« Gonzales Testifying | Main | A Somewhat Unusual Request »
What Did John Conyers Want?
What did John Conyers want?
That’s the question I kept asking myself while watching the highly stylized kabuki-theater-like unfolding of the impeachment drama yesterday afternoon outside Conyers' office.
Getting arrested for civil disobedience in the District of Columbia isn’t what it used to be. If you go through the process of applying for a demonstration permit, there is a check-off box on the form asking if you are planning to have people arrested as part of your demonstration.
Knowing that people intend to risk arrest, leaves the police to determine the timing of the arrests, and things stay under control (from the police point of view) -- in contrast to the arrests at a World Bank demo a few years ago in which DC police sealed off whole city blocks and arrested everyone who happened to be on the street at that moment -- an unconstitutional procedure for which arrestees have won huge judgments against the city.
Don’t get me wrong -- even in such a well-choreographed encounter, there were moments of very high emotion. I was standing a bit down from Conyers’ office in the long, narrow, high-ceilinged hall when the crowd broke out into a single-word chant: IMPEACH. IMPEACH. IMPEACH.
The sound that hit me built quickly to a true roar, a ferocious, angry, deep from-the-guts roar, in which I could feel, just for a moment, the sound I last heard from hundreds of thousands of people at a march to stop the Vietnam War. If such a sound continued, you could feel the power there to change the world.
The police in the hall were stung to action. Any more chanting, said the officer in charge, and he’d arrest everyone. The chanting stopped.
What did Conyers want?
When Conyers agreed to this meeting last week, he knew that if he did not emerge with an announcement that he would order impeachment hearings, there would be a mass arrest in his office. The people being hauled away were not his political enemies: they were people with whom he and his staff have long-established relationships built on their respective efforts to end the war.
Given these relationships, Conyers could not possibly have thought he was going to change any hearts and minds about getting arrested if he failed to deliver.
So why did he agree to the meeting?
We know that the Democratic leadership is so frightened by the possibility of trying to impeach Bush that Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the extraordinary step of announcing that impeachment was “not on the table.”
And it is a brutal fact of life inside the odious body of the House that any member, and especially the chair of a powerful committee, who chooses to oppose the leadership can be made to pay a fearsome price, that the leadership can destroy that member’s effectiveness for years to come.
So members, even the best of them like Conyers, understandably vacillate when confronted with the kind of choice Conyers is facing.
And to what high principles do we hold our House and Senate members? It is the nature of the legislative beast to live to fight another day. Can you remember a member of Congress resigning from office to protest the passage of a noxious piece of legislation? No, Members accept the vote, lick their wounds, and go back to work trying to change the outcome in the future.
In the heat of an illegal war, where each new day brings a death sentence for more American soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis, the slowness of this legislative process is infuriating and unacceptable. Inside the body, members celebrate the slow accretion of support, as if stopping a war should proceed at the rate at which an oyster makes a pearl. The Senate goes from a pathetic handful of members voting to end the war to an absolute, but not sufficient majority, and Senators hail the growth in support as bringing the day closer when the war might end. But the war continues.
Like everyone else who was out there in the hall outside Conyers’ office, I hoped against hope that Conyers would emerge and announce that he would initiate impeachment hearings. But I never really thought he would take such a momentous step in such a setting. Announcing hearings without having sufficient support within his own committee would be politically suicidal, essentially destroying Conyers’ ability to lead on anything else in the future.
So why did he agree to the meeting?
My charitable conclusion is that Conyers wanted to send a very visible signal to the Democratic leadership that the public’s patience is running out. People are sick and tired of waiting for the Democrats to end the war, to impeach Bush for his manifold high crimes and misdemeanors, and to start rebuilding our much-abused Constitutional guarantees of freedom and liberty.
At yesterday’s event, everyone was under control. But if Pelosi knows her history, she knows that the failure of Congress to respond to great wrongs like this war leads inexorably towards a time in which the people decide to stop playing by the rules. And nothing frightens politicians more than the possibility that the public might actually take their future into their own hands. Ending a war is one thing. Losing control is another thing entirely.
Bush defends Iraq war; details al Qaeda threat
CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE, South Carolina (CNN) -- President Bush insisted that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are part of the same terrorist network, during a speech Tuesday at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina.
"Some say that Iraq is not a part of the broader war on terror," Bush said. "They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon -- that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and it's not interested in attacking America. That would be news to Osama bin Laden."
Bush made his case as a Democratically controlled Congress moves to set timetables for U.S. forces to pull out of the unpopular Iraq war and as the president's job-approval rating dips low in opinion polls.
"However difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it, and we can win it," Bush told members of the military who were clad in camouflage.
"Al Qaeda is in Iraq and they're there for a reason," Bush said. "Surrendering the future of Iraq for al Qaeda would be a disaster to our country."
The president said "al Qaeda's top commander in Iraq" issued an audio statement saying "that he will not rest until he has attacked our nation's capital."
Ahead of the speech, a White House official said Bush would reveal "newly declassified information" about the links between al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq.
"I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection," said Bush. "The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they're plotting to kill Americans here at home again."
more...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/24/bush/index.html
Ummmm, again sir, if I may follow-up.... when did al Qaeda become such a problem in Iraq?
Thanks, Dick, for being there and for sharing your story, photos, and your thoughts with us.
We can only hope that Pelosi gets the message sooner rather than later.
Thanks for the explanation Richard. I think there are more ins and outs in the beltway than I realized.
Posted by: Carol at July 24, 2007 03:21 PM
Keep calling!! Call your own as well as Pelosi. I started calling Stoyer too. Even though that will definitely go nowhere!
I also called Walberg and pigs will fly before Walberg votes with anything resembling moderacy.
thanks for sharing dick. however why did everyone stop chanting, because of arrest? so what! it's only a misdemeanor. maybe arrests would draw more attention to the peoples desire for justice. let the d.c. jails be full of angry citizens expressing themselves. arrest did not stop those who opposed vietnam, it will not stop those who wish our republic restored.
and as for the preservation of political careers of weak willed congresscritters, screw 'em if they don't stand up for their constituents regardless of the personal consequences, they don't belong in congress! imagine what this country would be if the founders kept their mouths shut for the sake of their own preservation in a position of influence.
When will our "leaders" forget about POLITICS and focus on GOVERNANCE?
WEIRD and WILD RUMOR ABOUT BUSH IN TABLOID NEWSPAPER:
I friend of mine buys the Globe newspaper (a tattler) as kind of guilty pleasure since it frequently has on its cover nasty rumors about Bush; his marriage is breaking up, Laura wants out; he is starting to drink again etc...
This week's edition has the rumor/"information?" that Bush has a heart condition. The rumor goes like this: when Bush was found unconscious while he was watching television (sometime in 2002?), he had, in fact, suffered a heart attack (i.e. he had not choked on a pretzel). In the 2004 debate with John Kerry, the box-shaped bulge in the back of Bush's suit that was caught by a camera, is a heart monitor. This bulge in his back has been seen in other photos. I thought this was a believable and credible theory. I did not believe the "pretzel theory" at the time. Further, the article states that there is some history of heart problems in the Bush family...
thought I would throw that out....
Re: Conyers,
He privately supports impeachment. He has signed H.R. 333 which calls for impeaching Cheney (I believe). He held impeachment hearings in the basement of the Capitol when the Democrats were in the minority. He has been aggressive in pursuing vote fraud and election tampering in the 2004 election.
I think Pelosi has ordered Conyers to drop impeachment as condition of being Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
GONZALES IS DOOMED:
In his testimony today, A.G. Gonzales appears to only have dug himself into a yet deeper whole. On several new matters that were brought up by Senators (the rewriting of the new edition of the USAtty manual for example) Gonzales was still bizarrely unaware and uninformed. Also there appears to be yet more misleading and perjurious testimony.
It was my impression that the Senate will charge him with contempt of Congress. Leahy, Specter and Schumer all warned him to review his testimony from today carefully and submit corrections and amendments to the committee.
Specter really raked Gonzales over the coals, saying in effect that he was incompetent and not doing or overseeing the necessary work of the Department and cited several important examples. Again Specter was outwardly angry at Gonzales lacksidaysical and sloppy performance.
There also a new bombshell about White House access to confidence DOJ proceedings and cases. A new policy, first put in place by Ashcroft, gave the Office of the Vice President complete access and oversight to decisions and activities of the DOJ . Gonzales responded that he was not aware of the policy or of the rather broad access that the White House had into DOJ affairs. (Yet another huge embarrassment for Gonzo)
If Pelosi knows our Constitution, she's "only" the Speaker of the House. She does not have the authority or the jurisdiction to take impeachment 'off the table.'
The politicians are putting a political spin on impeachment, which is a constitutional and legal proceeding. In a 'business as usual' manner, they're getting behind-the-scenes votes along party lines. They're counting their chickens before they're hatched, and that's not only unconstitutional, it's highly unethical and immoral (and possibly illegal?).
IF the impeachment hearings were conducted in an appropriate manner, first there would be a hearing where all the unconstitutional and illegal activities of Cheney/Bush would be presented (easy enough to prove illegal and unconstitutional activities as well as lies, since much of that is all recorded in Lamestream Media even, and that's enough to start the ball rolling for further investigations so we can find out more about things we don't even know about yet), and then after that the whole House would vote, and then the trial would proceed in the Senate.
IF the Reps had to record their votes for their constituents to see, if IF they voted not to impeach along party lines, the Cons would lose seats. Criminal activities and lies on the part of Cheney and Bush are too easy to prove, and their constituents would vote the Reps out of office if they didn't want to convict in the face of overwhelming evidence of criminal activities and lies.
I'm disappointed in my Rep. He originally signed on to Conyers' impeachment bill against Bush (before the '06 election), and now - post '06 election - he's withdrawn his support of impeachment, fearing a "Republican backlash." That's a cop-out with only political motivations, not a constitutionally-based decision.
What our Congress Critters are failing to understand is that those of us who support impeachment want is for them to follow the Constitution without any political motivations. That prima facie evidence exists to initiate impeachment proceedings is a fact that can't be disputed. The refusal to follow that evidence to a logical conclusion makes cowards of most of the Reps in the House right now. They are more interested in their political positions than they are in upholding their oaths of office.
(If a Dem had done what Cheney/Bush have done, I would still favor impeachment on Constitutional and legal grounds....)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/24/daily-show-acting-president-cheney-almost-starts-wwiii/
Daily Show: Acting-President Cheney Almost Starts WWIII
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/24/daily-show-bush-relies-on-his-non-experts/
Daily Show: Bush Relies On His “Non-Experts”
Finally got access to something from the outside world (having been in the woods with kids and nothing electronic except walkie talkies).
Heard some testimony from the Gonzales circus and can't imagine how he can remain in office much longer. It seems unthinkable!
Heard Bush linking Al Quaida with the Iraq war as usual. His saying that they are doing most of the killing (AQ in Iraq) does not make it so, and he cannot control the outcome of his so-called "surge."
Besides, he is not statesmanlike. He sounds like two villains of my youth - Snidely Whiplash, and Simon Barr Sinister.
This week's edition has the rumor/"information?" that Bush has a heart condition.
Posted by: Ralpheh at July 24, 2007 04:58 PM
It seems that Bush did have a "Butt Probe" at the weekend. And that just adds weight to your rumour, Ralpheh. If Bush does have any kind of a heart - up his bum is the likely place to find it.
NonnyO - Thanks for all the Jon Stewart clips. He's brilliant! Never fails to make you laugh. What will he do for material once Bush is gone?
Did the Conyers protest make the WAPO or the NY Times??? I saw the Reuters report and they zeroed in on Sheehan and didn't mention any of the other groups protesting etc...
Ralpheh,
Yesterday the press pretty much left when Conyers announced he was not going to make any statements. The msm pretty much ignored everybody else besides Conyers and Cindy. Which is too bad, because Yearwood is an amazing speaker.
I spent most of the time outside Conyers' office in the midst of a gaggle of reporters, radio sound editors, still photographers, etc. There was no question that the story/picture they wanted was at least Conyers standing with Cindy and saying something. When Conyers' press person emerged to say that he would not be making any statement, a round of frantic dialing to newsrooms ensued. "There goes at least two-thirds of the press," one photographer muttered, and sure enough, all of the TV cameras immediately departed, as well as most of the still photographers.
Watching the news today, the only stories I saw were centered around Cindy Sheehan, as if impeachment were a mere afterthought. No surprise, just another example of the fixation on personality over policy.
Good video to show the b'leevers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ
Thanks Karen. There is so much passion out there to get those liars out of office. Surely your representatives can see that.
Ralpheh
The Lump
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/images/bushlump.jpg
Great picture and news in Australia today.
Activist takes on Democrats
Dana Milbank, Washington
July 25, 2007
AS A retiree, Cindy Sheehan was the Michael Jordan of the anti-Iraq war movement.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/activist-takes-on-democrats/2007/07/24/1185043111427.html
DiAnne - the link says "forbidden"
Woz
Sorry! It showed Bush with that box thing in his back and it had one of those batteries that isn't supposed to run out for a long while. Thanks for telling me - sorry about the link. I should have tried it but it opened for me. Sometimes when you copy them they seem to alter - it's wierd. I don't know if you saw our debates but he did have a huge box thing in his back and in one picture of him in a t-shirt in his truck on his ranch, he had it also, very clearly to be seen. His suitmaker (French!) said it was because of the cut of his suit, which wasn't very flattering to himself as a suitmaker.
Woz
I think people like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore get much better press out of this country. When I've travelled, I've had people who hardly spoke English make a sincere effort to communicate to me how much they respected some of our bravest Americans. So their work is even more useful.
Breakfast with Bin Laden
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/24/terrorist_fry_up/
Sorry, I forgot to be scared
(opinion piece about the preponderance of OBL refs in GWB's recent speeches)
Google News Roundup
US-Iran talks
1,486 news articles
Harry Potter Book Sales
1,337 news articles
Lindsay Lohan's Arrest
1,130 news articles
Presidential debates
1,057 news articles »
Gonzales probe
901 news articles »
Blair and Israel/Palestine
820 news articles
Tammy Faye Eulogies
626 news articles
Sodas linked to heart disease
596 news articles
Bush: It's Al-Qaida, Stupid
457 news articles
Trade sanctions on Myanmar
96 news articles
Endangered Species Act
25 news articles
Vendor Arrested for Selling "Impeach Him" Buttons
http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_204145245.html
Have we lost rights yet?
Posted by: not my president at July 25, 2007 12:38 AM
Yes, Cindy Sheehan and Michael more do get the publicity - but it was obviously a crowd there in the photo. And I'll take publicity any way it comes for peace. Even if all those lonely vigils of sparrow's at the intersection only raise an awareness in a few - her presence there has been valuable. I think you all do amazing work and you earn the peace that should come to all of us.
Posted by: not my president at July 25, 2007 12:58 AM
And right down at the very bottom of that article, it mentions the demonstrations at Conyers office.
Breaking news:
2 Bush aides to face contempt citations By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
30 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Heading toward a separation-of-powers showdown, House Democrats prepared contempt of Congress citations against two White House aides who have refused to comply with subpoenas for information on the abrupt firings of federal prosecutors.
The White House has said that Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former legal counselor Harriet Miers, among other top advisers to President Bush, are absolutely immune from subpoenas because their documents and testimony are protected by executive privilege.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., reject that claim and have drafted for a vote Wednesday a resolution citing Miers and Bolten with contempt of Congress, a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and a one-year prison sentence.
The panel's vote is the first step on the road to a possible constitutional showdown in federal court
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_co/prosecutors_contempt;_ylt=AsBhNufGYJS6AlXCkGOad6ys0NUE
sparrow, it's hard to get too hopeful isn't it? It would be excellent to trust that it would actually move the situations forward, but experience tells us that it will be talked to death and get not enough votes to actually go anywhere. Very negative of me, but I really am the eternal optimist and each time a new charge is written or voiced, I try hard to give the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document.shtml
at some point people will need to realize the type of people we are dealing with here.
chinatool - that's amazing. A coup sounds more hopeful than all of these impossibilities of reaching consensus of voting outcomes.
Obviously if a Bush is involved - it's very bad!
I don't know what you hear on radio or tv, but according to a news report here, Bush gave a speech about how vital it is to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq. Apparently Gen Petreus's report recommends that the troop numbers remain at current levels and that the US will not be withdrawing from Iraq for many years. All this was voiced over the thousands of Iraqis marching to protest the war and grieving their unbearable losses, both material and human, both psychological and physical.
Was I told recently that in time of war the sitting dictator can stay on as president? By the sound of this speech, he believes he will preside over this invasion until there is a defeat - of whoever the enemy happens to be on the day. He was talking "past 2009". Many years past.
There's this, Woz.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/24/12614/2978
Disfavor for Bush hits rare heights
In modern era, only Nixon scored worse, and only Truman was down so long
WASHINGTON - President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.
The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only once has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- and that was Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before he resigned.
The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency.
Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19947950/
... and therein, lies the argument for impeachment. He can do whatever he wants with no regard for political cost (or otherwise)...
Ya Gotta Know When To Fold 'em
"Was I told recently that in time of war the sitting dictator can stay on as president? '
Woz it is even less complicated than that.
He does not need a war, only the guise of a 'National Emergency'.
What does Conyers want...?
A human shield that will take all the heat off of himself?
That is what it looks like he wants.
Thanks sparrow. Yes, that was pretty much it. Bush already knows the full contents of the report to be presented in September.
I've been thinking, if we all write a reasoned essay on terrorism and the consequences of fighting it, showing that it is neither logical nor possible to end or defeat and send it off to every tabloid around the globe that we can think of - al jazeera included. It will be picked up and published by at least one paper or magazine. And with all of us sending to our own 20, 30 or any number of publications it might be picked up by more than one.
We've expressed and bemoaned the opposition we face with MSM failing to give the facts. Another thing that happens with MSM - because it's driven by dollars - if one sees another selling more papers, getting more viewers, they'll switch sides in a second. All we have to do is write one, well reasoned, logical argument for dealing with terrorists in the way they should be treated - as criminals conspiring to murder. We've no right to invade a country that's done nothing to us.
Hell, since 9/11 there's been OBL; and AQ; and Hamas; and Hizbollah; and the Tamil Tigers; and I can't remember the group who killed 80 Australians in Bali; Jamaah Islamiah. And how about the African countries in which groups of people go on rampages and rape and pillage people and homes and steal children to be their soldiers by the age of 8. And on and on it goes. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. To fight terrorism means that we have to go to every country and get em there!
What country do they all belong to? They live amongst our friends right? They live in every country on the planet. In our own countries. They are our own. No country is immune. So, in response to this illegal, murderous act we bulldoze our way into the countries of our friends and decimate it and them - our friends - the people we claim to be liberating. We are making them pay! We'll teach you for killing 3,000 Americans in New York. We'll pay you back. We'll send more than 3,000 young Americans to certain death in in your country. You won't kill more of ours than we're prepared to kill.
And - therein lies the abhorrent and flawed reasoning of the Bush Regime.
We need to get our written essays out to papers. Send to a hundred and get it published twice. It doesn't matter, if each of us gets it published twice, that's a heck of a lot of places reasoned argument is presented. A letter to the editor - opinion piece.
It needs to be logical and reasoned. You may have to write it a few times like I do - to get the emotion out and leave the intelligence in. Some will get into papers. Some will be read. And just as you've been raising awareness at the intersection and elsewhere, sparrow, we can all try and corner a little part of the MSM across the globe.
I've been looking into it. Terrorist acts have been happening down through history. The London tube bombings may have had something to do with Britain's participation in the invasion of Iraq. Probably it did. But Britain isn't new to terrorist acts. Britain has been attacked over and over throughout the years. The IRA. Right now there's a tentative peace in Northern Ireland.
It sure didn't happen by retaliating and bombing the crap out of the homeland of the IRA, Britain's own territory. And the British made a mistake. A huge mistake. It convicted and imprisoned for many years, some IRA bombers. But they were innocent. And the British released them and apologised publicly for the terrible injustice that had happened to them. The men were on the front pages of every newspaper in the country accompanied by official apologies.
We need a mass outpouring of logical essays about the facts - that fighting an idealogue that has no boundaries, is doomed to failure. It's worse than that - as well as being doomed to failure we will kill our own and our friends! We encourage those who would harm us - by sending our own far away to be killed. We are actually providing fuel for the recruitment of new young suicide terrorists.
After 9/11, we went hell for leather and invaded, not one, but two countries. And we didn't stop at day one - like the terrorists did on 9/11. We're still there terrorising people. Every day. For 5 years! Not a day! Years and Years! And hundreds of thousands dead and maimed. Over 5 long years we've brought terrorism to the very doors of those we claim to be liberating. And those too poor to flee, stay and die and grieve.
I can't bear their grief. It isn't right. And those young Americans whose lives have been considered expendable by the Bush Regime, need rational honest words in the papers of the world. Their deaths will not be in vain when we really expose this regime for what it is in the papers of the world.
So - every single person whose words I've read here can write a fantastic article/essay/letter. And every single person who writes here will get it into at least one outlet to the mainstream to read. We want people to read our words - even if they don't like what they read. If we can just sow a tiny seed of doubt about their king, we've done a good thing.
Report Suggests Laws Broken in Attorney Firings
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A03
House Democrats, preparing for a vote today on contempt citations against President Bush's chief of staff and former counsel, produced a report yesterday that for the first time alleges specific ways that several administration officials may have broken the law during the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys.
The report says that Congress's seven-month investigation into the firings raises "serious concerns" that senior White House and Justice Department aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year may have obstructed justice and violated federal statutes that protect civil service employees, prohibit political retaliation against government officials and cover presidential records.
The 52-page memorandum, from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), seeks to explain why Democrats are trying to overcome an effort by the White House to shield officials and documents from the congressional inquiry through a claim of executive privilege. The report also provides the first written account of the Democrats' interpretation of the firings and the administration's response to the controversy.
The investigation "has uncovered serious evidence of wrongdoing by the department and White House staff," Conyers says.
The memorandum says the probe has turned up evidence that some of the U.S. attorneys were improperly selected for firing because of their handling of vote fraud allegations, public corruption cases or other cases that could affect close elections. It also says that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior Justice aides "appear to have made false or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of White House personnel."
In addition, the memorandum asserts repeatedly that the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was the first administration official to broach the idea of firing U.S. attorneys shortly after the 2004 election -- an assertion the White House has said is not true.
In one of more than 300 footnotes, the Democrats point to a Jan. 6, 2005, e-mail from an assistant White House counsel that says that Rove "stopped by to ask . . . how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys, whether we were going to allow them to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc."
Cont.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402311_pf.html
This is a joke, right?
When responding about his colonscopy, and that nothing bad had been found,
"NOW I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE INVADED FOR NO REASON"?
You know, I was thinking .. didn't Andrew Card quit the White House & speak out about some of what was going on? & wasn't he with Gonzales when they went to Ashcroft's bedside to strongarm him into keeping the domestic spying program, like Comey said? Well, then why doesn't Congress subpoena HIM to come tell what he knows? Or have they and did I miss it? He's a witness! & at that point in time he was very involved.
Christy
I can't believe Gonzales is still walking around, let alone Rove! I can't believe Libby got off so easily and that Plame's civil suit was thrown out. Pinch me, I'm still dreaming!
I can't believe Goat Boy thinks he's really President.
Thanks Christy - listening to him it sounds like he's not leaving. Ever.
Woz
It would be great if you wrote to some of our papers too. Tell how it looks from where you are, and you have credibility as someone living inside a country where the leader somewhat hung with Bush and they probably bring up the terror threat (Bali, Malaysia etc.)
"Can you remember a member of Congress resigning from office to protest the passage of a noxious piece of legislation? No, Members accept the vote, lick their wounds, and go back to work trying to change the outcome in the future."
This sentence is kind of buried in Richard's piece, above, but it's the most telling note in the header.
When dealing with the legislative branch of government it is best to remember that they will do anything they can do to live another day to fight.
And that is why they need us, in there, telling them what we want them to do today and tomorrow and the day after that...
Governing is too important to be left entirely to the politicians. Even good men like Conyers will fight for survival. We are not his shield, but his wind and his heat force.
CALL your Members. They need to hear from you. And operators are standing by.
Woz, that is a very good idea, however, we are at this time having a somewhat onesided conversation on this side of the pond.
The media blackout is abstract in its nature, but it has completely crippled all lines of defense.
We could write those letters, but most likely we know our own countrymen will not see them.
Our people are now going online to get around it, but, the majority of people here have no access to online. The truth is we can go around them, but not by far.
Like it or not we need CNN and the rest of the MSM to actively participate, but they have been so thouroughly compromised they are right now covering their own asses. They know they helped justify an ILLEGAL INVASION and they have no idea how to explain why, so they will not even bother, and will shut down all conversations about it within their control.
Their betrayal is abstract, but it washes over us in very real ways, and has LITERALLY blinded 2/3 rds of the nation. It is like hitting a brick wall.
Sometimes watching a story break online and watching it creep across the globe only to get here and it never gets mentioned it a total slap in the face.
I no longer watch CNN either. As I said before, it is not just that they go silent, it is what they collectively go silent about that is telling and horribly ominous. They know exactly what they are doing.
We have been set up. Set up so good there is true danger of a mortal fracture through the Constitution itself. The dems and repells are literally on the verge of war with each other. Republicans in this country sit around EVERY DAY NOW and talk about how great it will be when they can send dems to gas chambers and shoot liberals in the head.
The MSM has no intention of stopping it. They are making money off of selling out our nation. Lots, and lots, and lots of money. War profits.
Who would you let die for a billion dollars? How about a trillion? Blood money looks the same as all other money once you wash away the human stain.
The thing that bothers me most is this... Does the rest of the world know and understand our press blackout? Do they understand how badly blinded we are?
I honestly do not think they realize what has and is happening here. I am not sure they SEE it. I worry the rest of the world do not consider the blackout when trying to assess our actions and reactions.
I am afraid they will remember us as evil, when we are in fact deliberately blinded and left ignorant.
Great sentence jumped out at me from a mailing:
People who steal elections and believe they're on a mission from God don't go easily.
NMP is right.
Perhaps an Essay from an Aussie would carry more weight, anything from us is just rehashing the obvious.
Christy
That's depressing but pretty right on. First a critical mass of us personally need to try to figure out what we think is going on, and I see us doing that. As to getting the word out to the masses in general, and am always scanning out there for ideas on ways to do that. I don't think the public has leverage with corporate media other than what they will buy.
This government is also flat out of money. It's like someone made $3000/month and it got cut to $2500/month but they continued to spend $3000/month and let their children and grandchildren pay off the interest. That's how they operate. Remember when Bush first got in and people were given $300 or $600 not to pay down debt but to go out and blow? It was a bribe, and then they resorted to fear.
nmp - yes, I intend to send it out to every paper I can think of in the world. I'll see if I can find an email address to send it to the UN and the WHO and other agencies. If we can get people to send them on too. Just like we do here. We all post internet addresses of interesting articles. That's the great thing about the internet. At least you only have to write one piece and send it around the world. I often read things here that I want friends to read. Hopefully that will happen to our pieces as well.
Christy
There are ways to post on foreign blogs too. It takes a little searching around. Even the BBC one is pretty decent and I do see quite a few Americans posting on there, pro and con. I started Guardian's forum on 9/11/01 and it was invaluable, as I couldn't trust the media here and knew it. I wanted to reach out in many ways - see what was going on, let others know we weren't all going to allow ourselves to be hypnotized into faux patriotism, weren't all going to war. They discontinued that but I still very much like the idea of international person-to-person dialogue. IndyMedia has had their servers siezed more than once (such as in England). People's media scares the powers that be but is getting more respect (witness YearlyKos next week /media feeding frenzy trying to make it look like freaks). I asked MSM guys who they weren't going to any of the panels and were just looking for political celebrities and Markos. They said they were just sent there and had a deadline.
Woz
We ought to start posting places to send things and places that have published good stuff. It'll get us to spread our wings up out of the blog some and amplify what we develop, just as getting involved in actions in our communities or where we happen to be or go does.
NMP, the Americans online or foriegn blogs are not the problem nor the solution.
The fact that more than half of our people are either computer illiterate or have no hope of access online, THOSE PEOPLE are the ones we need to reach.
And without the msm that is virtually impossible.
We are sitting ducks.
The only way around the blackout, is to turn the msm onitself.
Turn them agaist each other and allow the competative nature of the press take over.
As well as sending my letter to the newspapers that I can find all around the world, I want to send it to Republicans and Democrats as well. I don't care if it hits the trash. Someone, out of all the ones I send out, will read it.
Isn't that how spammers make money? I'll give it a good subject heading like - whatever - something about the US/Australia partnership. What really makes me laugh is that Howard thinks he's so important to the US yet Bush never ever mentions Australia unless Howard is visiting him! We're not only on the wrong side of the world - we're not even in his hemisphere!
And the new leader I was so looking forward to taking over in the federal election. Same as bloody Howard. I got a bad feeling the day he went to the US for a very short meeting with Rupert Murdoch. About terrorists he agrees with the nonsense and fear mongering. I wrote my last letter to him today. I think he wrote his last letter to me last week. I wouldn't mind if they bribed me. Hey - secret ballot - with pencils and paper - how would they know I can't be bribed?
ARREST THE TORTURE BOY!!!
"Harman and Rockefeller claim that the only program they were told about was the NSA domestic surveillance program. But yet, in his testimony before Congress yesterday, Gonzales claimed that when he rushed to John Ashcroft’s bedside in 2004, he was seeking authorization for a separate intelligence activity — a program for which Gonzales claims he received “consensus” approval from the bi-partisan “Gang of Eight” on the same day he visited Ashcroft.
Harman and Rockefeller are reporting that they never consented to “other intelligence activities.” Responding to a question about whether he believed Gonzales perjured himself Tuesday, Rockefeller responded, “Based upon what I know about it, I’d have to say yes.”
www.thinkprogress.org
Woz, send it to smalltown papers in traditional repell districts.
How about this for a title 'Why we should forgive the Americans'
Yes, I know that sounds desperate, but we are desperate right now. We are desperate to know we can be forgiven.
And about alberto..
If congress has the power to literally arrest a president, then by God the Attorney General can be frog marched to the Hague.
If that were any of us up there, the cuffs would have already been placed on our wrists.
He don't NEED to resign. Arrest the bastard.
BYW, if Homeland Insecurity is reading this... Kiss My Ass Pinche Putos!
No man is above the law.
Not anymore, not at all.
Posted by: not my president at July 25, 2007 10:13 AM
That's what we have to do - get the information out to anyone who will take it. Within the US, Canada, Cuba, South America, Europe. Everywhere. I'll write the letter and then find addresses to send it to. It will take a while.
Christy
As I said - eventually, someone will print your letter somewhere. Your words will get out there.
Turn them agaist each other and allow the competative nature of the press take over.
Posted by: Christy at July 25, 2007 10:25 AM
Now you're talking Christy! If they are the problem - we have to get their competition to start printing letters
Perhaps an Essay from an Aussie would carry more weight, anything from us is just rehashing the obvious.
Posted by: Christy at July 25, 2007 10:05 AM
No Christy - from everyone - and get them circulating around the globe. It's kind of a demonstration using words rather than our feet and signs. We're in a safe little group here. We need to go out like nmp says. People around the world will be pleased to know that most of America is good people! and good grammar
And it's goodnight from me. We'll teach that MSM!
I hate to admit it, but I quit writing.
At some point I realized I was screaming at my own image etched into a brick wall. Letters, essays, articles, saying the same thing over and over in a thousand different ways started hurting me more than it helped so I just stopped one day.
I realized I had other gifts with words that are more useful. Like confrontational arguments. And I have never seen another group of people who absolutely must be confronted and challenged at all costs.
That is why I started hitting the lacal message boards. You know, the place where they sit around and dream of killing or gang raping liberals into submission and openly lament on the 'smell' of other races, black ones in particular.
The lunatics are in control of the asylum.
I am through trying to have a conversation with crazy people. The rest of the world could say a lot here, but from this point forward. for us, the conversation is effectively over, and it is time to put up or shut up.
Either our Constitution holds now, or our nation is destroyed.
The entire fate of a mighty empire will be decided in a relatively short period of time. We all know only two outcomes are possible. It is literally a battle of good vs evil.
"People who steal elections and believe they're on a mission from God don't go easily."
The time for talking is pretty much over. At least for us.
Our only hope is our friends who can see more clearly than we, will understand our blindness and not completely abondon us in this darkness.
Very soon, we will be shown how far georgie is willing to go. He is running out of time. And so are WE.
Something bad is about to happen. The conditions could not be more volitile.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070725/prosecutors-contempt/
Bush is trying to deliberately kick off an open constitutional crisis.
He needs one to impliment a POLICE STATE.
Remember when Bush first got in and people were given $300 or $600 not to pay down debt but to go out and blow? It was a bribe, and then they resorted to fear.
Posted by: not my president at July 25, 2007 10:06 AM
And I don't know of ANYONE who actually got the full amount. Most got, like, $10 or so.
My father's still incensed that because his CPA reported zero income for him, he got none of the good grace of W.
BTW...
I've been registered at Daily Kos for 48 hours, and still can't post comments. Something is seriously wrong...
If this is another case of the liberal community pre-emptively shutting me up for speaking the truth about reactionary immigrants, then I'll have none of it.
Christy
It's two things.
I agree we need to reach those who don't have computers or aren't on-line (my mother is one).
I continue to advocate also for discourse on-line with those outside one country.
It's something electronics allows that can be done person-to-person rather than officially.
I also support the diplomatic efforts of Jim McDermott, where he gets input from people who actually live in the middle east (about possible solutions). Unfortunately, not enough people bother to watch his documentary stuff about it, especially in Congress.
I think it's a great approach, for a doctor who has visited over 200 countries and who was doing work on depleted uranium in Iraq back when people had kind of forgotten about Iraq (Bush's father's war).
As for those without computers, I think we have to reach them one-to-one (which is slow but they know people who know people and so on).
As for our media that is falling down on the job, you have had some good suggestiions (like the blockade) and we don't have to buy the sponsored products but we then need to let the media outlets and the advertisers both know that.
Pull the plug.
Never mind - commenting is finally on.
A Constitutional showdown is needed. The Executive Branch makes their own interpretations and changes what they don't like.
They should never ever again be able to control all three branches of government. Nixon tried to amass unlimited executive power and lost his job and the power was taken away. Slowly they have tried to get it back.
There is no Republican front-runner, not even a backed candidate. Newt Gingrich is waiting to jump in and has then arrogance to say "if I'm needed" - delusions of grandeur along the lines of Louis XIV but without the wardrobe.
Someone reported above about an attempted coup on FDR. That is the same type of people that are currently plotting to keep their power.
Ally
They are just slow (Kos). There will be the ability to text message to a giant screen at YearlyKos and a bunch of other new technical capabilities for people participating off-line.
Christy
By the way .. about computers. I know people with advanced degrees and plenty of computers who still do not go on-line for news or read political blogs. They watch MSM blindly. I was stunned when one woman had not heard of Condi Rice. On the other hand, when travelling, we've met third world people who had a good idea what was happening at all levels. You can see it in things like reggae lyrics.
Very soon, we will be shown how far georgie is willing to go. He is running out of time. And so are WE.
Posted by: Christy at July 25, 2007 11:06 AM
What do cornered animals do?
I also think we need to start studying what sort of people are waiting in the wings to replace him (that aren't on our side). When neocons are quiet, it's dangerous, same as terrorists.
On the other hand, when travelling, we've met third world people who had a good idea what was happening at all levels. You can see it in things like reggae lyrics.
Posted by: not my president at July 25, 2007 11:49 AM
So very true - I tend to have better debates about American politics when I go abroad, whether it's in Canada or in China.
Posted by: Ally McRepuke at July 25, 2007 11:56 AM
Something about you going "abroad" just made me giggle.
Posted by: monkey at July 25, 2007 12:30 PM
Why? :)
Posted by: Ally McRepuke at July 25, 2007 12:33 PM
Cuz I've got a bad case of Double Entendre... really bad.
"...where he gets input from people who actually live in the middle east (about possible solutions)."
I agree it is needed NMP, but my point was no one in the Middle East knows our Constitution or the way it works like some loudmouthed swamp runner in Louisiana. Or a mechanic in Detroit. Or a bum in LA.
No one outside the USA can 'solve' or even suggest options to settle OUR Constitutional crisis. I mean they can have an opinion from here till doomsday and it will not change the fact that it has to be an American solution born by patriots of The United States Constitution.
And really there is nothing left for US to talk about. Either you are for the Constitution or you are against it, and anyone against it better be prepared to get their asses kicked.
By those of us who will die for it.
The biggest and scariest unknown element are those other 200 million Americans that have no idea of the danger they are in.
"What do cornered animals do?"
Fight until they die or until they kill anything that is a threat to them.
Contempt citations issued.
In a 22-17 vote, the House Judiciary Committee approved “a Resolution and Report Recommending to the House of Representatives that Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten be cited for Contempt of Congress.” The AP reports, “a vote by the full House would most likely happen after Congress’ August recess.”
http://thinkprogress.org/
Also on ThinkProgress
"Specter wryly noted to reporters during a break that there is a jail in the Capitol complex.”
THE CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS VOTE WILL NOT OCCUR UNTIL A-F-T-E-R THE AUGUST RECESS!!!! BUMMER...
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The House Judiciary Committee voted contempt of Congress citations Wednesday against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and President Bush's former legal counselor, Harriet Miers.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 22-17 party-line vote — which would sanction for pair for failure to comply with subpoenas on the firings of several federal prosecutors — advanced the citation to the full House.
A senior Democratic official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the House itself likely would take up the citations after Congress' August recess. The official declined to speak on the record because no date had been set for the House vote.
Committee Chairman John Conyers said the panel had nothing to lose by advancing the citations because it could not allow presidential aides to flout Congress' authority. Republicans warned that a contempt citation would lose in federal court even if it got that far.
he panel's vote is the first step on the road to a possible constitutional showdown in federal court
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_co/prosecutors_contempt;_ylt=AsBhNufGYJS6AlXCkGOad6ys0NUE
"They have sent the Attorney General here to lie and to insult us with his lies," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Judiciary_Committee_sends_contempt_charges_for_0725.html
Why CNN is a joke. Reason #14,759.
"CNN is congratulating itself profusely for its YouTube debate, and they showed a lot of excellent questions. But they refused to show the #1 video as voted on by visitors to CommunityCounts. The hands-down winning question was on impeachment."
http://www.democrats.com/cnn-censors-impeachment-youtube
Christy
Consultation with people in the middle east would not be about our constitution but Iraq's and how to end the war.
We have alot of important and interrelated issues going on simultaneously. Things are coming to a head.
In Iraq, not one piece of legislation was passed by the new governing body and they are going on recess. One guy had his bodyguards try to attack another legislator.
I was thinking that maybe they're trying to copy our way of doing things! ;)
As for our Constitution and those outside the United States, if they want to, they can apply pressure economically, politically. They can refuse to help usmilitarily. If our Constitution is destroyed, it affects people all over the world because interpretation of our Constitution affects our policy, which is implemented globally.
The days of separating cleanly domestic and foreign policy are over for good, thanks to globalization and the computer age.
Hard to imagine that if the House votes in favor of Contempt of Congress for Miers and Bolten that the Justice Department will cooperate. The maximum penalty is a year in prison and $1000. Congress and the Administration may compromise. They did so during the Reagan administration when officials from the EPA and Energy departments were held in Contempt of Congress. I imagine there may be some wheeling and dealing during their August vacation. It's sinister.
Hey all, Rick needs some attention over at the jk.com blog.
http://www.johnkerry.com/2007/7/25/jk-chairing-sfrc-hearings-on-pakistan
Some thoughtful comments and a 'nice to see you here' or whatever strikes your fancy.
The ONLY way to settle this is impeachment.
It is not just a bunch of different issues and policies colliding, many are creating their own Constitutional Crisis.
I agree Arabs are needed to settle Iraq, but right now we can not even control our own press, Iraq can not be controlled by Us.
With all of georgies crimes, I agree Iraq is the most pressing, but it is also where High Crimes diverge into War Crimes.
As was discussed on PBS impeachment is not the crisis, it is the cure for the crisis, or in this case, multiple crisis all playing out on the same stage involving the same main players.
This mulitiple layering of Constitutional Crisis is what we now know happens when the first one is ignored.
Impeachment is often warned against as 'not being a magic bullet' but in this case, I think it very well would be exactly that.
Arrest the ringleaders and all of their crimes can be addressed at once.
White House spokesman Tony Snow called the contempt citations "pathetic" and said the citations are "not likely to go anywhere." He said the Democratic leaders of Congress have been pursuing a "fishing expedition" over the firings that has turned up nothing.
"What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations rather than pursuing the normal business of trying to pass major pieces of legislation, such as appropriations bills," Snow said.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/25/house.contempt/index.html
C-SPAN WASHINGTON JOURNAL: WHAT TO DO ABOUT IRAQ?
Most of the discussion centered around how to withdraw troops:
Washington Journal Entire Program
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) | Bill
Tom Ridge, Former Homeland Security Secretary Bush Administration, 2003-05 |Center for U.S. Global Engagement
Michael Duffy, Time Magazine, Asst. Managing Ed. | Story
7/25/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 3 hr.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Out of Iraq Caucus, Co-Founder
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Out of Iraq Caucus, Co-Founder discusses a bill she is sponsoring. The bill -- HR 2929 -- bans permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
28 min.
Tom Ridge, Bush Administration, Former Homeland Security Secretary
Tom Ridge, Bush Administration, Former Homeland Security Secretary discusses a statemenmt he and other top officials will release tomorrow, which urges 2008 candidates to make development & diplomacy a top issue in their campaigns, including new visions for U.S. foreign policy and national security.
30 min.
Michael Duffy, Time Magazine, Assistant Managing Editor
Michael Duffy, Time Magazine, Assistant Managing Editor discusses his cover story this week on how the U.S. might withdraw from Iraq and what will happen when we do.
45 min.
Breaking News!!!
Victory on NO Permanent Bases, NO U.S. Control of Oil!
The House just passed HR2929, Rep. Lee's bill to prohibit U.S. permanent bases in Iraq. The vote was 399-24!
Read the Bill
Roll-Call vote
That is good news, Ralpheh.
Does this one still have to go to the Senate?
Remember Agustin and Helga Aguayo? Well, he is free and home:
http://www.aguayodefense.org/Aguayo_July27flyer.pdf
Now we just have to free the thousands of others...
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2006/11/gratitude_part.html
That is good news, Ralpheh.
Does this one still have to go to the Senate?
Posted by: madame defarge at July 25, 2007 04:59 PM
@@@@@@
Yes, but a ban amendment passed the Senate last year (only to be stripped out, secretly, in the conference committee).
And look at the margin of victory in the House vote - the Republicans are jumping ship.
H R 2929 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 25-Jul-2007 12:52 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
BILL TITLE: To limit the use of funds to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq
Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 227 4
Republican 172 24 5
Independent
TOTALS 399 24 9
Ralpheh...I found this at Ellen's blog about those "permanent" bases... It's all a matter of semantics. The republicans who voted for this aren't necessarily jumping ship. They've just crafted a get-around to make them look good for the elections.
From Ellen:
More bizzare than I attributed to them, republicans went for Lee's bill because they are going to build the bases (actually, have (are) already build(t)(ing) the bases-- see here too) and they are just not going to call them permanent bases because they may go away in a century or two. They are going to call them enduring bases. So republicans were free to pretend they ever vote against a Bush administration initiative. I'll agree with Boehner that it was just another political stunt, not one by the Democrats however. Lee is sincere on this bill and has been pushing this issue for a long time. Maybe this is the political concession Kirk and friends got from Bush and Rove in their now infamous meeting a couple of months ago. They got to vote for something they can point to in their 2008 campaigns that makes them look like they are taking a stand to end the Iraq mess at some point and it won't change a thing as their bosses in Washington require.
http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-will-kirk-vote-on-rep-lees-bill-to.html
Go to her site for embedded links proving her point.
Why did the same bill pass last year and was then stripped in the conference committee?
And the reference to the Iraqi oil?
If the Republicans are going to pull semantic games like this - between the meaning of "permanent" and the meaning of "enduring", this ban may end up in the courts who will have to interpret. It is pretty clear to me that permanent and enduring are the same thing.
quote:
That's the MO of republicans. Lie to curb objections to their bad policy and lull people into a false sense of what their plans are, and then slowly ramp up talk about what that really wanted to begin with when few are paying attention. The S. Korea model is exactly what they were always going for, war without end, and this time they get a global battlefield so they can use it as an excuse to deprive US Citizens of their Constitutional rights to Due Process.
Kirk will not go for Lee's bill because it would force the Bush administration to live with their originally stated intent which of course was never their intent, just the sales pitch. I predict an under the bed moment for Kirk today when this bill comes up for a vote, and since it might thunderstorm, I also predict an under the bed moment for Democat.
@@@@@@@
I am not as pessimistic. This is an idiotic game to be playing, If the Republicans think this is a word game.
And the bill could always be amended in the Senate to be more clear and encompassing in its language...
I was camping and when I came out of the woods, someone had put a Ron Paul flyer on my door and when I turned on my radio Ron Paul was speaking. Freaky!
madame dafarge
"enduring bases" - is that like "Operation Enduring Freedom"?
Where do they get these things?!! Pure evil!!
Posted by: madame defarge at July 25, 2007 09:14 PM
Semantics... like they accused Clinton of garbling the definitions of "sexual relationship" and "perjury."
Wow. Even Josh Marshall is finally realizing that we truly do have no choice under the current extreme circumstances but to proceed with our Constitutionally-mandated obligation to proceed with articles of impeachment against this unbelievably arrogant imperialistic White House:
---------------
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015836.php
As regular readers of this site know, I've always been against the movement to impeach President Bush. I take this position not because he hasn't done plenty to merit it. My reasons are practical. Minor reasons are that it's late in the president's term and that I think impeachment itself is toxic to our political system -- though it can be less toxic than the high officials thrown from office. My key reason, though, is that Congress at present can't even get to the relatively low threshold of votes required to force the president's hand on Iraq.
[snip]
On balance, this is still my position. But in recent days, for the first time I think, I've seen new facts that make me wonder whether the calculus has changed. Or to put it another way, to question whether my position is still justifiable in the face of what's happening in front of our eyes.
Most of those facts I'm referring to stem from the on-going Gonzales controversy (farce?) and the various running battles over executive privilege. In fact, the exchange I noted yesterday between Gonzales and Sen. Schumer (D-NY) stands out in my mind.
This was the exchange in which Gonzales simply refused to answer one of Sen. Schumer's questions -- didn't say he didn't remember, didn't invoke a privilege, just said, No. Not going to discuss that with you. Move on to the next question.
It's not that this one incident is a matter of such consequence in and of itself -- though I would say it's pretty consequential. But it captures pretty fully and in one small nugget the terrain the White House is now dragging us on to.
As I explained in that post, testifying before Congress is like testifying in a court of law. The questions aren't voluntary. You have to answer every one. You can invoke a privilege and the court's will decide whether the argument has merit. But no one can simply decline to answer a question. And yet this is exactly what Gonzales did.
The difference between invoking a flimsy claim of privilege and simply refusing to answer has little immediate practical difference, but it's constitutional implications are profound.
Though other events in recent months and years have had graver consequences in themselves, I'm not sure I've seen a more open, casual or brazen display of the attitude that the body of rules which our whole system is built on just don't apply to this White House.
Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.
If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.
Whether because of prudence and pragmatism or mere intellectual inertia, I still have the same opinion on the big question: impeachment. But I think we're moving on to dangerous ground right now, more so than some of us realize. And I'm less sure now under these circumstances that operating by rules of 'normal politics' is justifiable or acquits us of our duty to our country.
--------------
investigate indict impeach imprison,
Otter
Congressman Robert Brady, (D., PA), who represents portions of Philadelphia, on Tuesday signed on as a cosponsor of House Resolution 333, articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/25094
That makes 15.
Christy, how many are needed?
Posted by: madame defarge at July 25, 2007 09:14 PM
Posted by: Ralpheh at July 25, 2007 09:43 PM
The real deal about the South Korean model: America won the hearts and minds of South Koreans, despite a few civilian massacres here and there during the war. The Koreans needed economic aid, and we provided plenty of it. The Koreans later needed a market to sell their light industry (and eventually, heavy industry) goods, and we provided the market. In fact, some Koreans are so grateful, they would be honored to become our 51st state.
Are we doing ANY of it in Iraq? We're too busy pillaging and plundering Iraq, to do anything meaningful. The only grateful ones are the terrorist cells, who have found us to be perfect excuses for further recruiting, training, and killing.
17 is what was suppossedly needed but looky at Conyers...
This man is starting to piss me off. REAL BAD.
"CONYERS: Now, let me close with this one suggestion, is that I need some Members of Congress to come to me and say Mr Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I heard you were out in San Diego, and they really put it to you, and you made commitments that we don't know if you were just saying, saying something to get out of that hotel alive or were you, or were you serious and here's what we need to do. We need to have three Members of Congress from anywhere come and say, "Congressman, if you... if you are willing to support an inquiry into a resolution of whether there had been acts of impeachability conducted by, the Vice President of, and the President of the United States, that could lead to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, then we will join you if you introduce such a resolution."
SPECTATOR: With House Resolution 333, you have that right now, do you not?
CONYERS: No, I, I, this is something that we are working on right now. We don't have it right now.
SPECTATOR: We do have House Resolution 333.
CONYERS: I'm talking about more. Look. And so let us, let us see how many people would be willing to back us up, in addition to the ones --
SPECTATOR: Maxine Waters.
CONYERS: Let, let us, let us stay in close communication. These are decisions that should not be taken lightly. We have, I want to examine and put forward as we move along a close, critical examination of all of the benefits and the costs involved in making this momentous decision. It's easy to say that this is an easy, this is a no brainer, the logic is all on one side, and I wish that were so. If it were so, you would be here congratulating me for doing what you had been asking me and others to do for so long.
So let's think soberly about it. There is no, let's say, now is the time and we don't have to worry about the future. I, with due respect, disagree with that. I have to think about the future. I have to weigh what this, the impact of this is going to be. And, by the way, you probably know, that there is such a thing as the retroactive impeachment process.
SPECTATORS: No, what's that? Tell us more.
CONYERS: If you introduced the resolution of impeachment after the person is gone.
SPECTATOR: Really? Wow!"
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/25051
What does Conyers want?
I do not know.
Why in the hell are we even asking why he has to be BRIBED to do his job?
"SPECTATOR: With House Resolution 333, you have that right now, do you not?
CONYERS: No, I, I, this is something that we are working on right now. We don't have it right now. "
Down here, we call that a 'crawfish'.
Anywhere else it would just be called BETRAYAL.
This is what happened inside Conyers office.
John Conyers Is No Martin Luther King
By Ray McGovern
July 24, 2007
What do Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and President George W. Bush have in common? They both think they can dis Cindy Sheehan and count on gossip columnists like the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank to trivialize a historic moment.
I’ll give this to President Bush. He makes no pretence when he disses. He would not meet with Sheehan to define for her the “noble cause” for which her son Casey died or tell her why he had said it was “worth it.”
Conyers, on the other hand, was dripping with pretence as he met with Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood and me Monday in his office in the Rayburn building. I have seldom been so disappointed with someone I had previously held in high esteem. And before leaving, I told him so.
Throwing salt in our wounds, he had us, and some 50 others in his anteroom arrested and taken out of acti