After questioning former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee Friday, a Democratic congressman called for impeachment proceedings to be initiated.
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) said that he believed McClellan's testimony implicated both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush as the only two administration sources who could have leaked the identity of former CIA covert operative Valerie Plame-Wilson.
"The president and vice president have denied ordering this illegal leak, but logic and the chain of command dictates that it must have been one of them,” said Wexler. "Mr. McClellan, in your book, you state that you cannot believe President Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's status as a covert agent. ... Who does that leave us? The vice president."
"He is someone that keeps things pretty close to the vest, to say the least," replied McClellan.
"There's a lot of suspicion there, because there's questions that have never been answered, despite the fact that we said we would address these issues." McClellan added. Asked Wexler, "So this suspicion leads you to believe that Vice President Cheney could have authorized Mr. Libby's leak?" McClellan replied, "I can't rule it out."
"We know that the vice president wrote a note where he starts to write and then crosses out the fact that the president himself asked Mr. Libby to stick his neck into a meat grinder to protect the administration," said Wexler. "It's clear to me that Mr. Cheney is the only one left -- the only likely suspect -- to have ordered the leak. If Mr. Cheney really thought Libby was innocent, then Mr. Cheney's note would have said, 'We need to protect this man, who has done nothing wrong.'"
Wexler closed by thundering: "The vice president's own hand betrays him, and Libby, and implicates the President of the United States. These facts in your testimony, Mr. McClellan, are more than enough, in my view, to open up impeachment hearings."
This video is from CNN.com, broadcast June 20, 2008.
Constitutional scholar on impeachment: 'It's time to pony up'
Law professor and Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley says that America's founders "would have been astonished by the absolute passivity, if not the collusion, of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment."
Despite noting that not all of the articles Kucinich presented were "impeachable offenses" in a strict sense, Turley says "there are pleny of crimes there -- this is a target-rich environment."
This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast June 10, 2008.
The thirty-five articles of impeachment that the Democratic lawmaker from Ohio painstakingly read last night for several hours to the House of Representatives will be read again tonight into the Congressional record by the Clerk of the House.
After the reading ends, Kucinich “will rise and make a motion that the Impeachment Resolution be referred to committee,” said the release. Should a vote occur, further action will be postponed until Wednesday.
“It is imperative that Members of Congress have a thorough opportunity to read the Articles of Impeachment and study the documentation,” said Kucinich, in the release. “When they do, I am confident that they will agree that it is both appropriate and necessary for the Judiciary Committee to begin hearings on the Resolution.”
The reading will begin sometime after approximately 7:30 Eastern on Tuesday night.
Earlier on Tuesday, Kucinich’s office claimed that his official website had been crippled a few hours after delivering his resolution the night before. An e-mail alert distributed by his office said the circumstances surrounding the attack could “best be described as ’suspicious.’”
The fact that this has received absolutely no press is an idication that the the fascists have taken over the news media. The media is owned by the military industrial complex. They would be non-stop 24/7 if it was a preacher saying something controversial or if the republicans were telling some lie about something sexual. It is a disgrace to what the fourth estate was meant to be.
An Ohio Democratic lawmaker and former presidential candidate has presented articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush to Congress.
Thirty-five articles were presented by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to the House of Representatives late Monday evening, airing live on C-SPAN.
"The House is not in order," said Kucinich to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), upon which Pelosi pounded her gavel.
"Resolved," Kucinich then began, "that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. ...
"In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power..."
The first article Kucinich presented, and many that followed, regarded the war in Iraq: "Article 1 - Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq."
On several occasions, Kucinich referenced RAW STORY and its noted investigative news chief, Larisa Alexandrovna, as source material for the articles. Two of the RAW STORY pieces Kucinich mentioned are viewable here and here.
Kucinich, a 2004 and 2008 Democratic candidate for the White House, abandoned a prior attempt to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush in January of this year.
In April of 2007, Kucinich presented impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney, but the effort went nowhere. Kucinich exclaimed that "impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran."
Before leaving office in January 2007, then-Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney--currently a Green Party presidential candidate--introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush as her last act in Congress, but that effort also was fruitless.
This video is from C-SPAN, broadcast June 9, 2008.
Rough closed caption transcript of the first 10 minutes of proceedings follow...
#
the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: will the house come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise?
mr. kucinich: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker
pro tempore: will the house come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. the speaker pro tempore: will the house come to order. the gentleman from ohio.
mr. kucinich: madam speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule 9, i rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the house. the form of the resolution is as follows. the house is not in order.
mr. kucinich: the form of the resolution is as follows. a resolution, articles of impeachment of george bush, president of the united states. resolved that president george w. bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanor and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the united states senate. articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states of america in the name of itself and of the people of the united states of america in maintenance and support of its impeachment against george w. bush for high crimes and misdemeanor. it is conduct while president of the united states, george w. bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faith fully execute the office of the office of president of the united states and best of his ability, preserve protect and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be safely executed has committed the following abuses of power. article i, creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against iraq. in his conduct while president of the united states, george w. bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faith fully execute the office of president of the united states and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of its constitutional duty to take care that the laws be safely executed, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the vice president, illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false cause for war against iraq. the department of defense has engaged in a years long secret domestic propaganda campaign -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. please proceed. . mr. kucinich: the president and the department of defense promoted a secret program for war with iraq this program follows the pattern of crimes detailed in articles i, ii, iv, and 7:00 -- strike that, 8:00. the mission of this program placed it within the field controlled by the white house iraq group, known as whig, a white house task formed -- task force formed in 2002 that ind colluded karl rove, lewis libby, mary matalin, nicholas calleo, and james r. wilkinson. the white house iraq group, or whig, produced white papers detailing so-called intelligence of iraq's nuclear intelligence that later proved to be false. this sprosed -- supposed intelligence included the claim that iraq had sought uranium from niger and that the high-strength uranium tubes were to be used for building centrifuges to enrich uranium. unlike the national intelligence estimate of 2002, the whigs' white paper provided lit rare license on intelligence. it was written at the same time and by the same people as speeches and talking points prepared for president bush and some of his top officials. the white house-iraq group also organized a media campaign in which, between september 7 and 8, 2002, president bush and his top advisors appeared on numerous interviews and all provided similarly gripping images about the possibility of a nuclear attack by iraq. the timing was no coincidence as andrew card explained in an interview regarding waiting to labor day to try to sell the american people on military action against iraq he said, quote from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce knew products in august. september 7 and september 8, 2002, nbc's "meet the press," vice president cheney accused saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms. cnn. then national-security -- then-national security advisor race side of iraq obtain agnew clear weapon, we don't want a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. president bush said saddam was six months away from developing nuclear weapons and cited photos of weapons inspectors in iraq that saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms. the pentagon prop began dist military program was revealed in an april 20, 2002, "new york times" article. the program illegally involved, quote, attempts to change opinion through the use of third parties. secretary of defense donald rumsfeld recruited 75 retired military officers and gave them talking points to deliver on fobblings, cnn, abc, nbc, cbs, and msnbc, according to "the new york times" report, which has not been discomputered by the pentagon or white house. quote, participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contact with the pentagon. according to the pentagon's own internal document the military analysts were considered, quote, message-force multipliers, unquote, as surrogates to deliver administration themes and messages to millions of americans in the form of their own opinions. in fact they did deliver the themes and messages but did not reveal the pentagon had provided them with their talking points. robert s. bevelaqua a retired green beret and fox news analyst, described this as follows. he said, it was them say, we need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you. congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since 1951 with this language, and i quote, no part of any appropriation contained in this or any other act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the united states, not here turnover authorized by the congress, unquote. a march 21, 2005, report by the congressional research service states that publicity or propaganda is defined by the u.s. government accountability office, g.a.o., mean either one self-aggrandizement by public officials, two, purely partisan activity, or three, covert propaganda. these concerns about covert propaganda were also the basis for the g.a.o.'s standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal, and i quote. the failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. the prepackaged news stories are purposely designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. when the public does not know the stories they watched on television news stories they watched about the government were prepared by the government the stories are in a sense, no longer purely factual. the white house's own office of legal counsel stated in a memorandum tpwhrin 2005, following the controversy over the armstrong-williams scandal, i quote, over the years g.a.o. has interpreted publicity or propaganda restrictions to preclude the use of appropriated funds for, among other things so-called covert prop began dasm squint that view, the office of ledge -- of legal counsel demermed 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda precluded undisclosed agency funded of advocacy by third-party groups. we stated that covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties would run afoul of presixth -- restrictions for using funds for propaganda. asked about the pentagon's propaganda program at a white house press briefing, white house press secretary dana pe reno defended it not by arguing it was legal, but by suggesting that it should be. he said, quote, look, i didn't know. look, i think you guys should take a step back and look at this look. d.o.d. has made a decision. they decided to stop this program. but i would say that one of the things we try to do in the administration is to get information out to a variety of people so everyone else can call them and ask their opinion about something. i don't think that should be against the law. i think it's fropet provide information to people who are seeking it and will be providing their opinions on it. it doesn't mean the military analysts agree twhed administration. i think you can go back and look and think thi a lot of their analysis was tough on the administration that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk to people, unquote...
This evening on the House floor, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is presenting 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush to Congress. “The first article Kucinich presented regarded the war in Iraq. ‘Article 1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq.’”
I've seen a lot of sad things in American politics in my lifetime -- the resignation of a president who became a national disgrace after he oversaw a campaign of break-ins and cover-ups, another who circumvented the Constitution to trade arms for hostages, and yet is now hailed as national hero. And those paled to what we have seen in the last seven years -- flagrant disregard for the Constitution, the launching of a "pre-emptive" war on false pretenses, and discussions about torture and other shocking abuses inside the White House inner sanctum.
But now it's come to this: A new low that I never imagined was even possible.
President Bush went on foreign soil today, and committed what I consider an act of political treason: Comparing the candidate of the U.S. opposition party to appeasers of Nazi Germany -- in the very nation that was carved out from the horrific calamity of the Holocaust. Bush's bizarre and beyond-appropriate detour into American presidential politics took place in the middle of what should have been an occasion for joy: A speech to Israeli's Knesset to honor that nation's 60th birthday.
JERUSALEM (CNN) – In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
As a believer in free speech, I think Bush has a right to say what he wants, but as a President of the United States who swore to uphold the Constitution, his freedom also carries an awesome and solemn responsibility, and what this president said today is a serious breach of that high moral standard.
Of course, there are differences of opinion on how America should handle Iran, and that's why we're having an election here at home, to sort these issues out -- hopefully with respect and not with emotional and inaccurate appeals. Not only is the president's comment a gross misrepresentation of Barack Obama's stance on the issue, but ironically, it comes just a day after his own Secretary of State, Robert Gates, said of Iran: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them." Is Gates a Nazi appeaser-type, too? And Bush has been hardly consistent on this point, either. Look at his own dealings with oil-rich Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, linked to deadly terror attacks like Pan Am Flight 103.
But what Bush did in Israel this morning goes well beyond the accepted confines of American political debate, When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders, and we may have our disagreements with some sharp elbows thrown around, but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives.
We are Americans.
And you, Mr. Bush, are the leader of us all. To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve. You have been handed an office once uplifted to great heights by fellow countrymen from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Eisenhower, and have plunged it so deeply into the Karl-Rove-and-Rush-Limbaugh-fueled world of political destruction and survival of all costs that have lost all perspective -- and all sense of decency. To travel to Israel and to associate a sitting American senator and your possible successor in the Oval Office with those who at one time gave comfort to an enemy of the United States is, in and of itself, an act of political treason.
In another irony, this comes from an administration that has already committed such grave abuses that its former officials are becoming fearful of traveling overseas, lest they be arrested for war crimes. Despite the alleged crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration, the Democrats who control the House have until now been restrained in their use of the impeachment process, hoping that the final eight months of our American nightmare can pass by quickly. Indeed, one has to wonder how much of Bush's outrageous statement this morning arose from fear -- fear that a President Obama will go after his wrongdoing in 2009.
Today, it's a whole new ballgame. I believe this treacherous statement by a U.S. president in Israel is a signal to the Democrats in the House in Washington, that it's time to play its Constitutional role in ending this trauma, before even greater acts against the interest of America are wrongly committed in our name.
The ramped up rhetoric on Iran is deafening lately. To say the least, claims of Iranian meddling and fomentation in Iraq have reached an unprecedented level. But as vociferous as those claims have been, this time -- as opposed to the runup to the invasion of Iraq -- there seems to be some blowback swirling around up on Capitol Hill. They want evidence this time. Imagine that.
The truth is, the only difference between the runup to the Iraq invasion and the current buildup to a war with Iran is that this time we are the wiser. We have the benefit of hindsight this go around. We're more familiar with the modus operandi of the Bush regime now, and, we know how Dick Cheney & company will resort to bold-faced lies and slick obfuscation in making their case for perpetual war.
This time though, every piece of trumped-up evidence against Iran that Cheney comes up with or every time one of his acolytes hypes the threat, it seems to be falling more and more on a skeptical Congress. In addition, the notion of another war seems to be bombing (no pun intended) in general with the American people as well.
John Conyers’ letter is a direct shot across Cheney’s PNAC-powered bow. Now, whether Conyers’ stark warning is due directly to his aversion to war or it goes straight to a proverbial line in the sand regarding the separation of powers is unclear. But at this point it simply doesn’t matter. America wins either way.
May 8, 2008 The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to register our strong opposition to possible unilateral, preemptive military action against other nations by the Executive Branch without Congressional authorization. As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies," to "provide and maintain a navy," to "make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces," to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia," and to "make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."
By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section, which states, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States." Nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress.
In our view, the founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, preemptive military actions against foreign countries. As former Republican Representative Mickey Edwards recently wrote, "[t]he decision to go to war ... is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation’s Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress."
Members of Congress, including the signatories of this letter, have previously expressed concern about this issue. On April 25, 2006, sixty-two Members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter that called on you to seek congressional approval before making any preemptive military strikes against Iran. Fifty-seven Members of Congress have co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.
Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.
As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is "supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs". As one legal expert has explained, your Administration’s "preventive paradigm" has asserted "unchecked unilateral power" by the Executive Branch and violated "universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like."
Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach" the president.
We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.
Sincerely, The Honorable John Conyers Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
Conyers is showing some real guts lately and once again I think we need to let him know that we have his back. He sent a letter to his fellow congress critters asking them to co-sign the letter to Bush. Please contact both the Judiciary Committee and your district representative to urge them to sign onto Conyers' letter.
Conyers is on a roll, folks. Let’s get behind him and give him a push.
As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.
After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.
Today I have made a different choice.
Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.
But what are the facts?
Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.
From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.
In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history.
All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?
How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?
It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.
Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.
Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades.
Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies -- especially the war in Iraq -- have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others.
Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.
Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.
As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws -- that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates the law -- thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors."
I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.
There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Move to Impeach Cheney Gains Support in Congress
Tim King Salem-News.com
More Democrats signing on to the idea of a Vice-Presidential impeachment, could it really happen?
Vice President Dick Cheney Photo courtesy: blogrunner.com
(SALEM, Ore.) - A House Resolution to impeach U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, Dennis Kucinich's H.R. 799, is gathering more support. The national impeachment continues to grow and generate increasing interest since being referred to the House Judiciary Committee last month, a Kucinich spokesperson said.
As a member of that committee, Representative Robert Wexler and two other committee members, Luis Gutierrez and Tammy Baldwin, have joined together in demanding that the legal action against Cheney moves forward.
Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida is just one elected official who says the charges are too serious to ignore.
"There is credible evidence that the Vice President abused the power of his office, and not only brought us into an unnecessary war but violated the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to hold impeachment hearings"
He went on to say that he believes Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration have demonstrated a consistent pattern of abusing the law and misleading Congress and the American people.
"We see the consequences of these actions abroad in Iraq and at home through the violations of our civil liberties,” Wexler said.
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, stated in August that published reports identify, "the Vice-President’s willful and repeated disregard for the rule of law, international treaties, environmental protections, and the common good."
Wexler and Baldwin joined Congressman Luis Gutierrez in penning an Op-Ed that calls for committee hearings on a bill to impeach Dick Cheney on a variety of charges that include allegations of manipulating intelligence to boost the case for the war with Iraq, a very serious charge.
The Op-Ed that ran in the Philadelphia Enquirer December 27th (Impeach Cheney now- The allegations that he abused power are credible.) states, "The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution."
"The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens."
House leaders and the leading Democratic presidential candidates don't support impeachment. One thing they point to is the timeframe and expense that surrounded the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, citing how the business of politics in the U.S. ground to a near standstill as the nation's attention was diverted by the effort to expose the President over a sex act with a White House intern. Gutierrez saying hearings, "need not tie up Congress for a year and shut down the nation."
The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens’ [sic] health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. … This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."
But Kucinich and Wexler and others in Congress say they won't be swayed as they utilize an existing arm of the Democratic system to see that impeachment proceedings are brought forward against the elected leader of out nation's second highest political office.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
But Who's Counting: Scholar Says at Least 6 Crimes Have Been Committed in the Bush Administration's Destruction of CIA Torture Tapes
RawStory - December 19th, 2007 White House involvement in the CIA's decision to destroy videotapes documenting severe interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists could constitute as many as six crimes, according to constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley. Turley ...more
Nixon Was Impeached for Much Less: White House Lawyers Neck-Deep in Destruction of CIA Torture Tapes
New York Times - December 19th, 2007 At least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two ...more
Wexler to Dems: Want a healthcare plan for children? Try impeachment hearings
David Edwards and Jason Rhyne
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) says he's hatched a plan that will secure health care for children, help to restore America's reputation around the world, and empower the the Democratic party to rediscover the courage of its convictions. He calls it "impeachment hearings."
Appearing in his home state for a meeting of the Palm Beach County Democratic Executive Committee last week, Wexler told the crowd that if Congress were to hold hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, the move would advance a wide array of Democratic legislative priorities and even help a more "popular" United States head off foreign policy crises. The remarks were first reported by the Palm Beach Post's George Bennett.
"The way we pass stem-cell research, the way we get implemented a children's health care plan, the way we get higher CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards to bring our energy debacle into a better condition for generations to come is to have impeachment hearings," Wexler said, appearing to nearly run out breath at one point during his speech. "Because that'll get the president's eye. That'll get the vice president's eye. That for the first time will show that the Democratic majority is here, and that in fact we have the courage of our convictions, and that we're not bound to be tied by conventional wisdom."
Wexler said that impeachment hearings weren't just an option available to Congress, but a requirement.
"This administration has abused its power in office...and it is the obligation -- not discretionary -- but it is the obligation of this Congress to investigate," he said. "And that's what I and some of my colleagues are beginning to call for."
Later, Wexler suggested the US was sorely in need of popularity boost in the world community.
"If we want to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, we need to become more popular. If we want to avoid a traumatic split between Sunnis and Shiites that endangers further our national security, we need to become more popular...If we want to engage with the Chinese in a more beneficial way, we need to become more popular."
"Let me tell you one more thing those impeachment hearings will do," he concluded. "It'll make America more popular."
One of the House's most outspoken critics of the Bush administration, Wexler voted against a motion from Democrats to prevent debate on a November impeachment motion brought against the vice president by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). That measure was later sent to the House Judiciary Committee, where Wexler is a sitting member.
"I urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months," Wexler stated at the time. "Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration; and, if it is determined in these hearings that Vice President Cheney has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office.”
UPDATE: Judiciary Committee 'Suprised' by Minority Move, Plans to 'Continue to Consider' Matter...
Wasn't able to follow things live, as David Swanson did, so still trying to unravel what specifically happened today on the floor of the U.S. House, where Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) used a "privileged resolution" to try and force a vote on his measure to begin Impeachment proceedings of Dick Cheney.
But as best as we can tell, and if we're reading this correctly, it seems the Republicans are playing a very interesting game of chicken here. From RAW:
Although the roll call vote had initially appeared to favor Hoyer's motion to table, Congressional Quarterly's Ed Epstein told CSPAN that Republicans had switched their votes at the last minute in an attempt to embarrass the Democratic leadership, who is not keen on seeing further action on the impeachment resolution.
"Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes --- to kill the resolution --- to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal," reports the Washington Post.
At one point there were 290 votes to table. After the turnaround, the final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against it. ... Democrats countered by offering a motion to refer the proposal to the House Judiciary Committee for further study, effectively preventing a debate on the House floor. That motion passed by a largely party-line vote of 218-194.
So, in trying to summarize: While the Democratic House Leadership had initially tried to table Kucinich's resolution to Impeach Dick Cheney, the Republicans voted against that, presumably after making some sort of calculation (an incorrect one, in our opinion, but it's just our opinion) that a debate on whether he should be Impeached would somehow benefit Republicans. They would seem to share that calculation with the Democratic House leadership.
The effort to table discussion of the matter, thus failed. But Hoyer's next attempt to dispatch with the measure (for the moment) was his call for a vote to send the matter to Committee for further considering, instead of debating it on the floor of the House.
Which, if we've got our analytics correct here, means the ball gets tossed over to HJC Chairman, John Conyers for now...
UPDATE: Statement just in from a U.S. House Judiciary Committee spokeswoman, in response to the referal of the Impeachment resolution to the committee...
"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."
Letter Calling for Action Sent to Constituents After Kucinich Resolution to Impeach Cheney is Referred to Committee
Says 'Vice President Cheney must answer for his deceptive actions in office'
As reported in full[1] by David Swanson, in the wake of yesterday's wild ride (and game of chicken[2]) on the House floor concerning the privileged resolution filed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), calling for the Impeachment of Dick Cheney.
The following is from a letter sent to constituents today by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, where the matter has been sent again. Wexler is calling for the committee "to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months."...
I share your belief that Vice President Cheney must answer for his deceptive actions in office, particularly with regard to the preparations for the Iraq war and the revelation of the identity of covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson as part of political retribution against her husband. That is why I voted against the motion to table debate on H.Res. 333. Along with only 85 other Democrats, I opposed tabling the measure and supported beginning immediate debate and a vote on the Cheney impeachment resolution. The vote on tabling the Kucinich resolution was rejected, and the House subsequently voted to refer the matter to the Judiciary Committee. ... The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we bring begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration; and, if it is determined in these hearings that Vice President Cheney has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors, he should be impeached and removed from office.
Kucinich 'seriously thinking' about forcing vote on Cheney impeachment
Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he is so concerned about what he sees as the Bush administration's push for a war with Iran that he is considering using a parliamentary measure to force the House of Representatives to vote on impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney.
"We're preparing for another war, and they're going to destroy America," the Ohio Democrat said Thursday on the Ed Schultz show. "We have a government in place right now that has to be challenged. I'm seriously thinking about calling a privileged resolution on impeachment of the vice president and forcing a vote on the floor of the House."
A privileged resolution would force the full House to debate about whether to proceed with impeachment, but it remains unclear precisely how, when or whether Kucinich would be able to introduce such a resolution. Privileged measures "may be called up on the floor whenever another measure is not already pending" and the House agrees to consider it, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Privileged measures can include questions of House privileges or resolutions of inquiry, according to the CRS report.
A conservative site set up to push for former President Bill Clinton's impeachment lays out a strategy to bring such a measure to the House floor.
"According to Jerome Zeifman, however, it is possible that such a resolution could be called up for an immediate vote," the Conservative Caucus site observes. "But that option appears to be within the control of the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who took control after last year's Democratic takeover of Congress, maintained that impeachment is "off the table" as recently as this week in an interview with CNN.
Kucinich introduced a resolution calling for Cheney's impeachment this spring. Since then the bill has gained more than a dozen co-sponsors, but it seems to be dying a slow death in the House Judiciary Committee. It's chairman, John Conyers, has stood with Pelosi in refusing to debate the impeachment resolution or bring it to the House floor for a vote.
A Kucinich spokeswoman declined to comment when contacted by RAW STORY. An official in the House Parliamentarian's office did not return a call seeking comment.
The following audio clip is from The Ed Schultz Show, broadcast on September 27.
13 State Democratic Parties Demand Impeachment By David Swanson (1 comments) Thirteen state Democratic parties have now passed resolutions demanding impeachment, nine of them since Nancy Pelosi ordered the Democratic Party away from impeachment.
The Detroit City Council, led by Monica Conyers, wife of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), today unanimously passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the US House of Representatives.
Detroit joins a growing list of cities, and the state of Vermont, which have passed resolutions urging the impeachment of the president and vice president.
The full text of the bill the Detroit City Council passed follows:
Resolution to Impeach President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard B. Cheney Introduced by Council President Pro Tempore Monica Conyers and Council Member JoAnn Watson
Passed in the Name of the Full Council, Wednesday, May 16, 2007
WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and
WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"; and
WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law; and
WHEREAS, In all of this George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the City of Detroit and of the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, Petitions from the country at large may be presented by the Speaker of the House according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII;
Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;
Be it resolved further by the City of Detroit, that our senators and representatives in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of the George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from such office.
Be it resolved further, that the Clerk of the City of Detroit be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, under the seal of the City of Detroit, a copy of this resolution and its adoption by the City of Detroit, as a petition, and request that this petition be delivered to the Office of the Clerk and entered in the United States Congressional Journal. The copies shall be marked with the word "Petition" at the top of the document and contain the original authorizing signature of the City Clerk, Janice M. Winfrey. #
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has famously stated that impeachment proceedings against President Bush or Vice President Cheney are "off the table," many activists feel that the tide is beginning to turn.
For a previous report on this past weekend's California Democratic Convention in San Diego, RAW STORY obtained responses about impeachment directly from Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and 2008 candidates New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel. A blogger present at the convention also helped pose the question to Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (full article at this link).
While Gravel indicated that impeachment "will come, in due course," Dodd told RAW STORY that having "been down that road" before with former President Clinton, he believes that "[i]t sucks all of the oxygen out of the air.”
However, on Sunday, April 29, California delegates and state party members sent a powerful message to Pelosi and Congressional Democrats. “In a resolution affirmed by the full state party convention Sunday, the Democrats called on the U.S. Congress to use its subpoena power to investigate misdeeds of President Bush and Vice President Cheney – and to hold the Administration accountable 'with appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment,'" a letter to Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) members obtained by RAW STORY states.
The letter continues, "The delegate insurgency was coordinated by Progressive Democrats of America and its allies. While Speaker Pelosi had declared impeachment 'off the table,' the Democratic Party rank-and-file has demonstrated its commitment to putting the issue 'on' the table. And it's no longer just the rank-and-file: Even among the members of the convention's Resolutions Committee (appointed by the California Party chair), the impeachment resolution was the top vote-getter (tied with one other resolution).” (Read the full resolution text here)
Protesters inside and outside the convention also sent a message to Presidential aspirants and Speaker Pelosi. An estimated 200 impeachment supporters lined both sides of the street outside the convention center on Saturday in anticipation of Pelosi’s arrival. Demonstrators were barred from entering the building, but PDA members inside posted prominent impeachment banners and wore bright orange shirts urging impeachment.
Protesters also staged an “Impeach on the Beach” activity at nearby Torrey Pines, but cloud cover prevented an airplane from flying over to photograph the message spelled out with 250 human bodies.
“One third of those were Move On members,” said Will McRae, MoveOn coordinator for San Diego County. “For MoveOn to pretend impeachment isn’t on the table is the same as Pelosi. They need to put it on their website [for a vote]. We owe it to our members.”
DFA head: "More on the table than people think"
Jim Dean, head of Democracy for America and brother of Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, said he understands the reluctance of Pelosi to lead Congress into impeachment proceedings during her first 100 days in office. “We took control of Congress because people are fed up and want us to get things done,” he observed, adding that impeachment proceedings would bog down Congress.
But he noted, “Just letting these guys off is setting a bad precedent.” Asked about the prospect of impeachment, he observed, “I think it’s more on the table than people think.”
PDA president Tim Carpenter called passage of the impeachment resolution by California delegates “the culmination of one month of effort by PDA to put the issue of investigating, accountability and impeachment” on the table. “I’m a California native and an elected central committee member,” added Carpenter, who made “a lot of cell phone calls” to win support for the measure.
On Saturday, Carpenter revealed, he met with Pelosi. “I think the fact that she met with us shows she is a listener,” he said, but he added, “We agreed to disagree.”
Impeachment is a constitutional imperative, he believes. “If we don’t begin to talk about impeachment, the next president will be allowed to torture, do wiretapping, lying, and engage in manipulation of everything in signing statements,” the PDA leader predicted.
At a dinner honoring Pelosi Saturday evening, pro-impeachment activists slipped elegant placecards onto each place at the table. The cards read:
Remember, we’re are the deciders. Impeachment is on the table. Investigate and impeach Cheney and Bush!
Secret Service agents blocked Jeeni Criscenzo, the endorsed Democratic Congressional candidate who ran against Darrell Issa, from unfurling a banner at the dinner which read:
Impeach Bush-Cheney Now No Attack on Iran!
“Where is our freedom?” asked Criscenzo. “Thousands of people have signed this banner and they won’t let us present it to the Speaker quietly and respectfully.” Criscenzo added that she “might just go to Washington for Mother’s Day” to try and present the banner to Pelosi.
If you care about America and your lives, your future, your planet, your rights, this is the place to be. This is the real news from the real world.
Share the Progressive message.
Wasn't able to follow things live, as 
As 
Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he is so concerned about what he sees as the Bush administration's push for a war with Iran that he is considering using a parliamentary measure to force the House of Representatives to vote on impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney.
The fact that this has received absolutely no press is an idication that the the fascists have taken over the news media. The media is owned by the military industrial complex. They would be non-stop 24/7 if it was a preacher saying something controversial or if the republicans were telling some lie about something sexual. It is a disgrace to what the fourth estate was meant to be.