portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements oregon & cascadia

actions & protests | imperialism & war


"Well either you are with us or against us"
Well like in Olympia lets make all of Cascadia impeach these bastards! And if the Amerikan Fascists do not get it then SECEDE!

Well the expansionist president James K Polk partitioned and annexed the Old Oregon Country with his election slogan "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" well lets now re-unite the bioregion with a new slogan "IMPEACHMENT or SECESSION!"

homepage: homepage: http://republic-of-cascadia.tripod.com/

"lets all impeach the president" 15.Nov.2006 15:15

Neil Young

DIY Impeachment
Wednesday 15 November @ 13:39:14by JAYE BELDO

In a recent interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made a disheartening, point-blank statement to the effect that the impeachment of George W. Bush is "a waste of time" and is "off the table." She then said of the Republican Party that "making them lame ducks is good enough for me." Also jumping on the Pelosi bandwagon is Congressman John Conyers, who mysteriously deleted from his website the very long report called "The Constitution in Crisis" describing grounds for the impeachment of the President. Sad to say, it appears that the majority of Democrats will do a similar 180-degree flip-flop and proceed with the "business as usual" policies in Washington, D.C.

Fortunately, there is an alternative for We the People in the form of a little known clause found within what is called Jefferson's Manual.

Impeach For Peace, a Minneapolis based organization is making it easier for citizens to take the actions necessary to initiate impeachment proceedings themselves. The following is from the Impeach For Peace website:

"Jefferson's Manual is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each Congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy.

"The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House."

By simply going to their website and downloading the Do-It-Yourself Impeachment PDF file and following the instructions, we can send a clear message to Nancy Pelosi, Conyers and many others that Bush must be removed from office prior to taking any other action to restore democracy in the U.S. If enough of us take action and pressure our elected representatives to proceed with impeachment, the permanent removal of Bush may very well become a reality.

I found the whole DIY Impeachment process quite easy. After printing out the petition and instructions (it is only four pages long) on the PDF file I downloaded, I was able to write my letter to Nancy Pelosi in a matter of minutes, simply by filling in my name, signing and dating it. Once mailed to Pelosi, the petitions will then be submitted for review by the House Judiciary Committee. There are also instructions to send the letter again on Jan. 15, 2007. Surely if enough of us proceed with this, a noticeable impact will indeed be made and the contempt that politicians are showing for U.S. citizens duly checked. For those of us who are time challenged, the cover letter and petition require no notarization whatsoever, although that is an option if you'd like to make it more official looking.

The Impeach for Peace folks also include additional information on how we can spread the word to others primarily through e-mailing links to their site, posting messages on various blogs as well as sending additional copies of the Do-It-Yourself Impeachment Memorial to other members of the House of Representatives. Needless to say, they also provide ample evidence for the crimes that Bush has committed and the justification for impeachment. Their website also includes the pros and cons of proceeding with impeachment, FAQs and links to other citizen-friendly websites. If exercising our rights in a democratic country such as ours is this easy, perhaps a revolution will ensue and the government by the worst of men now controlling things will be thrown out once and for all. ||

For more information on Impeach For Peace, go to:  http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

Maybe we should impeach Cheney first
Wednesday 15 November @ 13:39:04

The Democrats should investigate crimes of the Bush Administration, despite Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's desire not to. If the Democrats fail to uphold their constitutional duties of oversight, they will be accessories to those crimes.

The Democrats should impeach Vice President Dick Cheney for his role in arranging private contracts on the redevelopment in Iraq. The former CEO of Halliburton arranged billions in no-bid contracts for his former employer. If Cheney were brought down it would paralyze the White House. Once the crimes are exposed there would be a tsunami in the next election.

No one else has specfically pushed "Impeach Cheney." Ramsey Clark has been promoting the impeachment of Bush through full page advertising. Pelosi, Ried and Howard Dean on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart said they are not going to impeach Bush.You cannot impeach them both at the same time. We do not want to impeach Bush first to let Cheney take control. Ten days ago Bush said he had complete confidence in Cheney and Rumsfeld and expected them to stay on to the end of his administration. That was a strange statement. Rumsfeld is already gone. Cheney was elected so you would expect him to stay on. I smell blood. John Conyers supports impeachment and is slated to head the Judiciary Committee. No one likes Cheney. It's the perfect strategy. I actually think he might just quit before being asked questions about no-bid contracts for Halliburton, his former chief of staff leaking the identity of a CIA agent, his meeting with energy companies to manipulate prices, manipulating intelligence to get us into this war and many other crimes. There will not be a major political realignment like there was in 1974 after Nixon's resignation without an impeachment level investigation. If the Democrats refuse to investigate criminal conduct and cover things up, then they will be accessories to the crime. It is a matter of their constitutional duty. We cannot let the Democrats get away with not pursuing a criminal investigation. This is the time to put a whole lot of pressure on them to impeach Cheney, end the war, repeal the Patriot Act and recall Bolton from the U.N., just to name a few. ||

New Faces, Same Agenda

Stephen Lendman

Monday, 13 November 2006
by Stephen Lendman

The political firmament shook briefly post-November 7 raising hopes change would follow the Republican's drubbing at the polls and the Democrats regaining control of both houses of Congress for the first time since the GOP sweep in 1994. Presumed new House speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped the tremors making it clear no substantive change will be on the table when when the 110th Congress convenes on January 3. Instead, she announced to those paying attention it'll be business as usual (as it always is) as she intends to work with the president in a spirit of bipartisanship and not be "obstructionist" even though Republicans for past 12 years never returned that courtesy or even made a pretense of doing it.

Pelosi made it clear the Democrat victory will be just another betrayal of the electorate that sent her and the Democrats a strong message it voted for a mandated populist anti-Bush, anti-war agenda it won't get. It's always for the same reason - because those controlling the political process in Washington owe their allegiance to the interests of wealth and power that select and fund them and of which these officials are a part. The Democrat (anti-populist) Leadership Council (DLC) made that position clear when it participated in a November 10 post-election made-for-television spectacle in the Oval Office so the whole world could watch their new congressional leadership line up in a shameless public display of partnering with a criminal enterprise in the White House posing as a legitimate government they've been complicit with all along. Should anyone understanding how things work in Washington have expected anything else?

Politics 101, Washington-style teaches that nothing can be taken on its face, campaign promises are empty and disingenuous, and in the nation's Capitol the criminal class is bipartisan. Pelosi, whose background is one of privilege and not populism, and her leadership collaborators plan on business as usual come January. They intend taking full advantage of their newly empowered status to grab a bigger piece of the political pie without sharing any of it with their constituents beyond a few crumbs that exclude the most important things people voted for - ending the Iraq and Afghan wars of aggression and bringing US forces home, impeaching Bush and Cheney, addressing critically needed social services like health care and public education Republican and DLC Democrat rule have ignored and allowed to deteriorate, restoring our civil liberties, finding and prosecuting everyone involved in the cesspool of rampant endemic corporate and government corruption both parties allowed to go on and that only a few have had to answer for - and that's just for starters.

What about restoring constitutional democracy and the rule of law complete with checks and balances, the separation of powers and our elected officials held accountable to the public for all their actions and made to face the music when they betray the public trust. What about ending the privatization of the most fundamental element of a democratic process and returning control of it to the people - the electoral process (now corporate run and corrupted) that can only be fair under a system of verifiable paper ballots counted by hand by civil servants unconnected to either party or the corporatocracy that funds and owns them. What about allowing real alternative party candidates the right to run under a system of proportional representation and break the monopoly of a corrupted two-party, winner take all system. What about that and a lot more that a real democracy demands, and the sham one we now have won't allow.

Post-election, we're light years from any of that which was confirmed when the other newly empowered Democrats were also quick to show their shameless deference publicly. They, too, had their Oval Office moment, genuflected obediently for the cameras while there, and pledged their fealty to an unindicted war criminal who's done more harm to the core principles of the country and the welfare of everyone around the world (other than the elitists like themselves) than any former president since Richard Nixon who was forced from office in disgrace. Expect little chance of that for George Bush if the Democrats' disgraceful display of servility indicates what's ahead, which it does unless people wake up and demand the accountability everyone deserves.

New Senate majority whip Richard Durbin showed the public what it's up against. He expressed the victor's spirit of conciliation and complicity saying both sides spoke of "moving forward on an agenda, finding things that we can agree on to start off on the right foot." Incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid was even clearer than the Illinois senator saying "The only way to move forward is with bipartisanship and openness, and to get some results....and that's what we're going to do." And the man the Wall Street Journal calls "the architect of the Democrats' Senate win," New York Senator and Senator to Tel Aviv Charles Schumer, said in a November 11 Journal interview "If we are seen as just blocking the president, it will not serve us well in 2008."

With acts of this kind of obeisance, any hope the 110th congress will address the key issues people voted for and demand faded like a late autumn sunset. For one thing, Nancy Pelosi said any notion of following through on what a growing majority of the public wants is off the table - impeaching George Bush (87% of participants in an MSNBC online poll still in progress said "yes" to impeachment). Pre-election, incoming House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers said that would be a priority for him, but on November 10 he reneged saying "The incoming speaker has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."

The public needs to remind Mr. Conyers how he laid out the grounds for impeachment last December in a detailed 350 page report titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-Ups in the Iraq War" and later updated it to include "illegal domestic surveillance." Now the Michigan Democrat, just reelected to a 22nd term by his constituents, can do no better than say "To be sure, I have substantial concerns about the way this administration has abused its authority, but impeachment would not be good for the American people." Is he saying war crimes, crimes against humanity and the destruction of a democratic republic gone unpunished are good for the people?

In the past, Conyers had a record of being one of the few in Washington remembering who elected him and supporting their interests. What is this man now thinking in backing off on a crucially important issue with mass public support, and why after over 40 years in the Congress is he willing to renege on his word on a fundamental matter needing resolution before the country can move on? Mr. Conyers has the power to end our "long national nightmare" that will go on unless he does the job the public demands of him - and if he won't, he needs to step aside and let someone else do it.

Just last May in a Washington Post op-ed piece, the Michigan congressman had a different view than now saying a new Congress needs to get answers about whether the "intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war (and if) high-ranking (administration) officials approved the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees." If evidence was found, he indicated these would be potentially impeachable offenses and left no doubt he believes the constitutional law of the land is sacred, and if the president of the United States violated it he must be forced to answer for it like anyone else.

He did violate it, and there's plenty of evidence found to prove it. So why did John Conyers decide not to follow through on the evidence he found as he promised to do. The public needs to remind the congressman of the oath he took and the word he gave and demand he reverse his statement and chalk it up to a case of temporary bad judgment. He'll be forgiven if he does, but damned if not. It now remains to be seen if he's man enough to see his error, say he's ready to do the job he said he would, and be willing to fulfill the public trust with the power entrusted in him.

Conyers has all the evidence he needs in The Downing Street (Memo) Minutes mentioned above and in the title of his report. It refers to the secret 2002 Washington meeting of high level US and British officials when the intelligence claiming justification for the 2003 Iraq war was cooked to fit the policy already decided on by the Bush administration and is clearly stated in so many words. It was smoking gun evidence the president and his close advisors lied to the public to make their fraudulent case for the Iraq war. It had nothing to do with the falsified justification given for it, and that alone is grounds enough for initiating impeachment proceedings.

One of the war-planning co-conspirators practically admitted his guilt when Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld and now World Bank president, later gave an interview in Singapore and was asked publicly how it was he and others in Washington decided on WMDs as the reason to go to war. He answered "it was the only thing we all could agree on."

The new Democrat leadership apparently didn't hear him or bother to read the Downing Street Memo. It also fails to grasp that if Bill Clinton could be nonsensically impeached for lying in a sworn deposition about his sexual proclivities, the present incumbent deserves at least as much for going to war based on lies and murdering 655,000 or more Iraqis and counting plus the many thousands of Americans killed, wounded and to be affected by the war for the rest of their lives along with their families. He and his spurned Republican allies also need to be held to account for six years of wanton abuses of the public trust in all aspects of their agenda from hell still ongoing and unaddressed.

The list is endless and includes waging two illegal wars of naked aggression to supporting and funding the two illegal ones Israel waged over the summer with one still raging below the radar that's murdering defenseless Palestinians daily and that no one is acting to stop. It includes waging war on the public at home, dismantling or ending essentially needed social services, endangering the economy by a policy of reckless spending, destroying our civil liberties and seizing absolute state control through a power-grab coup d'etat the Democrats supported by their votes in the Congress or silence when they could have acted to thwart it with strong public support backing them.

On November 7, the public expressed a powerful sentiment of anger and disgust against a rogue criminal administration, demanding accountability from those they voted for and big change going forward. They won out in spite of already uncovered massive Republican- manipulated voter fraud (again) that was unable to contain the torrent of resentment too great to overcome. In drubbing the Republican congress that Tuesday, voters sent a message they want a new direction that reverses all the harm done by the current one. So far, it hasn't gotten through and unless repeated on the streets, through the mail, in town meetings, on the phone, in emails and all the other ways voters reach their officials, it'll again be ignored by the Democrat leadership, who, like their counterparts, never get it until they awaken the day after and realize they just lost their jobs.

The DLC is already actively collaborating behind the scenes to continue the conflict in Iraq by signing on to whatever altered tactical plan the Baker Commission proposes and is soon to release. Should we have expected anything else from a party that marched shamelessly in lockstep with a Republican administration beginning with Al Gore's pathetic refusal to fight for the office he won in 2000, choosing instead to surrender it meekly to George Bush's Supreme Court appointment as did John Kerry four years later in his show of insouciance in an election even more fraud-laden than the one in 2000. It hardly matters under a system author and political critic Gore Vidal calls our one party state ruled by the Property Party with two wings in a plutocracy, with scarcely a dime's worth of difference between them.

The public is slow reacting and is still hypnotized and basking in the deceptive afterglow of post-election hoopla to realize they've been had again. Instead of celebrating victory unconsummated, what's needed is follow-through to press the demands that will remain unaddressed waiting around for a new bunch of politicos to act on them. Nothing will change in Washington until people understand that bringing in a new set of bums replacing the old ones only guarantees more of the same unless they press their advantage in a very visible and vocal way beyond the voting booth.

Otherwise, the only change guaranteed ahead is none at all, and all they'll have to look forward to is the next electoral round in 2008 when the same charade of a democratic process is repeated on the false pretense it will matter more then than it does now. You'd have thought after 12 years in the political wilderness, enough newly inspired Democrats and some of its leaders would have been as aroused as were the revolutionary Republicans with their Contract with America in 1994 that helped them sweep the mid-term elections that year with a promise to "bring to the floor the (ten) bills, each to be given a full and open debate....and fair vote....and be available for public inspection." They delivered as promised, but it was a scam calling for government reform Clinton DLC Democrats went along with and voters fell for not realizing the GOP agenda meant tax cuts for the rich and corporate giants, a dismantling of tort and welfare protection, and cuts in social programs and bedrock social security protection mostly affecting those most in need of them.

So where do we stand now that the celebratory dust has settled and the cold light of another day has dawned. Washington is still enveloped in a Kafkaesque shroud of hellish strangulation combining illegal foreign wars with domestic repression and neglect along with a guarantee nothing substantive will change beyond a few feel-good bits of tinkering around the edges to fool the public again a new agenda arrived and all is well in the world. The reality is all is hell in the world, and the DLC Democrats intend to continue conspiring with a criminal administration to keep it that way - at least as long as people allow them to get away with it.

Hope springs eternal and eventually there may be a public awakening that the same criminal element is in charge, little has changed nor will it without action outside the voting booth, the illegal Iraq and Afghanistan killing machines go on without end as do the appropriations for them about to get another obscene supplemental off-the-books $160 billion wasted-on-war tranche of funding diverting desperately needed revenue away from critically neglected social programs Democrats allowed Republicans to slash and burn and now aren't even considering for restoration.

The specter of Patriot Act I and the covertly proposed and stealth piecemeal enacted Patriot II (total police state takeover) Act remain in force as do the just passed Military Commissions Act and revision of the Insurrection Act that makes everyone including US citizens an "enemy combatant" unprotected by habeas or due process and allows the president the right to send "jackboots" to the streets to enforce whatever he says is the law and against anyone he claims without evidence is a threat to national security - aka a terrorist.

That combined with a president claiming the dictatorial right of a "unitary executive" allowing himself, on his self-authorization, to go around the Constitution, Congress and courts in the "interest" of "national security" has transformed a country Lincoln said "was conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal (in a) "government of the people, by the people, (and) for the people into a fascist dictatorship the Democrat leadership is very comfortable with and has no intention of challenging - as long as they're cut in on the spoils which they'll now get a bigger piece of.

These are the same "Democrats" who pledge allegiance to Thomas Jefferson who abhored war calling it the "greatest scourge of mankind....(swore) eternal hostility against every form of tryanny....(explained) All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent....(and said) Every generation needs a new revolution (to reinvent itself and expunge the sins of the past one)."

If Jefferson were with us now, he'd tell us the sins of the past generation are so enormous and out-of-control and so endanger the republic, at best on life support and fading fast, that never before in the country's history than now is the mother of all revolutions he spoke of needed. The political class in Washington won't respond to his call or even want us to know about it, and it's up to the public to deliver the message in a way those in power can't ignore.

Jefferson would approve explaining how important it is to keep "the spirit of resistence....alive....(that) timid men prefer the calm of despotism....(and that everyone has) certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson also knew what Ben Franklin meant when he said at the Constitution's birth that we have a Republic if we can keep it. He also knew that if lost, it's for the public to reclaim it from those who took it. It's high time to try. Jefferson and Franklin would approve.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at  lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Impeach the President; an informative Essay
This is a paper I wrote for my Political Science course. You should all read it, it's very informative...
Oh, and just so you know, a lot of the quotes (" ") won't show up for some odd reason. Hopefully that doesn't get too confusing for you.

If this were a Dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier; just so long as I am the Dictator. This is not a quote that the American public would generally expect to hear from theyre President. However, on December 18, 2000 President George W. Bush proceeded to say that exact sentence on national television and in Business Week on July 30, 2001 he was quoted, A Dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, theres no question about it. (www.newsgateway.ca, 1) Bush has repeatedly abused his power as Commander in chief in many ways including attacking and taking over two countries without U.N. approval, shattering the record for the biggest annual deficit in history, cutting unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any U.S. President in history, dissolving more international treaties than any U.S. President in history, setting the all time record for the biggest annual budget-spending increases and he was the first U.S. President in history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board. The people of the United States of America are supposed to be able to trust their President to make the right decision such as who to elect for the Supreme Court, after all, Nominations to the Court may be a presidents most important legacy to the nation. (Chapter 13, 466) George Bush, however, has nominated people with old-fashioned values such as Alito. Over the past six years, President Bush has proven to the American public and the rest of the world through his words and actions that he believes he is not only above telling the truth, but above obeying the law as well. He is abusing his power and has been misleading the American public since the election in 2000 and therefore should be impeached. From the very beginning, George Bush thought himself to be above the truth and the law. He has been arrested at least three times. His first arrest was for theft at a hotel, his second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game, and his third arrest was for a very dangerous and serious crime; drunk driving. As Michael Moore says, This is not just some simple traffic ticket. I don't want to hear one word comparing this drunk driving conviction to Clinton's transgressions. Lying about consensual sex you had with another adult is NOT the same as getting behind the wheel of a car when you are drunk and endangering the lives of others (including the life of your own sister, Mr. Bush, who was in the car with you that night). (www.michaelmoore.com, 1) Bush has lied about spending anytime in jail as well. Hes insisted, I didnt spend time in jail. (www.pearly-abraham.tripod.com, 1) Later that night a local officer told a reporter that Bush was in fact arrested, handcuffed, taken to the station and held in custody for at least an hour. He obviously knows that what he did was wrong because in 1995 he changed his drivers license number for the reason that in Texas youre criminal record is attached to the number. This drinking problem wasnt merely a stage in his youth, either. When George Bush was arrested for drunk driving he was in his thirties. Apparently alcohol isnt the only substance George Bush has abused, however. According the The Wilderness Newsletter, LAPD whistleblower Michael C. Ruppert, the Drug Enforcement Agency has in its possession a video of George W. Bush and Jeb Bush flying in to an Airport outside of Miami, Florida to pick up a couple of kilos of powder for a party. (www.umsl.edu, 1) When it comes to his actual presidency, George Bush was never truly elected in the first place. In the infamous election of 2000, AL Gore was rightly elected the President of the United States of America. As Barry Gray wrote in one of his articles on the World Socialist Web Site, Since Al Gore's December 13 concession speech, Texas Governor George W. Bush has been given the title president-elect. This is the term traditionally accorded to the individual who is elected by the voters. In this case, however, the designation is entirely inappropriate. The Republican candidate did not gain the presidency as a result of a popular mandate. Not only did Bush lose the popular vote nationally, he would have lost the popular vote in Florida had not five US Supreme Court justices intervened to overturn an order of the Florida high court and stop the counting of votes in that pivotal state. Bush was not elected president, he was selected by judicial fiat. He should, by rights, be called the president-select. The Electoral College is becoming outdated and Many...political scientists oppose its continued use, as do most voters. (Chapter 8, 290) (www.wsws.org, 1) Fortunately for those that did vote for him, George Bush wasnt upset at the seemingly low poll numbers. In his own intelligent words, A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls. (www.mindfully.org, 1) Once he was officially President, Bush has a horrific first year in office. On the day of his inauguration, his Chief of Staff issued a sixty-day moratorium halting all new health, safety, and environmental regulations issued in the final days of the Clinton Administration. Some of his other first-year accomplishments include cutting funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars by 28Ŕblocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons, cut $15.7 million designated for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect, proposed a $2 trillion tax cut (43% would go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans), canceled the 2004 deadline for auto makers to come out with prototype high mileage cars, nominated Terrance Boyle (who is against civil rights) to a federal judgeship, and cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million. Also, despite his wife being a former elementary school librarian, he cut federal spending in libraries by $39 million. Bush claims to value our childrens education, however. One of his more famous quotes is the statement; Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning? (www.whitehouse.gov, 1) His No Child Left Behind Act had many negative responses, however. As Robin Ann Martin, PhD says, Explaining to parents that some children may learn x, y, and z when they are 6 or 7, and others when they are 8 or 9, because not all children learn in the same way, becomes ever more difficult when the national government is creating standards that demand all children should learn x, y, and z by grade 3, and q, r, and s by grade 4, and t, u, and v by grade 5. Despite how terrible these accomplishments may seem, George Bushs first year was only a very small taste of the disastrous decisions that he would make later in his presidency. According to Orb Standard World News, there are four main reasons to impeach George Bush, the first being that the invasion of Iraq is illegal according to the laws of the United States Constitution and the United Nations Charter. This means that the United States Government should legally be held liable for all deaths, but not just of our own citizens. This includes British citizens and Iraqi citizens as well, and any property damage resulting from this unnecessary attack. When our country initially went to war, George Bush claimed it was because of known Weapons of Mass Destruction and he used this to scare the American public by claiming that they would be used against us and our allies. On October 28, 2002 George Bush said in a speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Wing and Space Museum in Denver, "It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them." (www.rotten.com, 2) His speeches about the war became very repetitive and sent the same threatening message of fear into American homes. The news should mirror reality... (Chapter 6, 220) and in these cases it didnt and this was causing America to receive the wrong message. On November 2, 2002 he said "He's a threat to America, he's a threat to our close friends and allies. He's a man who has said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them... Not only does he have weapons of mass destruction, but, incredibly enough, he has used weapons of mass destruction." (www.rotten.com, 2) He then repeated himself a mere twenty-four hours later when he claimed, "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He's a threat to our friends. He's a man who said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them. He's a man that not only has weapons of mass destruction, he's used them." (www.rotten.com, 2) This was later proven to be false, however. There was no evidence that Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction or that he planned to use some. The President of the United States of America lied to his people, and not only did he lie but he lied about the lost lives of our sons and daughters and friends and mothers and fathers. The fact of the matter is that PNAC (Project for the New American Century, a small, right wing organization) had been planning the invasion for many years. The members of the PNAC hold the most powerful positions in the current administration and other highly prominent political offices. This is clearly revealed by the Secret Downing Street Memo (a private meeting held July 23, 2002 with the Prime Minister to discuss Iraq) as well as the information that our intervention of Iraq was planned as early as July 2002 and the intelligence and facts were being fixed around that policy. (www.thefourreasons.org, 1) An unidentified Lance Corporal in the Marines is quoted as saying, Bush is a rich bully. The US has no legal right to be here. Probably Saddam would have sold chemical weapons to somebody some day and then the US would have been right to invade, but now this is the first free democratic country ever to occupy another without good reason." (www.theage.com, 1)The second reason is that not only is George Bush a convicted criminal, but many people in his administration are as well. In June of 2005, The World Tribunal on Iraq held a session in Istanbul and declared the Bush Administration guilty of starting a War of Aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity as stated in their Declaration of Jury Conscience. They arent the only people to come to the conclusion that the Bush Administration is guilty of war crimes, however. Others include a War Crimes Tribunal held in New York City on April 26, 2004, The International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan and The Brussels Tribunal. Some of the convicted war crimes include attacks on culture, illegal weapons, kidnapping and torture, crimes against humanity, attacks on civil liberties, global war crimes, and beginning a war of aggression. An organization called People Judge Bush states, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and many other right wing zealots in the U.S. government have conspired to wage an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, kidnap and torture civilians around the world, attack civilians and medical facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. These crimes violate U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution, The Hague and Geneva conventions and other treaties and conventions. (www.peoplejudgebush.org, 1) The HRW released an article that stated that there have been, ...hundreds of allegations of detainee abuse and torture occurring since late 2001 allegations implicating more than 600 U.S. military and civilian personnel and involving more than 460 detainees. (www.hrw.org, 2) These are convictions of actual torture! Fortunately there are organizations like People Judge Bush whom have sections of their web sites dedicated to accepting donations to make the case of the Bush Administrations war crimes known to any American citizens that are still ignorant to this issue.
The third reason is that there is no distinction or separation between the current administration and those who control the means of production, the means of communication, and the military-industrial complex. There are many individuals that will unquestionably profit from the current war in Iraq and any other wars being planned by the PNAC. People such as the Carlyle Group (which is made up of Washington Insiders and former World Leaders) are making millions because of the War on Terror. They dont seem to care about the countless lives that are being lost, however. They also include our Presidents mother, Former First Lady Barbara Bush, who on national television stated, Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Its not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? (www.snopes.com, 1) According to an Anti-War organization, the estimated American casualties resulting from the War on Terror could surpass a whopping 48,100 people. 48,100 lives lost for what? Imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction that only George Bush can see? The fourth reason calling for George Bushs impeachment is that the American public is involuntarily paying for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the killing of tens of thousands of blameless people in foreign lands in the name of God, Freedom, and Democracy. Not only are American citizens unwillingly paying for the war, but as theyre paying for it elected (and some elected) officials continue to pass extreme legislation taking away their rights and controlling what they are allowed to hear and what they arent allowed to hear. Much of the information that is kept from the public is more lies that the Bush Administration is trying to cover up. Or scandals such as the illegal wire-tapping where the Bush Administration went against the American citizens right to privacy and monitored all international calls without permission or approval. Bush himself claims that he was justified in his illegal wiretaps because he was only doing it for the good of our citizens and the safety of our country, but as pointed out by Impeach Bush Television, The FISA court routinely approves warrants for suspected terrorists or al Qaeda members. Why would they not approve what Bush asked for if he wanted to monitor a suspected terrorist? (www.impeachbush.tv, 1)There are many arguments against Bushs impeachment. One of them being that Bush himself was mislead by faulty information in Iraq. In all actuality, Bush was told about intelligence in Iraq long before he talked about it any of his speeches. He also set up WHIG (the White House Iraq Group) to form public opinions on Iraq, and a team at the Pentagon called the Office of Special plans whose function was to distort information to justify going to war. Also, many claim that Bush himself is against torture and that Abu Ghraib was just some soldiers that out of control. (www.impeachbush.tv, 2) However, George Bush worked with Alberto Gonzalez to develop policies that permitted torture and he fought hard against John McCains attempt to pass anti-torture laws. Others merely claim that as American citizens we should not be criticizing the President at a time of war. On the other hand, as American citizens we have the right to a freedom of speech and we can say whatever we darn well please because regardless of how badly certain individuals would like it to be, the Constitution is not suspended during a time of war. The First Amendment clearly protects our four great liberties as American citizens, ...freedom of the press, of speech, of religion, and of assembly. (Chapter 4, 102) As for the hopeless individuals that are ready to give up because they say that it is worthless trying to impeach him as we currently have a Republican-run Congress, Democrats and Independents are not the only people calling for his Impeachment, in fact Relatively few people have ideologies that organize their political beliefs...(Chapter 5, 189). Many Republicans are pushing for Bushs impeachment as well because they believe that he is hurting them politically. Many people merely say that if George Bush was removed from office it would be just as bad to have Dick Cheney as our President (after all, he has shot an old man in the face). Nonetheless, Cheney has advised the president on a wide range of issues... (Chapter 11, 380) and it would be almost impossible to investigate George Bush and not turn and investigate his right hand man as well. When you get right down to it, Bush has lied to his public. Ideally, in a democracy candidates should say what they mean to if elected and, once they are elected, should be able to do what they promised. (Chapter 7, 251) As the President of the United States of America, George Bush has broken many promises hes made to his people and lied about many of his actions.In conclusion, President George W. Bush should be impeached. All the evidence is against him and there is no reason to keep him in office for any longer. The majority of the American public agrees, including war veterans such as Christopher H. Sheppard who is a former Marine Captain that served two tours of duty in Iraq. In the Seattle Times he wrote, I now know I wrongfully placed my faith and trust in a presidential administration hopelessly mired in incompetence, hubris and a lack of accountability. (www.seattletimes.com, 1) Joseph DeRocher, a veteran and former Public Defendant of Floridas Ninth Judicial Circuit actually sent back the medals and bars he earned from serving our nation as a commissioned officer and a helicopter pilot in the U.S. Navy. He wrote, ...to remain silent is to let you think I approve or support your actions. I do not. So, I am saddened to give up my wings and bars. They were hard won and my parents and wife were as proud as I was when I earned them over forty years ago. But I hate the torture and death you have caused more than I value their symbolism. Giving them up makes me cry for my beloved country. (www.commondreams.org, 1) The people of the United States must come together for the good of their future and for the good of their childrens futures and have the courage to speak up as Harry Taylor did at a Bush PR event where surrounded by Bush and his supporters he said, What I wanted to say to you is that I in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. (www.thinkprogress.org, 1) According to our textbook, In 2004...there was much evidence that young people were more interested in the presidential campaign than they had been in quite some time.(Chapter 1, 7) This is a positive shift, because as Americans, it is our duty to our country and the rest of the world to impeach the lying, hypocritical, criminal, devious, unemotional and pathetic excuse for a man that we have been obligated to call our President.
wakemein_08 - Mon, 11/13/2006 - 9:16am
Effective government - Opinion
wakemein_08's blog - email this page - 169 reads

Ah yes
If I was your teacher you would fail. You do know anyone can post things online and call it truth.
Bush's only impeachable offense is failure to secure this nation's borders.
 link to www.progressiveu.org
Will Democrats Turn Blind Eye to Civil Liberty?
By Paul Craig Roberts
Unless November's new blood improves the Democratic Party's civil liberties pedigree, the Democrats will have failed even before they are sworn in next January.
In its disregard for truth, public opinion, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, the US Constitution and statutory law, the Bush administration has been more of a regime than an administration. The Bush/Cheney executive branch has operated independently of all the constraints that provide accountability and prevent despotism.
The Bush regime was able to evade these restraints, because Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and because Republicans wielded 9/11 as a weapon to forestall political opposition.
With signing statements and other unilateral declarations of presidential authority, the Bush regime asserted executive branch powers beyond the reach of Congress and the judiciary.
The Bush regime was a coup d'etat against the Bill of Rights and the jurisdictions of Congress and the courts. Unless Democrats roll back this coup, Americans have seen the last of their civil liberties.
Judging by Democrats' statements in the flush of their electoral victory, Democrats have little, if any, awareness of this critical fact. Democrats are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that permits torture, warrantless detention and domestic spying.
If Bush threatens to veto the resurrection of US civil liberty, the Democrats can impeach Bush as a tyrant as well as for pushing America into an illegal and catastrophic war on the basis of lies and deception.
Bush is the most impeachable president in American history. However, the incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has declared impeachment to be "off the table." Obviously, this means that Bush will not be held accountable and that the Bill of Rights is a casualty of the vague, undefined, and propagandistic "war on terror."
Do Pelosi and the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to remain a free people? Instead of bemoaning the damage Bush has done to civil liberty, Democrats are up in arms over one child in five being raised in poverty. The more important question is whether children are being raised as a free people protected by civil liberties from arbitrary government power.
Do Democrats share the delusion of Bush supporters that it is only Middle Eastern terrorists who are deprived of the protection of the US Constitution? One can understand the reluctance of Americans to extend constitutional protection to terrorists who are trying to kill Americans. However, without these protections, there is no way of ascertaining who is a terrorist.
Currently, a "terrorist" is anyone given that designation by any of a large number of unaccountable government officials and military officers. No evidence has to be provided in order to detain a designated suspect. Moreover, designated suspects can be convicted in military tribunals on the basis of secret evidence not made available to them or to any legal representation that they might be able to secure. In other words, you are guilty if charged.
As the case of US citizen Jose Padilla makes clear, these Gestapo police state proceedings apply to Americans. Padilla was declared to be an "enemy combatant." He was held in a US prison for three and one-half years with no charges and no warrant. He was kept in isolated confinement, tortured, and denied legal representation.
In order to avoid US Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case, the Bush regime filed charges after stealing three and one-half years of Padilla's life. However, the charges have no relationship to the Bush regime's original allegations that Padilla, an Hispanic-American, was an al Qaeda operative who was going to set off a radioactive dirty bomb in an American city.
The US government no longer designates Padilla as an "enemy combatant." The dirty bomb charge has disappeared, and US Federal District Judge Marcia Cooke has criticized the government's indictment as vague with sketchy evidence "weak on facts."
The reason that the Bush regime wants to detain people indefinitely without evidence is that it has no evidence. The reason the Bush regime passed torture legislation is in order to produce the missing evidence by torturing a suspect into self-incrimination. "Evidence" procured by torture has been illegal in civilized societies for centuries. But the Bush regime has resurrected the medieval rack and substituted it for the Bill of Rights.
If Democrats cannot bring themselves to rectify the inhumane and barbaric practices that now pass for US justice, then they, too, have failed the American people.
Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow's Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
Democracy Now!
Friday, November 10th, 2006

Coalition of Antiwar, Veteran Groups Launching National Movement to Impeach Bush and Cheney

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript

A coalition of groups are meeting near Independence Hall in Philadelphia on Saturday to announce plans to mobilize a national movement to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. We speak with former New York Congressmember Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the committee investigating Watergate, and we speak with Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. [includes rush transcript]
On Saturday, a coalition of groups are meeting near Independence Hall in Philadelphia to announce plans to mobilize a national movement to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Groups backing the effort include Progressive Democrats of America, CodePink, Gold Star Families for Peace and Veterans for Peace.
While the pro-impeachment movement has received little media attention, polls show growing numbers support for Congress to take such action.
A recent Newsweek poll found 51 percent of all Americans - including 20 percent of Republicans - feel impeachment should be on the table.
But it appears the new Democrat-led Congress will not take up the issue. Nancy Pelosi, who is set to become House Speaker, was asked about it on Wednesday during her first press conference since the mid-term election.
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D - CA), Democratic Congressional leader.
There is support for impeachment in the House. Over three dozen Democrats in Congress have publicly supported an inquiry into possible impeachable offenses by the Bush administration. The list includes John Conyers of Michigan who is positioned to become chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
To talk more about impeachment, the mid-term elections and the war in Iraq, we are joined by two guests: Elizabeth Holtzman and Daniel Ellsberg.
• Elizabeth Holtzman, served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. She is co-author of the new book "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens." She will be speaking in Philadelphia on Saturday at the pro-impeachment rally.
• Daniel Ellsberg, may be the country's best known whistleblower. He leaked to the press the Pentagon Papers, the 7,000 page top-secret study of U.S. decision making in Vietnam. This set in motion actions that would eventually topple the Nixon presidency. He recently published an article in Harpers magazine about Iran. It is called "The Next War."
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: Nancy Pelosi, who is set to become House Speaker, was asked about it on Wednesday during her first press conference since the mid-term election.
REP. NANCY PELOSI: Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping the American people get ahead. And that's what our agenda is about. So while some people are excited about prospects that they have, in terms of their priorities, they are not our priorities. I have said, and I say again, that impeachment is off the table.
AMY GOODMAN: There is support for impeachment in the House. Over the three dozen Democrats in Congress have publicly supported an inquiry into possible impeachable offenses by the Bush administration. The list includes John Conyers of Michigan, positioned to become chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
To talk more about impeachment, the mid-term elections, and the war in Iraq, we're joined by two guests, Elizabeth Holtzman and Daniel Ellsberg. Elizabeth Holtzman served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. She is co-author of the new book The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens. Welcome to Democracy Now! You're going to be speaking at a pro-impeachment rally on Saturday in Philadelphia?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Correct. In an effort to try to bring -- to create a grassroots movement around the country and press Congress to do what should be done.
AMY GOODMAN: What's your response to the Speaker in waiting, Nancy Pelosi, saying it's off the table?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, it's very understandable. It was off the table to the Democrats in 1973, when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, and you had Richard Nixon as president.
AMY GOODMAN: He had won by a landslide victory in 1972.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Correct. He had won by a landslide, and impeachment was off the table then. Nobody -- no Democrat was pushing for it. And, in fact, as the revelations came out, it still wasn't on the table. It took the American people, after the Saturday Night Massacre, sending a clear message to the Congress --
AMY GOODMAN: The Saturday Night Massacre being?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: The firing by Richard Nixon of the special prosecutor who was investigating him. It took that clear signal from the American people, who said, "Enough is enough. We are not a banana republic. A president cannot be above the law. He cannot stop an investigation into possible criminal behavior by him or his top aides. And we want Congress to hold him accountable." So it came from the American people. It didn't come from the Congress.
It's understandable that congressional leaders, members of Congress, will be very reluctant to take this enormous step to protect our Constitution and our democracy. But the American people still -- we have a democracy. You saw what happened at the polls. Members of Congress will get it, if the American people want it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Of course, in the Clinton scandal, it wasn't a demand that came from the American people for impeachment, it was one that came directly from the Congress itself.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, that was the level of alleged crimes there was certainly not at the level that we're talking about here.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, remember, under the Constitution, first of all, you don't need a crime to commit an impeachable offense. It doesn't have to be a crime. A high crime and misdemeanor is really an archaic British term that means an abuse of power. It's a political offense, not a criminal offense.
President Clinton did very bad things, but they were not abuses of power. They did not threaten our democracy, and the American people got it. They understand what impeachment's about, and that's why they in the end supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon, because what he was doing was an abuse -- involved an abuse of power. What he was saying was that he was above the law, and the American people said, "No, we don't want that kind of abuse of our democracy."
And I think the same thing can happen again. Of course, you can't have a top-down impeachment. You can't have a partisan impeachment. If an impeachment happens, it has to be done, I think, the way we did it in Watergate, which was bipartisan, to include the American people, to have a process that was extremely fair, nobody could question the fairness of it.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain how it worked, because Nixon resigned. He wasn't impeached.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Nixon resigned, because the process was so fair and so thorough and so honorable that he was going to have no support. Maybe one or two people would have voted for him to stay on as President in the House, and maybe one or two people would have voted for him in the Senate. He had lost all support in the Congress. And that's why a delegation of top Republican leaders, including Barry Goldwater, went to see Richard Nixon and told him, "You have no support in the House or the Senate. You can go through an impeachment trial. You will be surely impeached in the House, and you will be surely removed from the Senate," because what happened was, all the members -- our first vote on the House Judiciary Committee was a bipartisan vote. We had members of the Republicans, as well as Democrats, including very conservative Democrats, voting for impeachment.
Then, the smoking gun tape was released by order of the Supreme Court. That's a tape that showed that Richard Nixon, from the get-go, had ordered the cover-up, an obstruction of justice. And once that tape came out, every Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, even those who had initially voted against impeachment, said he has committed impeachable offenses. So --
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you, --
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: -- it was clear.
JUAN GONZALEZ: -- John Conyers, who would head the House Judiciary Committee, certainly is not one who is afraid to begin these kinds of investigations. What was the relationship in the House Judiciary Committee then between the chairs there and the leadership?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, it was first the American people that galvanized Congress into action that lit that fire. That's what happened. The House Judiciary Committee, the leadership had a key decision to make: was it going to be the House Judiciary Committee that undertook this or was there going to be a special select committee? That was the first, I think, strategic and important decision.
They said, "Okay, it's going to the Judiciary Committee, because if we create a special committee, the American people will say we have stacked the cards. We're going to take the existing committee and use that committee, and that's the committee that -- warts and all, brand new members and all -- that was the committee that was given this assignment. But we never -- I never was given any instruction from any member of the leadership or by the chair of the committee, as to how to vote.
AMY GOODMAN: Nancy Pelosi would be president -- she's third in line --
AMY GOODMAN: -- that is, if President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were impeached. But what are you talking about when it comes to Vice President Dick Cheney?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, my view right now is that I'm not sure we have the overwhelming evidence. That's not to say he hasn't committed impeachable offenses, just that we don't have the same level of evidence that we have with respect to President Bush. On the illegal wiretaps, for example, it's President Bush who repeatedly and admittedly signed these orders directing wiretaps in violation of the explicit language of the statute. We don't have Dick Cheney signing that. I mean, that's a very good example of how we have President Bush, but we don't see Vice President Cheney's fingerprints. That's not to say he wasn't part and parcel to this, but we don't see that, so --
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to former Congress member Elizabeth Holtzman, who has written a book on impeachment. Daniel Ellsberg is also with us, perhaps the country's best-known whistleblower. leaked to the press the Pentagon Papers, the 7,000-page top-secret study of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam that set in motion actions that would eventually topple Nixon. He recently published an article in Harper's magazine about Iran. It's called "The Next War." How do you tie this in, what your campaign is now, which is not exactly impeachment, Daniel Ellsberg?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: I think the impeachment process, starting with investigations, is very important, but it's not the only important thing right now. Actually, Maurice Hinchey introduced a bill on June 20th this year calling for Congress to cut off any funds, to deny any funds of the appropriation bill for an attack on Iran, unless that had followed, as in Article 1, Section 8, from a decision by Congress. And it was a very brief little discussion in the night of June 20th. Two hours later, there was a vote. He had 158 votes in favor of that, somewhat surprisingly. That is the way the Vietnam War was stopped. I don't think they'll stop the Iraq war very quickly that way. It takes a long time for a congressman to face the charge that he's taking money away from the troops, no matter how long, and whether they should be there or not.
But the Iran War has not yet started, and a measure to prevent it before it starts has, I think, a lot more promise, and I think that approach with the new Congress has real promise. But even so, you would need, I think, a crucial aspect of that would be information from inside the government, and this applies both to the impeachment process and to measures like this. If you rely entirely on the administration cooperating by providing the documents you're asking or the witnesses you're asking, that's not going to happen. They've promised already. I think it's Cheney who said "a cataclysmic fight to the death," before they will let these documents get out.
Now, a process like that is what finally emboldened Congress or enraged Congress to the point where, in fact, they did begin to cut off the funds for the war and they did seriously begin to look at impeachment. If the President was going to totally subordinate their role, rule it out of the Constitution essentially, that finally got their backs up. That could happen here, as investigations start, on a variety of reasons, which should happen, including Cheney. You'll get the facts on the table from leakers. The facts you'll get will be unauthorized.
And now, an unauthorized disclosure, a leak, has a chance of being acted on by Congress, which in the last several years, people have gotten discouraged. They've put out the truth to Sy Hersh and to others, and we can all see, not much happens. Congress, the Republican committees are not interested in hearing that. They don't want to act on it. Now, it's a challenge. If somebody inside the government gives information either on criminal wrongdoing by their bosses, which bears directly, or, you know, terrible high crimes and misdemeanors, which bears directly on impeachment, if they give that to Congress and the press, Congress can't -- Congress now led by the Democrats cannot just ignore it, at least not if we let them. We can demand that they do act on it, and that's a great inducement to get.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So, what you're saying in essence is that another Daniel Ellsberg is needed, and then maybe even another John Dean, to come forward from the inner circle.
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Both of those and more are needed, and we need them in a more timely way than either of us did it. Dean knew about the burglary of my psychiatrist's office years before he revealed it under pressure. I knew about what was happening in Nixon years before I finally saw the light, that it had to be given not only to Congress, which was sitting on it, but to the press. And I'm sorry it took that long, but when it comes to impeachment, say I have a full disclosure here to make, it was crimes that Nixon did against me, in part we learned by leaking, that were a major part of the impeachment process, that you were looking at, that he was committing those crimes.
If Dean had not revealed them in order to cop a plea himself in the process and not told the truth, they would not have called other people back to the grand jury and discovered they had enough basis for an impeachment. And likewise, if I hadn't put the documents out, Nixon wouldn't have been so afraid of me as to commit the crimes to shut me up.
I don't suppose I've made Bush as afraid of me then, I'm sorry to say. If he has committed crimes against me, I don't know them yet. If I have been listened in on warrant-less wiretaps -- I imagine I have, but it may be a while before I learn it. But there are others who could supply the names of who -- which Specter was not able to get from the President. Republican head of the Judiciary Committee was not able to get the names or even the programs. There are people in NSA who could tell him that. And if a Democrat now wants to hear that, which Specter didn't, he can call those people, he can put them under oath, and he can hear their testimony, people like Sibel Edmonds, Russell Tice, and people in NSA, who know the crimes that have been committed.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us: Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon whistleblower, calling for whistleblowers today to come out, especially around plans for Iran; and former Congress member Liz Holtzman, she has written a new book. It's called The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens. She will be speaking on Saturday in Philadelphia at a pro-impeachment rally this Veteran's Day weekend.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.


Let’s impeach the president for lying 15.Nov.2006 15:28

Neil Young

Get this playing on all the radio stations and blast this in all public places.. make the revolution!

 link to bradblog.com

Let's impeach the president for lying
And leading our country into war
Abusing all the power that we gave him
And shipping all our money out the door

He's the man who hired all the criminals
The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
And bend the facts to fit with their new stories
Of why we have to send our men to war

Let's impeach the president for spying
On citizens inside their own homes
Breaking every law in the country
By tapping our computers and telephones

What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees
Would New Orleans have been safer that way
Sheltered by our government's protection
Or was someone just not home that day?

Let's impeach the president
For hijacking our religion and using it to get elected
Dividing our country into colors
And still leaving black people neglected

Thank god he's cracking down on steroids
Since he sold his old baseball team
There's lot of people looking at big trouble
But of course the president is clean

Thank God