" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please Sign The Petition http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88

ArtReborn- 11-29-2006

I'm beginning to think that impeachment may be the only way to end this war and get our troops home.

Nas78- 07-03-2007

Jackson: Impeachment Is the Right Response (Words By John Nichols) Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., a member of the House of Representatives so Constitutionally-minded that he wrote a book on the subject, responded as a founding father would have to the news that President Bush had commuted the 30-month prison sentence of former White House insider I. "Scooter" Libby. How so? By calling for consideration of the impeachment of the president for abusing the pardoning – and the related commutation of sentences -- privileges of his office. "In her first weeks as leader of the Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi withdrew the notion of impeachment proceedings against either President Bush or Vice President Cheney," announced Jackson. "With the president's decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings. Lewis Libby was convicted of lying under oath to cover up the outing of active, undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame. It is beyond unthinkable that the president would undermine the legal process to protect a man who engaged in treason against the United States government, threatening the security of the American people. In November's election, voters put Democrats in charge of Congress because they believed our pledge of oversight and accountability. Now it's time for us to honor that pledge. The Executive Branch should be held responsible for its illegalities. Our democratic system is grounded in the principle of checks and balances. When the Executive Branch disregards the will of the people, our lawmakers must not be silent. Today's actions, coupled with the president's unwillingness to comply with Senate and House inquiries, leave Democrats with no other option than to consider impeachment so that we can gather the information needed to achieve justice for all Americans." The founders were exceptionally clear on the question of what should be done if a president abuses his privilege to pardon an associate, or by extension to commute the sentence of an aide. James Madison, who is rightly referred to as "the father of the Constitution," wrote extensively about the times in which impeachment would be necessary. " the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty," observed the man whose notes provide the essential outline of the deliberations of the Constitutional convention. Madison's Virginia compatriot, George Mason, who was an even more ardent advocate of impeachment, was similarly concerned about abuses of the power of the president to keep the law from touching his associates. The man now remembered as "the father of the Bill of Rights" feared that a future president might attempt to shield himself by preventing the prosecution or jailing of an aide who could -*test*-('")ify to the president's involvement in a high crime or misdemeanor. Mason suggested that impeachment would surely be in order were a president to attempt "to stop inquiry and prevent detection" of wrongdoing within his administration -- as the Bush White House is currently doing with its use of executive privilege to undermine congressional investigations of the politicization of federal prosecutions. Equally, the thoughtful founder suggested, impeachment would be in order were a president might to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" -- as Bush has essentially done with the commutation of the sentence of his own former counselor and the chief of staff of his vice president. The prosecution of Libby brought out the details of Cheney's deep involvement in the scheming to discredit a critic of the administration, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA operative. And it is impossible to imagine that Bush was unaware of the manipulations in which Cheney and Libby engaged. Unfortunately, the precise nature of the president's involvement would only have become clear had Libby chosen to -*test*-('")ify openly and honestly in court or before the Congress -- a prospect dramatically reduced by Bush's commutation of the sentence. Mason said at the time of the Constitutional convention, in a summer 220 years ago, that: "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued." His point was that, if a president could not be impeached, he could not be held to account. To neglect the demand of that accountability, especially in moments when abuses became clear, Madison suggested "might be fatal to the Republic." Congressman Jackson, who has studied more seriously than most the call of the founders, has responded as they intended. In demanding that impeachment be put back on the table, he is not attacking Bush, Cheney or Libby. Rather, he is defending the Republic in precisely the manner that Mason, Madison and their contemporaries intended. --------------------------------------------------------------------- John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commuting Scooter (By David Swanson) George Mason (1725-1792), the father of the Bill of Rights (1791-2002), argued at the Constitutional Convention in favor of providing the House of Representatives the power of impeachment by pointing out that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison (1751-1836), the father of the U.S. Constitution (1788-2007), added that "if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty." Of course, Bush has long been connected in a suspicious manner to Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and others. Madison would probably have called for Bush's impeachment when Bush first refused to investigate or hold anyone accountable for leaking Valerie Plame's identity, or rather when Bush lied us into the war in the first place, or when he confessed to illegal spying, or when he detained people without charge and tortured them, or when he overturned laws with signing statements or refused to comply with subpoenas, and so on and so forth. Madison wouldn't have wanted to see his Constitution tossed aside until the moment Bush commuted Libby's sentence. But he certainly would have acted now if not before. The trial of Scooter Libby produced overwhelming evidence that Vice President Cheney personally led the campaign to attack Joe Wilson through the media. This "get Wilson" campaign included telling numerous reporters that Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. Cheney was told by the CIA that Plame worked as a covert agent in the CIA's Nonproliferation Division, which is the critical division of the CIA responsible for stopping the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Cheney's efforts to expose Plame actually exposed her entire covert network, at tremendous cost to the CIA's secret war against terrorism. If Plame's work had been exposed by a double-agent in our government like Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen, that person would face prosecution for espionage and treason. The evidence of Cheney's role is more than enough to start an impeachment investigation. And, of course, a hand-written note from Cheney, introduced as evidence in the trial, implicated the President. The Libby trial also exposed the lead role of Vice President Cheney's office in manipulating pre-war intelligence to defraud Congress into authorizing the invasion of Iraq. Sworn -*test*-('")imony revealed that Cheney's office managed the evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, all of which proved to be lies. Cheney personally visited the CIA several times before the invasion to pressure the CIA to distort pre-war intelligence. And Cheney exerted "constant" pressure on the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to stall an investigation into the Bush administration's use of flawed intelligence on Iraq, according to the new chairman, Senator Jay Rockefeller. Libby's crime was obstructing an investigation that appeared to be headed for Cheney and possibly Bush. The proper course of action for Congress, in the face of Bush commuting Libby's sentence, is to begin impeachment hearings against Cheney and then Bush. With the White House openly disobeying a stack of subpoenas, it is finally clear that impeachment is the only possible check on Bush-Cheney power remaining to Congress. In fact, in the wake of Bush's Scooter commuting, the following people all released statements condemning Bush's action and recommending that Congress and the public do absolutely nothing about it: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. In contrast, Joe Biden recommended that the public phone the White House and complain. That ought to show them! Bush has just obstructed justice. His act of commuting Libby's sentence itself adds one more small item to the pile of impeachable offenses. Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), had the right reaction, releasing the following statement: "In her first weeks as leader of the Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi withdrew the notion of impeachment proceedings against either President Bush or Vice President Cheney . With the president's decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings. Lewis Libby was convicted of lying under oath to cover up the outing of active, undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame. It is beyond unthinkable that the president would undermine the legal process to protect a man who engaged in treason against the United States government, threatening the security of the American people. In November's election, voters put Democrats in charge of Congress because they believed our pledge of oversight and accountability. Now it's time for us to honor that pledge. The Executive Branch should be held responsible for its illegalities. Our democratic system is grounded in the principle of checks and balances. When the Executive Branch disregards the will of the people, our lawmakers must not be silent. Today's actions, coupled with the president's unwillingness to comply with Senate and House inquiries, leave Democrats with no other option than to consider impeachment so that we can gather the information needed to achieve justice for all Americans." Very well said. It's tremendous to see Jackson come around. There's only one problem. Congressman Dennis Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney. Ten other Congress Members have signed on. And Jackson isn't one of them. Rep. Jackson and every other member of Congress needs to do one of three things now: Sign onto Kucinich's bill, H Res 333, www.impeachcheney.org , or introduce new articles of impeachment against Cheney or Bush, or crawl out of town in fear and eternal shame. Now, the articles that Kucinich has introduced focus on war, and some Congress Members, terrified as they might be to fight in a war, are equally terrified of NOT sending other people to kill and die. Now would be the moment to introduce new articles of impeachment against Cheney for his role in the retribution against Wilson, for illegal spying, for torture, and for refusing subpoenas. Or take your pick of the available menu of offenses and choose your three favorites: www.impeachcheney.org And now would be the time for Nancy Pelosi to announce that she could not possibly have meant that impeachment would stay off the table no matter what, that she meant it was not on the table at that time. Numerous crimes and abuses have come to light since that table clearing moment. Pelosi is in the clear. She can renew her oath to uphold the Constitution. Or she can go down in history as the appeaser of the new dictatorial U.S. regime, as the person who looked fascism in the face and said "That looks worth allowing to happen as long as we win in 2008," and whose party went down in bitter flames in 2008 because the American people still cared about their democracy. Now is the moment for members of the public to act. Go to your Congress Member's office. Sit down. Read the U.S. Constitution aloud. Do not leave until they take you to jail. Or come to Washington, D.C., and do the same thing – but do it in the office of Congressman John Conyers, who is in the position to save this Republic in a week, who has the knowledge and the skill to do it, and who has absolutely no constitutional duty to step and fetch or bow and scrape for Miss Nancy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- No Jail Time for Libby? It's Impeachment Time for Cheney and Bush! (By Bob Fertik) So Paris Hilton will spend more time in jail for a DUI misdemeanor than Scooter Libby will spend for 4 felony convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. AP reports: President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby... Bush's commutation came just hours after 3 Republican judges ruled Libby's appeal had a snowball's chance in hell. Bush says the fine is significant - but who will actually pay it? Cheney's rich friends at Halliburton, of course - with chump change from the billions they've stolen from us, the taxpayers. There's one reason why Bush kept Libby out of jail: not because the sentence was excessive, but simply to keep him from ratting on Cheney. In mob circles, that's called silencing a witness. Here's Marcy Wheeler: Well, George did it. Made sure that Scooter wouldn’t flip rather than do jail time. He commuted Libby’s sentence, guaranteeing not only that Libby wouldn’t talk, but retaining Libby’s right to invoke the Fifth. This amounts to nothing less than obstruction of justice. Bush has now joined Libby and Cheney in the criminal coverup of the felonious outing a covert CIA agent. The Busheviks think Bush can ignore the public furor. Tucker Carlson's rightwing dad demanded the pardon, saying "The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything." Well this time the heat has to get hotter than the glowing tiles on a Space Shuttle - and we have to make it that way. Just last week, 72% of Americans opposed a pardon. 1 Email your Representatives to Impeach Cheney 2 Email your Representatives to Impeach Bush 3 Email the House Judiciary Committee to Start Hearings on H.Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Cheney 4 Organize a Honk to Impeach on July 4 5 Join your local Congressional District Impeachment Committee 6 Don't waste your time calling the White House (the switchboard is closed anyway). Call your Representative to impeach Cheney and Bush: 1 (800) 828 - 0498 1 (800) 459 - 1887 1 (800) 614 - 2803 1 (866) 340 - 9281 1 (866) 338 - 1015 1 (877) 851 - 6437 Bush Is Over...If You Want It.

Nas78- 07-13-2007

Impeachment Countdown: Are Bush and Cheney Starting to Lose Sleep? (By Dave Lindorff) Now it’s Sen. Barbara Boxer. The junior senator from California on Wednesday stated publicly on national radio (the Ed Schultz Show) that in her view, impeachment of the president should be “on the table.” The reference, of course, was a pointed dig at Boxer’s San Francisco neighbor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who over a year ago announced that if Democrats were to regain control of the House, impeachment would not even be considered. It would, she famously vowed, be “off the table.” Of course, since Pelosi made that shameful declaration, brushing aside Bush’s already committed crimes against the Constitution, it has become clear that this president has been refusing to enact dozens, perhaps hundreds, of laws duly passed by the Congress, and that he has ignored the clear will of the people to have the disastrous Iraq War brought to a quick, merciful end As well, proof has mounted of presidential and vice-presidential lying to put the country at war with Iraq. Also, more recently, the vice president pushed for, and the president decided on a commutation of I. “Scooter” Libby’s sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice. Beyond that, news has come of a string of political firings of U.S. Attorneys, primarily because they had not acceded to the filing of harassing election fraud lawsuits designed to help keep Democrats away from the polls. In short, evidence of outrageous administration lawlessness and abuse of power has been piling up for a year since Pelosi’s statement, and during her six-month stint as Speaker, during which time she has continued not just to block impeachment bills in Congress, but to work hard behind the scenes to undermine a growing grassroots impeachment movement. Sen. Boxer’s bold statement puts impeachment front and center inside the Beltway, and in the national media. It adds new weight to the bill calling for the impeachment of Dick Cheney which Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) filed in the House on April 24, and which now has 14 additional co-sponsors. We’re not there yet, but thanks to a growing grassroots campaign, impeachment is being forced into public and Congressional consciousness. It is reaching a point where even the most cowardly or complicit news editors will not be able to push it aside, black it out, or deride it as a “fringe” thing. We’re getting to a point where the powerful in Congress, and the pundits and opinion makers in the media, are going to have to acknowledge that impeachment is being demanded by the public, and that it is appropriate to the crimes that are being perpetrated by the White House. Speaker Pelosi’s position is becoming less and less tenable, and is looking more and more shrill and even ridiculous. How, after all, can the leader of the House say that impeachment is inappropriate when the president is thumbing his nose at Congress every time they send him a bill! She and the rest of the members of Congress are well aware that if Bush doesn’t like a bill, he will just sign it and then refuse to enact it, making a joke of the whole legislative process. How many other institutions can you think of where the members of that institution have stood idly by, hands in pockets, while their power and authority was trampled? Even on the grounds of simple ego, you would think that Congress would be rising up as one to put an end to such a travesty, and yet not one bill has been submitted calling for the president’s impeachment. Even Kucinich’s bill is limited the vice president, and to issues of war and peace, and it says nothing about abuse of power—the really serious crime of this administration. No wonder support for the Democratic Congress has tanked, falling to 23 percent in the la-*test*-('") poll on the subject. No wonder Pelosi herself has seen her popularity in California plunge to 39 percent. No wonder she’s being threatened by peace activist and Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan with a challenge for her seat in 2008. But with each new member of the House who signs on to Kucinich’s H Res 333 (the la-*test*-('") is California Democratic Rep. Sam Farr), and with each new senator who joins Barbara Boxer in standing up and calling for impeachment, it becomes easier for the next ones to follow. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been having pretty much a free ride for six years, and have probably shared plenty of laughs at the Democratic “opposition” over the last six years as they steamrollered both them and the Constitution. But suddenly, things are turning around, and as is often the case in politics, they are turning quickly. My guess is that Bush and Cheney are starting to lose sleep, wondering if they may end up facing impeachment after all. I suspect Pelosi is starting to lose sleep too, wondering if she needs to rethink her menu. --------------------------------- A Senator Speaks Up (By David Swanson) Barbara Boxer: "Impeachment should be on the table" - Ed Schultz Show 7/11/07 She was the only Senator who cared to examine the credibility of the election results in Ohio. She is the only Senator willing to stand with 54 percent of Americans for the rule of law now. What would we do without Barbara Boxer? Please call her at 202-224-3553 and thank her, and ask her to please speak with Nancy Pelosi. Bush Is Over...If You Want It.

Nas78- 07-23-2007

Children Of The Revolution The Orange Revolution Begins July 23 On July 23, 2002, the head of British intelligence reported that Bush and Cheney were intent on invading Iraq and planned to "fix the intelligence and facts around the policy". Five years later a million people have died in Iraq as a direct result of these lies with no end in sight. Torture has been institutionalized, habeaus corpus eviscerated, and illegal spying made routine. New Orleans lies devastated along with the Constitution and the rule of law. And Bush and Cheney are making a mockery of the Democrats' feeble gestures towards accountability. Enough is enough and this July 23rd, we will launch a new phase in the movement for peace and justice. We call it the Orange Revolution because starting that day wearing orange will signify that you want Congress to START IMPEACHMENT and STOP THE WAR. The majority of Americans want to see Bush and Cheney impeached and want an immediate end to this war are made effectively invisible by a complicit media. Wearing orange will be our signal to each other--and to the world--about where we stand. Anything orange will do: a t-shirt, a wristband, your shoelaces--get creative and post your ideas and photos on ImpeachSpace.com. The Orange Revolution will be launched with acts of civil disobedience in Washington and elsewhere to show Congress that we are serious. In Washington, Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Ann Wright, Debra Sweet, Dave Lindorff, David Swanson, Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Kevin Zeese, Tina Richards, and others will march from Arlington National Cemetery to the office of Congressman John Conyers. They will sit in Conyers' office reciting the U.S. Constitution until they are either arrested or he agrees to start impeachment. See http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sit for time and location. Similiar actions will take place in the offices of Rep. Howard Berman in California, Rep. Pete Visclosky in Indiana, and Rep. John Conyers' district offices in Detroit. If you are willing to go to jail for justice your are encouraged to come to Washington to participate in the civil disobedience, or to stage a sit-in at your congress member's district office: http://www.democrats.com/sit. If you cannot join them, please wear orange in solidarity and please phone Congressman Conyers' office that day asking him to move forward on impeachment: (202) 225-5126. Bush Is Over

Nas78- 07-24-2007

Office Arrests: The Shame of John Conyers (By Dave Lindorff) If Rosa Parks had lived two years longer, what happened today in the halls of Congress might have killed her. It certainly would have broken her heart. Rep. John Conyers, venerable member of Congress, finally chair of the House Judiciary Committee, a man who worked with Parks in Alabama and then hired her on his staff after he won election to Congress in Detroit, today had 48 impeachment activists, including Gold Star Families for Peace founder Cindy Sheehan, Iraq Veteran Against the War activist Lennox Yearwood and Intelligence Veterans for Sanity founder Ray McGovern, arrested for conducting a sit-in in his office in the Rayburn House Office Building. The three, together with several hundred other impeachment activists who packed the fourth floor hallway outside Rep. Conyers’ office, had come to press Conyers to take action on impeachment, and specifically to start action on H.Res. 333, the bill submitted nearly three months ago by Rep. Dennis Kucinich calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. After nearly an hour of talking with Conyers, a clearly angry Sheehan emerged together with Yearwood and McGovern, and announced to the waiting throng in the hall that Conyers had told them “impeachment isn’t going to happen because we don’t have the votes.” Sheehan said Conyers had insisted that the best thing was for Democrats to focus on “winning big in 2008.” To a loud and angry chorus of boos and hisses, the three went back inside Conyers’ office suite, where they were joined by some 30 other supporters, and all were subsequently arrested, at Conyers’ request, by Capitol police, who cuffed them and walked them off for booking. Several of those who sat in refused to walk and were carried or dragged out of the Rayburn Office Building, as the activists in the hall chanted “Shame on Conyers! Shame on Conyers!” and “Arrest Bush, Not the People!” It was a thoroughly disgraceful scene wholly unworthy of a dean of the Congressional Black Caucus. Before returning to sit in the Judiciary Chairman’s office and await arrest, Sheehan publicly announced her intention to run in 2008 as an independent candidate for Congress against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and she called on Americans everywhere to run not just against Republicans in 2008, but against Democrats too. Yearwood, who is a chaplain in the Air Force, said that Conyers had been a mentor to him, but he declared that he now felt betrayed and that Americans needed to take back their government. As he was led down the hall to his arraignment, the handcuffed Yearwood pointedly sang “We Shall Overcome!” This reporter subsequently called Conyers’ press office for an explanation of Conyers’ true position on impeachment. Only a few days earlier the congressman, visiting a San Diego meeting on health care reform, had told members of Progressive Democrats of America that it was time to “take these two guys (Bush and Cheney) out” and had promised that if just “a few more” members of the House signed on to the Kucinich bill (it already has 14 co-sponsors), he would move it forward for consideration in his Judiciary Committee. Asked how that statement squared with what he had told the group of activists in his office, the spokesman said Conyers’ “must have been misunderstood” in San Diego. He said that in view of Conyers’ statement to Sheehan and the others today, the Kucinich bill was “not going to go anywhere.” As impeachment activist David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org has said, there “seems to be two John Conyers,” one who, in 2005 and early 2006, while Republicans controlled the House, was systematically making the case for impeaching the president and vice president (he had even submitted a bill, with 39 co-sponsors, which called for creation of a select committee to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the administration), and one who, submitting to the wishes of the new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was keeping impeachment “off the table.” Occasionally the former Conyers breaks out, saying things such as that the president needs to be “taken out” or, as he put it at an anti-war rally last spring, that “we can fire him!” But then the other Conyers comes to the fore, and stands in the way of impeachment action. This time, however, it was worse than just doing nothing. The arrest of impeachment activists and their forcible eviction from his office was a betrayal of people who were doing the very kind of thing that had allowed Conyers to make his way into Congress in the first place: sitting in to insist on action on their demands for justice. It was, after all, sit-ins that helped lead to the Voting Rights Act which allowed African American candidates like Conyers to finally win seats in the US Congress. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic Party—Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus included--has become nothing but a dried out husk, living on old glories and devoid of any principle other than returning its elected officials to their offices and their perks, year after year. As one angry activist in the hallway remarked, “Where is today’s (Rep. Allard) Lowenstein or Father Drinan. There is none!” It’s ironic that Rep. Conyers, speaking in 2005 on “Democracy Now!” following Rosa Parks’ death at the age of 92, said her passing “is probably the end of an era.” Certainly, with his request to have Capitol Police officers enter his office (the very office where Parks once had worked as a staff member!) to cuff and arrest peaceful pro-*test*-('")ers who were trying to defend the Constitution, he has made that point far more clearly than he could have expressed it in mere words. But as in the case of Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement, arrests and fines will not stop the national grassroots drive to impeach this president and vice president. With polls showing that a majority of the country now favors impeachment, and with Conyers, Pelosi, and the Democratic Congress sinking deeper and deeper into disfavor even as the president continues to add to his list of Constitutional crimes, something’s gotta give. After all, the Founders, in writing impeachment into the Constitution, did not say the -*test*-('") was whether Congress had the votes to impeach. They wrote that if the president abused his power, or committed other high crimes and misdemeanors, bribery or treasson, Congress "shall" impeach. The American public has made it clear: we want impeachment and we want the troops home. If Congress doesn’t act on these two key issues, they will not get that “big win” Conyers’ called for in 2008. Some members of the Democratic Caucus may not even be back if they keep this up. ------------------------------------------- The Conyers Legacy (By David Swanson) About 47 of us spent 8 or 9 hours yesterday in jail for pro-*test*-('")ing a man who, at least when he woke up yesterday morning, only thought of himself as on the side of those who pro-*test*-('") power. While hundreds of us lined the hallways outside Chairman John Conyers' office, one of his staffers approached the door to his office but was unable to enter. The place was wall-to-wall media inside, with Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, and Rev. Lennox Yearwood giving a press conference in Conyers' office in his absence. They'd gone in to speak with Conyers, but it would take him quite a while to show up. The staffer was annoyed and complained to his colleague "It's bad enough they shut the office down with phone calls." Another staffer, this one rather pleased about it (the police, too, were on our side and three of them quietly accepted Impeach Bush and Cheney shirts), told me they were getting a pro-impeachment phone call every 30 seconds. They were also flooded with Emails and with thousands of faxes yesterday. But the message was not getting through to the Congressman. He and several staffers met with Sheehan, McGovern, and Yearwood. It was a heated discussion. Conyers began by proposing to discuss impeachment sometime in August at a town hall meeting. We've been doing those for years. We held a huge one in Detroit in May that Conyers agreed to speak at. He showed up and left before it started. Yearwood, Sheehan, and McGovern told Conyers his time was up. What was Conyers' objection to moving forward on impeachment now? Well, he said, if he were to do that Fox News would go after him and accuse him of being partisan. I kid you not. The Democratic Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee is basing his decisions on whether a Republican cable TV station would approve. As Cindy Sheehan told me outside the jail last night: "If I based my decisions on Fox, I would never do anything." As long as Conyers is working for Fox, maybe our next sit-in needs to be in their studios. But Conyers expressed another concern as well. He's concerned about his legacy. I wish there were a kind way to tell him that he is about to flush it down the toilet. Conyers' judiciary committee staffers, who were in the meeting yesterday, including Ted Kalo, Perry Appelbaum, and Jonathan Godfrey, produced a year and a half ago one of the best reports summarizing and documenting the crimes of Bush and Cheney. Conyers is aware that Bush and Cheney are killing people every day that he refrains from fulfilling his oath of office. He knows that nearly a million Iraqis and 4,000 U.S. troops lie dead already. He knows that this president and vice president kidnap, torture, and murder human beings. But when pressed to act with the urgency appropriate to saving lives, Conyers replied that our nation has always killed people and that he wasn't "going to play politics." At other times, Conyers told our delegation that they needed to wise up and move from working on justice to doing politics. But politics has become a bad word because of the way Conyers uses it. He places elections highest in the order of priorities and refuses to do his job in between elections because that would be "politics." We elected Democrats in 2006 so that Conyers would have the committee chairmanship and move on impeachment. If he fails to act, he will quickly discover that yesterday was just a warm-up. This Thursday and Friday, members of ImpeachForPeace.org, World Can't Wait, and After Downing Street will meet to discuss impeachment with Congress Members Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison, and with the offices of Jerrold Nadler, Adam Schiff, Robert Wexler, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. We'll be delivering petitions for impeachment from all over the country. Now is the moment for every member of Congress to take a stand for justice. Which side are you on, John? Your legacy, Chairman Conyers, is about to be remade by the American people, and all the good and noble things you have done will be overshadowed by your grand finale: the enabling of fascism in our country. ---------------------------------- It's Up to Us (By Cindy Sheehan) I am lying in my hotel bed at the end of a very busy, productive, yet sad day. About 300 people gathered today and marched the 3½ miles from the entrance of Arlington Cemetery to Congressman John Conyers' office to demand impeachment and accountability from one of the leading figures in American politics for the last four decades. We were so thrilled with the turn-out and the energy of the group. There was great media coverage and about one dozen freepers on the opposite corner with signs like: "Traitors go to Hell" and "Cindy Sheehan go to Hell." Nice. I have learned that hell can be on earth and if there is anything worse than burying a child, I don't want to know about it. At the end of the march, Reverend Lennox Yearwood, President of the Hip Hop Caucus, Ray McGovern (retired CIA analyst) and I met with Congressman John Conyers to implore him to institute impeachment proceedings against the pretenders to the White House who are destroying our democracy, making a mockery out of our rule of law and who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. This was my third meeting with Congressman Conyers about impeachment. I hold a special place in my heart for him and I revere him for his decades long service to this nation but for the life of me, I cannot understand why he will not go forward with impeachment now. A year ago he introduced HR635 to impeach George Bush while he was Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee and not even chairman. He wrote the book on impeachment called: The Constitution in Crisis and he readily admits that BushCo have committed impeachable offenses. It's about partisan politics, pure and simple. The Congressman claims that there is absolutely no way that impeachment can go forward and when I was nearing the end of my hope I cried out: "So, if the people's house won't help us then we the people have no recourse against the executive branch." To which he replied: "Yes you do, vote the enablers out in '08." Firstly, Congressman Conyers told us to put Democrats back in Congress to end the war and impeach BushCo. We did that and instead of ending the war, they gave George Bush more money to wage it and to conduct his deadly and tragic surge. Secondly, '08 will be too late to hold George and Dick accountable. Thirdly, thousands of more people will die in these last months of the worst Presidency in American history and lastly: after Dick proclaimed that he was not part of the executive branch and that his office does not have to comply with requests to turn over documents to the National Archives: 435 Congress Reps should have signed onto H Res 333 to impeach Cheney. Only fourteen have co-signed Congressman Kucinich's bill, so that makes 421 elected Congressional officials enablers of the crimes of the Bush Regime. At the end of this day, Speaker Pelosi has not supported impeachment and has not upheld her oath of office to "protect and defend" the Constitution. Like Congressman Conyers said almost a year ago, our Constitution is in Crisis and we can't wait for more meetings and more stalling from Reps who think the problem will go away in '08. The Middle East is rapidly falling apart under this regime and our country is sliding rapidly into a state of one-branch tyranny while our "heroes" the Democrats fiddle. It was with very heavy hearts that Rev. Yearwood, Ray, and I reported back to the media that the Congressman had said that with over one million signatures on petitions and with one phone call coming into his office every 30 seconds supporting impeachment and with 300 activists in the hall to support him, he was still not going to move forward with the most urgent duty of his career. The Rev and I were particularly disheartened and broken because we do love the Congressman so much, but we love our country and the people of Iraq and the Middle East more. The Rev and Ray spent many years serving their country in the military and the CIA and I had a son who gave his life to do what the Congress is supposed to do: protect our freedoms, not hand them over to the mob that runs our country. It is also with a heavy heart that I announce my candidacy against Nancy Pelosi in California's 8th. If anybody would dare think that I am not serious, I would hope that they would look back at the last three years of my life and everything that I have sacrificed to restore our nation to one that obeys the rule of law and can be looked up to with respect once again in the international community and not as the hated laughingstock on the block. ...It is up to us. Bush Is Over

Nas78- 11-06-2007

Dick, your time is up. Georgie, get ready. U`re next. Dennis "The Menace" Kucinich is coming after u. Thanks Dennis for your service to the World. No matter what happens, you`ll always be a true representative of the Worldwide Progressive Movement. And Best Of Luck to your race too. It's Time to Impeach Cheney (By Congressman Dennis Kucinich) As a member of Congress, I have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of our nation, and I have pledged to represent the views of my constituents and of all Americans. That’s why I feel both duty and sorrow in pursuing the path of impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney. While the impeachment movement has generated intensely strong sentiment and activism, there have been only two polls published on the question of impeaching Vice President Cheney. In a national poll, 54 percent of Americans favored impeachment. In one state poll, 64 percent of Vermonters favored impeaching the Vice President. Twenty-one of my colleagues have heeded the public demand and signed on as cosponsors of my resolution, H Res 333. Others in the Congress have claimed they have more important priorities, but have told their constituents they will keep their views in mind if the matter ever comes up for a vote. Well, the issue is coming up for a vote this week on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the “distraction” will require members to balance their priorities between Constitutionally proscribed justice and recourse and the alternative: Constitutional abuse and dictatorial power. Only by taking up impeachment can we reinstitute a balance of powers and slow down the rush to launch a new war of aggression against Iran. I am urging my colleagues to recognize that impeachment will not create a crisis by briefly disrupting their schedules on Capitol Hill. The crisis, as Americans outside the Beltway know, is upon us. Congress, the first branch of our government, to which the first half of the Constitution is devoted, has been reduced to almost a bystander as the policies of the wealthiest nation and the largest military ever known are set in secret by the Vice President's office. Under Bush/Cheney, we have become a nation that illegally threatens and launches aggressive wars for political – not national security -- reasons. For this crisis of confidence, this denial of our Constitutional beliefs and rights, impeachment is the only cure available. I urge you, my fellow citizens, to share your sentiments with your Members of Congress and with your family, friends, and the news media in support regarding the rule of law and the imperative of impeaching a vice president who has misled both the public and the Congress about the gravest matters possible: war and peace. Please join with organizations like www.ImpeachCheney.org in making your voices heard as soon as possible! Every individual Member of Congress will have to decide within days where they stand. On Tuesday, when I introduce my privileged resolution to force this issue to a vote, some other member of Congress will almost certainly move to table (kill) it. A Yes vote to table is a vote to delay the enforcement of the rule of law aside. A No vote to table is a vote to give impeachment a chance for a full and fair hearing. Please help me get this message out. And, please help me sustain and expand YOUR platform on this and other issues by voting for me in Democracy for America's presidential poll: http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll?c=6 Right now, before the primaries and the caucuses and February’s Super Tuesday, your vote – TODAY -- can change the tenor and direction of public debate by letting the other candidates, Congressional leaders, and political power-brokers know that some issues are too important to side-step, table, or ignore. You know what you believe and what you stand for. Now, today, your vote may mean more than ever again. Thank you for everything you are doing. Now is the moment to step forward, whatever the challenge or struggle. Now is the moment in which we must preserve and defend our Republic by using the tools that its authors provided. Tell your Congressional Representative what you think. Tell the nation – through Democracy for America -- what you believe. Let's save our pessimism for better times. Peace, Dennis Kucinich to Move Impeachment of Bush After Cheney (By David Swanson) Congressman Dennis Kucinich said on a conference call Monday evening that after moving to impeach Vice President Cheney on Tuesday he will also introduce, at a future date, a resolution to impeach President Bush. Or rather, he would have said that on the conference call if not for several technical SNAFUs. The call was advertised as a one-way call on which only Kucinich could speak, but Kucinich was unable to get through because of the incredible number of people on the call (I have no count yet, but the dings of the new people coming on were a steady stream of noise for half an hour). So Kucinich phoned me, and I held one of my phones up to another so that everyone on the call could hear him. That was working fine for about 20 seconds, until the geniuses running the call chose that moment to mute everyone except Dennis (without stopping to realize that by muting me they were muting Dennis). So, Kucinich gave a nice speech through my phones, but I was the only one listening. Here's what he said. He is going to introduce a privileged resolution on the floor of the U.S. House Tuesday morning to force a vote on his resolution to impeach Cheney (H Res 333). While that bill includes offenses related to Iraq and Iran, Kucinich plans to focus his remarks on Iran and the fact that the current Pentagon bill includes funding to retrofit bombers to carry 15-ton bombs. Kucinich said he would hold a press conference at 3 p.m. in 2456 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., and would post on his House website and at http://impeachcheney.org an account of what transpired on the floor. He said that there might be an actual debate on the substance of the charges, for which he said he was prepared, or there might be a motion to table the matter (effectively killing it if successful), or it might be referred to a committee. If it is sent to committee, Kucinich, said, it will be the House Judiciary Committee. I asked whether (as has been done with impeachment resolutions in the past) he would be able to insist on a time limit for the committee to report back. Kucinich seemed unsure whether that could be done, but proposed that whether or not the matter is sent to committee he might start a discharge petition as another tool for forcing real action on the floor of the House. Currently H Res 333 sits in the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, where Chairman Jerrold Nadler has done nothing with it for months. Kucinich expressed great appreciation for what all the activist groups and individuals on the call are doing to help promote impeachment. He also wanted to let everyone know that he will not only continue pushing for the impeachment of Cheney but will also take up the impeachment of Bush with a new resolution. This was terrific to hear. I wish I had not been the only one to hear it.

Nas78- 11-07-2007

The Fight Is Not Over Yet... House Puts Impeachment On, Then Off, The Table (By John Nichols) The move by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to open a House debate on the question of whether to impeach Vice President Cheney turned into a imbroglio for the Democratic leadership of the chamber Tuesday as mischievous Republicans joined dozens of Democrats in rejecting a move to table the resolution. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had thwarted Kucinich's efforts to convince the Judiciary Committee to take up his proposal to hold the vice president to account for lying to Congress and the U.S. public in order to enter into a war in Iraq, and for trying to mislead again in order to start a war with Iran. So the Ohioan used a privileged resolution to bring the impeachment question up before the full House. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, then moved to table Kucinich's resolution. "Impeachment is not on our agenda. We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those," said Hoyer, echoing Pelosi's position that presidential accountability is "off the table." That should have been the end of it. But it wasn't. A combination of more than 80 Democrats who apparently sincerely favored taking action against Cheney and Republicans who thought that an impeachment debate would embarrass Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders blocked the motion to table. Only 162 members -- 27 Republicans and 135 Democrats -- supported Hoyer's call to table the resolution. A total of 251 members -- 86 Democrats and 165 Republicans -- opposed it. What followed was wrangling between Kucinich and Hoyer on whether to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. The majority leader wanted to bury the articles of impeachment in committee, while Kucinich keep angling for a debate on the House floor. That set up more votes, as Democratic leaders scrambled to block Kucinich's moves. C-SPAN covered it all, with its anchors breathlessly trying to keep up with the vote switches and political intrigues. It took two more roll calls before members completed the procedural business of sending Kucinich's articles to the Judiciary Committee -- on a final vote of 218-194. That was technically a "win" for Hoyer, but the day belonged to Kucinich. After all, the Ohio congressman and Democratic presidential contender had succeeded -- albeit briefly -- in getting impeachment on the table. Dennis Kucinich: Standing Tall in the House as Cheney Impeachment Bill Advances (By Dave Lindorff) Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination that the mainstream media like to ignore or belittle, stands head and shoulders above the moral midgets and shriveled sophists in that con-*test*-('"), especially today, after he successfully forced the full House to vote to send his bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney to a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee. Kucinich, whose Cheney impeachment bill, despite having 22 co-sponsors, has been stalled for over six months thanks to the unconscionable machinations of the Democratic Congressional leadership and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, should now get at least a genuine debate in the House Judiciary Committee. With enough pressure from constituents, his bill might even go into hearings. At first, it appeared that the Democratic leadership in the House was going to simply slap down Kucinich’s attempt to move the bill—technically a member’s privilege motion for a full vote of the House. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House majority leader and thus the number two member of the House leadership (and an insufferable hack), offered a motion to table H Res. 799, the impeachment bill. But Republicans, sensing an opportunity to embarrass the Democrats, began voting as a block against the tabling motion. In the end, caught completely off guard, even Democrats who had dutifully backed the shameless leadership in voting for the tabling motion, began switching their votes and opposing it. The final vote was 242 (164 Republicans and 78 Democrats) against tabling, and 170 (28 Republicans and 142 Democrats) for tabling. A subsequent vote to send the Kucinich Cheney impeachment bill to the Judiciary Committee passed 218-194, with three Republicans voting with 215 Democrats in favor of the measure. Republicans clearly don’t want impeachment hearings, but have recognized something that the Democratic leadership, lame and tactically deficient as it is, does not, namely that particularly among Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning voters, impeachment is enormously popular. According to polls, some three in four Democrats, and a majority of all Americans, favor impeaching the vice president (a majority of Americans also favor impeaching President Bush). As long as the Democratic Party leaders keep blocking impeachment, they lose support and anger voters among this group. Clearly Republicans saw a chance today to further alienate those voters by forcing the Congressional Democratic leadership, which has stalled Kucinich’s bill for over six months since it was filed last April 24, to more actively and visibly block it. But Democratic leaders have an alternative. They can recognize the growing disaster of Pelosi’s “impeachment is off the table” position—which has contributed significantly to Congress’ record-low poll ratings (now well below Bush’s)--and can turn around and get those impeachment hearings going. If they were to do this, with just a year to go until the presidential election, they would electrify progressive voters and independent-minded voters, who are frightened and disgusted by what this administration has been doing to the country and to the Constitution. I was just at a polling station today in my Republican-leaning area (Montgomery County, PA), and when a Republican activist standing outside the polling center saw my “Impeach Bush and Cheney” T-shirt, he said, “It would be great for Republicans too, if they could dump both those guys.” Clearly, the public, even including many Republicans, wants Congress to act. Rep. Kucinich, who has been a consistent and bold opponent of the Iraq War from the start, and who was quick to expose and condemn administration moves towards a new war with Iran, deserves enormous credit for his lonely drive in the House to impeach the vice president. Maybe this bold move in Congress to push past the obstacles that the Democratic leadership has thrown up in his path will wake up primary voters to the fact that you cannot judge a candidate by his height. \ If voters in the Democratic primaries make their decisions based upon actions, principles and courage, instead of on what the corporate media tell them, and if the impeachment movement will rally to back him, Kucinich should win by a landslide. Impeachment Next Step: Judiciary Committee HEARINGS On H.Res. 333 (By Bob Fertik) Thanks to Dennis Kucinich, Tuesday was an historic day for impeachment! As promised, Kucinich requested a floor vote on H.Res. 333, and as expected, BushDemocrat Leader Steny Hoyer moved to table the bill. And then all hell broke loose as 165 Republicans voted with Kucinich and 85 brave Democrats to force a debate on impeachment and thereby embarass Nancy Pelosi. To block that debate, Hoyer moved to send H.Res. 333 back to the Judiciary Committee, and that motion passed with the support of all but 5 Democrats (Kucinich, Bob Filner, Marcy Kaptur, Maxine Waters, and Ed Towns). So what do we do next to move impeachment forward? H.Res. 333 is now back in the hands of House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers. And here's what he said: "The Committee has a very busy agenda - over the next two weeks, we hope to pass a FISA bill, to vote on contempt of Congress citations, pass legislation on prisoner re-entry, court security and a variety of other very important items. We were surprised that the minority was so ready to move forward with consideration of a matter of such complexity as impeaching the Vice President. The Chairman will discuss today's vote with the Committee members but it would seem evident that the committee staff should continue to consider, as a preliminary matter, the many abuses of this Administration, including the Vice President." Translation: bury it deep under the piles of paper on the Judiciary Committee staffers' desks, exactly as it was before Kucinich forced the floor vote. Shorter translation: kill it dead. So how do we reverse Conyers' death sentence for H.Res. 333? We must demand Judiciary Committee hearings for H.Res. 333 starting immediately after Thanksgiving. How do we mobilize around this demand? 1. Call the House Judiciary Committee at 202-225-3951 and demand hearings on H.Res. 333. 2. Email all of the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee: http://www.democrats.com/topelosiandjudiciary 3. If you live in the district of a House Judiciary Committee member, call their office and tell them you're a constituent and you want immediate hearings on H.Res. 333. Then join your Congressional District Impeachment Committee http://democrats.com/cdic-find and organize a HonkToImpeach rally http://www.democrats.com/honktoimpeach in front of your Representative's district office. Then keep up the pressure on your Representative every way you can, including letters to the editor, calls to local talk shows, and pointed questions at every community forum attended by your Representative. 4. A media campaign including op-ed articles on impeaching Cheney, letters-to-the-editor about the Kucinich resolution, and informational picketing in front of the offices of local media, particularly in Detroit for Conyers and NY City for Nadler. --------------------------------------------------------------------- And Progressives Have Spoken... KUCINICH WINS DFA ONLINE POLL (By John Nichols) Now that Dennis Kucinich has finished first in a major survey of Democratic activists, perhaps Democratic party bosses and their media acolytes will have to back off their efforts to marginalize him. No, Kucinich's top-place finish in the Democracy for America online survey that attracted serious attention from major campaigns and drew more than 150,000 voters does not mean the anti-war congressman from Ohio is on a fast track to the nomination. But it does mean that Kucinich is displayed an ability to attract meaningful support from the party's activist base and that his "Democratic-wing-of-the-Democratic-Party" message has appeal. Kucinich did not secure the 66-percent of the vote required to gain an official endorsement from DFA, the group founded by supporters of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean's 2004 presidential bid and their allies on the party's left flank. But he easily bested the other candidates and the unannounced "contender" who led in the early voting, former Vice President Al Gore. The final totals were: Kucinich 31.97% 49364 Al Gore 24.77% 38242 Former Senator John Edwards 15.6% 24078 Senator Barack Obama 13.86% 21403 Senator Hillary Clinton 4.21% 6504 Governor Bill Richardson 4.09% 6309 Other 2.05% 3171 Senator Christopher Dodd 1.56% 2415 Senator Joe Biden 1.12% 1723 Former Senator Mike Gravel 0.77% 1182 Kucinich beat the other candidates among voters from the first caucus state of Iowa and the first primary state of New Hampshire. He also won the early caucus state of Nevada, while Obama won the early primary state of South Carolina. Notably, Gore won New York state. And what of the "front-runner" for the nomination? Hillary Clinton lost every state in the DFA survey, which saw 95 percent of voters back someone other than the New York senator. It is no secret that the powers that be in the party leadership and the boardrooms of the major networks have fixated on Clinton as the likely nominee. Nor is it any secret that the party and media bosses would prefer to drop Kucinich from the roster of Democratic contenders who must be invited to join debates and participate in major events such as the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. Gravel was excluded from the most recent Democratic debate at Drexel University and moderator Tim Russert did everything he could during the course of that debate to read Kucinich out of the running. But Kucinich's poll numbers in formal national and state surveys actually went up after the Drexel debate. The congressman is polling ahead of Dodd and Biden -- as well as Gravel --in most national surveys of likely Democratic voters. The same is true of many surveys from early caucus and primary states. And, with the DFA result, he can now point to an impressive finish in a -*test*-('") most of the major contenders took seriously. While Kucinich certainly campaigned hard to get votes in the DFA poll, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Dodd made significant efforts -- by sending emails and cutting videos -- to encourage their backers to participate in the survey. As such, Kucinich's win is meaningful -- and it should become at least a bit more difficult to dismiss the congressman's win, and his candidacy. Kucinich Wins DFA Poll (By Bob Fertik) So who is the favorite candidate of the Netroots? If you guessed Al Gore you'd be close. But the WINNER is the man the Corporate Media hates even more than Gore - Dennis Kucinich! Will DFA throw its organizational weight behind Kucinich? Stay tuned! ------------------------------------------------------------ KUCINICH TOPS PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS POLL (By John Nichols) Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, whose pointed opposition to the war in Iraq and outspoken advocacy of impeachment of Vice President Cheney has echoed the sentiments of the Democratic base, continues to prevail in surveys of members and supporters of activist groups on the party's left flank. Kucinich, who last month won the most votes in a survey conducted by Democracy for America, has now come out on top of an online poll of members of Progressive Democrats for America. Kucinich's strong showing in the PDA survey will not, in and of itself, bring the congressman any closer to the top tier of contenders in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. But it provides him with new arguments for why his campaign matters, especially to the party activists who do the heavy lifting at the grassroots. Out of more than 15,000 votes cast in the PDA vote, Kucinich won 6,510 votes, for 41 percent. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards was in second with 41.68, for 26 percent. Then came Illinois Senator Barack Obama with 13 percent, New York Senator Hillary Clinton with 9 percent, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson with 5 percent, Delaware Senator Joe Biden with 3 percent and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel with 1 percent each. PDA's a solid group and their poll was run with great care to make sure that only members voted. As such, it's a good reflection on where particularly committed anti-war activists within the party are leaning. It's also the product of an impressive process. As the vote approached, the PDA website featured a smart dialogue among backers of most of the candidates, which addressed issues and tactics in far blunter terms than most media discussions or the increasingly silly debates between the contenders. Kucinich, who has worked closely with PDA since its inception in 2004, certainly had advantages with the membership. But Edwards backers were especially aggressive in arguing that he was the most electable progressive. And Clinton got solid support from Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, who has been one of PDA's chief allies in the House. PDA members tend to be concentrated in a number of large states, especially California, New York and Florida, the three states that contributed the most votes to the group's presidential poll. In the first-caucus state of Iowa and the first-primary state of New Hampshire, Kucinich topped the survey. It was notable, however, that Obama ran far better among Iowa activists than he did nationally, another small signal that the senator from Illinois is connecting with the base in a state that has become a must-win for him. For Kucinich, the PDA vote provides another tool he can use to argue for his continued inclusion in the debates and for maintaining his underfinanced anti-war, economic-populist and Constitutional-renewal campaign in later caucus and primary states. There's no question that the congressman will continue to struggle for attention for so long as the Clinton-Obama-Edwards horse race is in play. But after the February 5 flurry of caucuses and primaries, which is likely to knock several of the more prominent contenders out of the running (if they survive that long), Kucinich can and should take advantage of the bully pulpits provided by later ccon-*test*-('")s to continuing raising the right issues and pulling the party to the left. The DFA and PDA poll results give Kucinich an additional measure of credibility as he reaches out to key activists, including Democrats who are currently leading toward other contenders, with an argument for considering his campaign as a vehicle for raising peace and justice issues throughout the nominating process – and for getting delegates who are committed to a progressive vision into onto the platform committee and the convention floor. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Kucinich: "I am a candidate of the mainstream" On Friday, December 7, presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich will appear at Lane Auditorium in the County Office building to, as he says, "organize, so that we can have the financial and human resources to be able to run a campaign in Virginia." C-VILLE recently caught up with Rep. Kucinich by phone. C-VILLE: Where are you right now? Dennis Kucinich: I'm in Manchester, New Hampshire. On Friday you'll be in Charlottesville. I will. I'm looking forward to it. Is there something specific about Charlottesville that's drawing you here? There's a powerful movement for peace, for social justice, and for protecting the Constitution in Charlottesville, absolutely. We have to remember the powerful role that Virginia itself has played in the history of the United States. I'm not unmindful of that, maybe because my mother's name was Virginia. Virginia was my mother so maybe we can birth a new politics in Virginia as well. You were here in 2004. What do you remember about that experience? I was well received, and thoughtful people got involved. We have a much stronger campaign now and I'm looking forward to the opportunity to engage people and people can look at it now and say, hey, Kucinich was right about the war, he was right about the PATRIOT Act, right about not going to war with Iran. So now people see that I have a record to look back on that the others don't. Considering how Iraq looks now, and all the opposition to wiretapping, for instance, can you take pride in having opposed these things? Well, it's not just pride. This is a direction that America needed to go and I was able to demonstrate the correct judgment that people have a right to expect of their president. People have a right to expect that their president on matters of war and peace will make the right call. I made the right call, these other ones didn't. Why are they qualified? We have had Hillary and Barack already come here, candidates whose messages are firmly out there. Is part of a coming to our area trying to communicate who you are? I am a candidate of the mainstream in this election. Most Democrats think it was wrong to go into Iraq, think it was wrong to fund the war, think we should have a not-for-profit health care system, think we should repeal the PATRIOT Act and think we should repeal NAFTA. I'm the candidate of the Democrat mainstream. These other candidates are more like Republicans. Do you feel that you're treated fairly by the media? That's their business, none of mine. Do you ever feel marginalized? I'm going to have to campaign a little bit harder than the rest of them, but I have a responsibility to work to get our message out and that's what I'm working to do. And I think that if people hear my message, they're going to support my campaign. So it's my responsibility to get out there and let people know. You got some news recently when you said you were interested in running with Ron Paul. I indicated that I wanted somebody who would be opposed to the war, and opposed to the PATRIOT Act, and a lot of our Democratic candidates have not been. Obviously, Ron Paul is running as a Republican and I'm running as a Democrat, so the chances of us being on the same ticket are slim. Of course, I've