Gaia: ImpeachPod

Re: Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape

http://grantdwalker.gaia.com — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:10:55 GMT

Move to Impeach Cheney Gains Support in Congress

More Democrats signing on to the idea of a Vice-Presidential impeachment, could it really happen?

By Tim King

01/02/08 "Salem-News" -- -- (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.

Salem-News.com

Re: Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape

http://keithb7862.gaia.com — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:46:51 GMT

Way cool!!! GO Vermont!!!!

Re: Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape

http://grantdwalker.gaia.com — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:01:48 GMT

Activists in Vermont town want Bush, Cheney subject to arrest

Story Highlights
Group in Brattleboro petitioning to put item on town meeting agenda in March
Activists allege war crimes; item would subject Bush, Cheney to arrest if they visit
White House hasn't responded to requests for comment
Vermont AG says move is "of very dubious legality"
Next Article in Politics »

MONTPELIER, Vermont (AP) -- President Bush may soon have a new reason to avoid left-leaning Vermont: In one town, activists want him subject to arrest for war crimes.

Kurt Daims of Brattleboro, Vermont, speaks Friday about his movement against Bush and Cheney.

A group in Brattleboro is petitioning to put an item on a town meeting agenda in March that would make Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest and indictment if they visit the southeastern Vermont community.

"This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they're supposed to do," said Kurt Daims, 54, a retired machinist leading the drive.

As president, Bush has visited every state except Vermont.

The town meeting, an annual exercise in which residents gather to vote on everything from fire department budgets to municipal policy, requires about 1,000 signatures to place a binding item on the agenda.

The measure asks: "Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictment for consideration by other municipalities?"

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. The press office did not immediately respond to an e-mail.

Support for the measure is far from universal, even in Vermont, where the state Senate voted earlier this year to support impeaching the president. Anti-war rallies are regular occurrences here, and "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers are common.

"I would not be supportive of it," said Stephen Steidle, a member of the town's Selectboard, which oversees its government.

"It's well outside of our ability. From my perspective, the Brattleboro Selectboard needs to focus on the town and the things that need to be done here."

Daims has been circulating documents that claim the community acquires a "universal jurisdiction" to take such steps "when governments breach their highest duties."

"We have the full power to issue indictments, conduct trials, incarcerate offenders and do all other acts which Independent jurisdictions may of right do," the statement says.

Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, a Democrat whose office has repeatedly sued the Bush administration over environmental issues, said the move was "of very dubious legality."

"I have not seen the proposal, and I've done no legal research on any of the issues," Sorrell said. "But at first blush, if this passed, they'd have really uphill sledding trying to have it be legal and enforceable."

Contact your reps to support HR 333

http://feliciachavez.gaia.com — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:02:45 GMT

https://secure2.convio.net/pepib/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=111

This calls for the impeachment of Cheney (courtesy of Kucinich). Obviously a major leap in the right direction!

f.c.

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:45:43 GMT

US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days. The Guardian reports that the U.S. has decided to establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the Iranian border.

Watch our latest interviews with Aijaz Ahmed from New Delhi and Pepe Escobar from Paris. Ahmed is a Senior Editorial Consultant for The Real News and political commentator for the Indian newsmagazine, Frontline. Aijaz Ahmed has taught Political Science and written widely on South Asia and the Middle East.

During Part 1 of his interview, Ahmed talks to Senior Editor Paul Jay, about the White House threats towards Iran. Ahmed declares, "This administration is determined to attack Iran before it leaves office."

Ahmed then explores in Part 2, Iran's commitments to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, "They must commit themselves to not producing the weapon, which they have. They must commit themselves to inspections, which they have. They have a sovereign right to create, to pursue enrichment for peaceful purposes."

In his latest interview, Pepe Escobar, Real News correspondent and writer for The Asia Times Online, answers the question, can the White House intimidate Iran? "Persian society has been around for thousands of years and they don't scare easily."

The second segment of this two-part interview examines the possible confrontation between the U.S. and Iran. "The original plan is to dismantle, to provoke regime change in Iran and to appropriate Iran's oil and gas."

Watch the interviews with Aijaz Ahmed and Pepe Escobar at therealnews.com.

Today, The Guardian carries a report: Proxy War Could Soon Turn to Direct Conflict, Analysts Warn by Julian Borger and Ian Black. US strikes on Iran predicted as tension rises over arms smuggling and nuclear fears.The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional analysts are warning.US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days, with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia militias.

We hope you find these interviews interesting and of value.

Thank you for your continued support of The Real News Network.

Paul Jay and The Real News Network Team

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

http://quadrinity.gaia.com — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:34:13 GMT

rense.com 'We Are Going To Hit Iran...Bigtime' Maccabee 9-2-7 I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth. I asked her why she is telling me this. Her answer was really amazing... She started in the Marines and after 8 years her term was up. She had served on a smaller Marine carrier, and found out through a friend knew there was an opening for a junior grade LSO in a training position on a supercarrier. She used the reference and the information and applied for a transfer to the United States Navy. Since she had experience landing F-18Cs and Cobra Gunships, and an unblemished combat record, she was ratcheted into the job, successfully changing from the Marines to the Navy. Her role is still aligned with the Marines since she generally is assigned to liason with the Marine units deploying off her carrier group. Like most Marines and former Marines, she is largely apolitical. The fact is, most Marines are trigger pullers and most trigger pullers could care less who the President is. They simply want to be the tip of the sword when it comes to defending the country. She voted once in her life and otherwise was always in some forward post on the water during election season. Something is wrong with the Navy and the Marines in her view. Always ready to go in harms way, Marines rarely ever question unless it's a matter of tactics or honor. But something seems awry. Junior and senior officers are starting to grumble, roll their eyes in the hallways. The strain of deployments is beginning to hit every jot and tittle of the Marines and it's beginning to seep into the daily conversation of Marines and Naval officers in command decision. "I know this will sound crazy coming from a Naval officer", she said. "But we're all just waiting for this administration to end. Things that happen at the senior officer level seem more and more to happen outside of the purview of XOs and other officers who typically have a say-so in daily combat and flight operations. Today, orders just come down from the mountaintop and there's no questioning. In fact, there is no discussing it. I have seen more than one senior commander disappear and then three weeks later we find out that he has been replaced. That's really weird. It's also really weird because everyone who has disappeared has questioned whether or not we should be staging a massive attack on Iran." "We're not stupid. Most of the members of the fleet read well enough to know what is going on world-wise. We also realize that anyone who has any doubts is in danger of having a long military career yanked out from under them. Keep in mind that most of the people I serve with are happy to be a part of the global war on terror. It's just that the touch points are what we see since we are the ones out here who are supposedly implementing this grand strategy. But when you liason with administration officials who don't know that Iranians don't speak Arabic and have no idea what Iranians live like, then you start having second thoughts about whether these Administration officials are even competent." I asked her about the attack, how limited and so forth. "I don't think it's limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And the consequences...whatever the consequences...they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway." I asked her why she was suddenly so cynical. "I have become cynical only recently. I also don't believe anyone will be able to stop this. Bush has become something of an Emperor. He will give the command, and cruise missiles will fly and aircraft will fly and people will die, and yet few of us here are really able to cobble together a great explanation of why this is a good idea. Of course many of us can give you the 4H Club lecture on democracy in the Mid East. But if you asked any of the flight officers whether they have a clear idea of what the goal of this strike is, your answer would sound like something out of a think tank policy paper. But it's not like Kosovo or when we relieved the tsunami victims. There everyone could tell you in a sentence what we were here doing." "That's what's missing. A real sense of purpose. What's missing is the answer to what the hell are we doing out here threatening this country with all this power? Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can't build a nuke. I mean the table got EF Hutton quiet. Not so much because the man was asking a question that was off culture. But that he was asking a good question. In fact, the discussion actually followed afterwards topside where someone in our group had to smoke a cigarette. The discussion was intelligent but also in lowered voices. It's like we aren't allowed to ask the questions that we always ask before combat. It's almost as if the average seaman or soldier is doing all the policy work." She had to hang up. She left by telling me that she believes the attack is a done deal. "It's only a matter of time before their orders come and they will be sent to station and told to go to Red Alert. She said they were already practicing traps, FARP and FAST." (Trapping is the act of catching the tension wires when landing on the carrier, FARP is Fleet Air Combat Maneuvering Readiness Program- practice dogfighting- and FAST is Fleet Air Superiority Training). She seemed lost. The first time in my life I have ever heard her sound off rhythm, or unsure of why she is doing something. She knows that there is something rotten in the Naval Command and she, like many of her associates are just hoping that the election brings in someone new, some new situation, or something. "Yes. We're gong to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussions that are going on is window dressing and perhaps even a red herring. I see what's going on below deck here in the hangars and weapons bays. And I have a sick feeling about how it's all going to turn out."

America - here it is. What are we gonna do?!

http://quadrinity.gaia.com — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:53:21 GMT

Fox analyst:

Germany's actions leave us 'no choice' but to bomb Iran

David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Published: Wednesday September 12, 2007

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Fox_US_makes_Iran_bombing_plan_0912.html

According to Fox News, advisers are telling the White House that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran's nuclear program, and as a result officials are making plans to attack Iran as early as next summer.

"A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime," Fox reported on Tuesday.

Lt. Gen. (ret.) Thomas McInerney told Fox, "Since Germany has backed out of helping economically, we do not have any other choice. ... They've forced us into the military option."

"I think the option should initially be tit-for-tat," McInerney went

on. "For every explosively formed projectile from Iran that goes off in

Iraq, two go off in Iran, no questions asked."

"The one I favor the most, of course, is an air campaign," he

continued. "Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out

their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force,

their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command

and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back."

McInerney described such a bombing campaign as "easy" and spoke

enthusiastically of the weaponry involved, including "a new massive

ordnance penetrator that's 30,000 pounds, that really penetrates ...

Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate."

Although introduced by Fox merely as a military analyst, McInerney has

been prominent for several years as an advocate of war against Iran and

chairs the advisory council of the hardline Iran Policy Committee,

known for its backing of the anti-Iranian terrorist group, MEK. McInerney was

quoted in February 2005 as saying, "[Bush] doesn't have any choice. "He

understands [the Iranians] are the king of terror right now. They are

striving for nuclear weapons that can get into the hands of terrorists,

and then it's too late."

Excerpts from Fox article:

Germany - a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in

Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a

mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States -

notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela

Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions

against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source,

"everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the

costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely

timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10

months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided,

but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive

scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of

gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high

a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran;

and full-scale aerial bombardment.

On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how

long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air

superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin

a systematic attack on Iran's known nuclear targets.

Putting up Posters

http://Morgenlicht.gaia.com — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 05:18:59 GMT

Putting up posters is still legal here :)

Help us create awareness by changing your avatar - lets go Yellow!!!

Help spread the word on zaadz that free speech has to be protected. Go watch the video!

Cross post

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:43:37 GMT

A video of people being arrested in DC for putting up posters about the September 15th March in DC. Putting up posters in DC is not against the law and this IS and infringement of their second ammendment rights.

http://videos.zaadz.com/251616/arrested_for_defying_poster_ban_-_activists_adam_kokesh_tina_ric

Re America's Sixty Families.

http://quadrinity.gaia.com — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 08:30:10 GMT

It is a book which I haven't read but the title struck me as rather revealing with regard to what is coming into the light. Google reveals quite a bit. Below is one of the links that came up.

http://www.uoregon.edu/~vburris/whorules/readings.htm

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

http://telesterion.gaia.com — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:39:28 GMT

I also think only repeated disasters will wake americans. Which is horribly sad.

The 60 Families - odd, I hadn't heard that term for the masters before, you'd think I would have...

http://www.nndb.com/lists/439/000127058/

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

Mon, 03 Sep 2007 18:43:02 GMT

I got this from three different sources today.

I seldom reference Global Reasearch as a source because they often exaggerate, The Alternet one which I posted it the first example in a regularly read blog. My most trusted source Juan Cole of Informed Comment also has it today.

You are sadly astute in your observation that we want to see "What IF it happens"

The rock and hard place is wanting desperately to be wrong, while the reality of it is all too vivid.

In a call to my Senator's office last week I was told by the aide that I was not alone in my fear of this happening,. Alone no, powerless yes.

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

http://quadrinity.gaia.com — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:47:13 GMT

It seems like everyone is suffering something akin to templar paralysis...
Do we secretly want to see something catastrophic happen... have we been so brainwashed by the soap opera, the movies, the news, the media - that we want to see IF it happens?
Because it will.
And then there will be the gnashing and grinding of teeth. "Oh no", we protest. "...how could this happen? Why us... what did we do to deserve..." Stuck in our generational childhood pattern.

There will be much political analysis. But what could it do other than fill up airtime and keep people distracted from what's really happening....

I think... it's going to take a cataclysm to wake the sleeping conscience up. On a micro level - the addict only faces the truth - by hitting rock bottom. We're not there yet. Rock bottom is - when the missiles start flying - and the little boys in their sandpit game of soldiers... start their tantrums - live out their dysfunctional childhoods.
What did George endure under George senior. It must have been terrible for him to wreak this kind of violence on the world. What has been the dynamic in "America's 60 Families"?

It is the price of evolution. If we survive it - it might get better. Might. A big might.
It might also really be...

The End.

Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:37:32 GMT

Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

By Ray McGovern, AlterNet
Posted on September 3, 2007, Printed on September 3, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/61328/

Why do I feel like the proverbial skunk at a Labor Day picnic? Sorry, but I thought you might want to know that this time next year there will probably be more skunks than we can handle. I fear our country is likely to be at war with Iran -- and with the thousands of real terrorists Iran can field around the globe.

It is going to happen, folks, unless we put our lawn chairs away on Tuesday, take part in some serious grassroots organizing and take action to prevent a wider war -- while we still can.

President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being "fixed around the policy," as was the case before the attack on Iraq.

It's not about putative Iranian "weapons of mass destruction," not even ostensibly. It is about the requirement for a scapegoat for U.S. reverses in Iraq and the White House's felt need to create a casus belli by provoking Iran in such a way as to "justify" armed retaliation, eventually including air strikes on its nuclear-related facilities.

Bush's Aug. 28 speech to the American Legion comes five years after a very similar presentation by Vice President Dick Cheney. Addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney set the meretricious terms of reference for war on Iraq.

Sitting on the same stage that evening was former CENTCOM commander Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was being honored at the VFW convention. Zinni later said he was shocked to hear a depiction of intelligence (Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us) that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two years before, his role as consultant had enabled him to stay up to date on key intelligence findings.

"There was no solid proof that Saddam had WMD ... I heard a case being made to go to war," Zinni told Meet the Press three and a half years later.

(Zinni is a straight shooter with considerable courage, and so the question lingers: Why did he not go public? It is all too familiar a conundrum at senior levels; top officials can seldom find their voices. My hunch is that Zinni regrets letting himself be guided by a misplaced professional courtesy and/or slavish adherence to classification restrictions, when he might have prevented our country from starting the kind of war of aggression branded at Nuremberg the "supreme international crime.")

Cheney: dean of pre-emption

Zinni was not the only one taken aback by Cheney's words. Then-CIA director George Tenet says Cheney's speech took him completely by surprise. In his memoir Tenet wrote, "I had the impression that the president wasn't any more aware than we were of what his No. 2 was going to say to the VFW until he said it."

Yet, it could have been anticipated. Just five weeks before, Tenet himself had told his British counterpart that the president had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

When Bush's senior advisers came back to town after Labor Day, 2002, the next five weeks (and by now, the next five years) were devoted to selling a new product -- war on Iraq. The actual decision to attack Iraq, we now know, was made several months earlier but, as then-White House chief of staff Andy Card explained, no sensible salesperson would launch a major new product during the month of August, Cheney's preemptive strike notwithstanding. Yes, that's what Card called the coming war: a "new product."

After assuring themselves that Tenet was a reliable salesman, Cheney and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld dispatched him and the pliant Powell at State to play supporting roles in the advertising campaign: bogus yellowcake uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, and mobile trailers for manufacturing biological warfare agent, the whole nine yards. The objective was to scare or intimidate Congress into voting for war, and, thanks largely to a robust cheering section in the corporate-controlled media, Congress did so on Oct. 10 and 11, 2002.

This past week saw the president himself, with that same kind of support, pushing a new product -- war with Iran. And in the process, he made clear how intelligence is being fixed to "justify" war this time around. The case is too clever by half, but it will be hard for Americans to understand that. Indeed, the Bush/Cheney team expects that the product will sell easily -- the more so, since the administration has been able once again to enlist the usual cheerleaders in the media to "catapult the propaganda," as Bush once put it.

Iran's nuclear plans

It has been like waiting for Godot ... the endless wait for the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear plans. That NIE turns out to be the quintessential dog that didn't bark. The most recent published NIE on the subject was issued two and a half years ago and concluded that Iran could not have a nuclear weapon until "early- to mid-next decade." That estimate followed a string of NIEs dating back to 1995, which kept predicting, with embarrassing consistency, that Iran was "within five years" of having a nuclear weapon.

The most recent NIE, published in early 2005, extended the timeline and provided still more margin for error. Basically, the timeline was moved 10 years out to 2015 but, in a fit of caution, the drafters settled on the words "early-to-mid next decade." On Feb. 27, 2007, at his confirmation hearings to become director of national intelligence, Michael McConnell repeated that formula verbatim.

A "final" draft of the follow-up NIE mentioned above had been completed in Feb. 2007, and McConnell no doubt was briefed on its findings prior to his testimony. The fact that this draft has been sent back for revision every other month since February speaks volumes. Judging from McConnell's testimony, the conclusions of the NIE draft of February are probably not alarmist enough for Vice President Dick Cheney. (Shades of Iraq.)

According to one recent report, the target date for publication has now slipped to late fall. How these endless delays can be tolerated is testimony to the fecklessness of the "watchdog" intelligence committees in the House and Senate.

As for Iran's motivation if it plans to go down the path of producing nuclear weapons, newly appointed Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked about that at his confirmation hearing in December. Just called from the wings to replace Donald Rumsfeld, Gates apparently had not yet read the relevant memo from Cheney's office. It is a safe bet that the avuncular Cheney took Gates to the woodshed, after the nominee suggested that Iran's motivation could be, "in the first instance, deterrence":

While they [the Iranians] are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for a nuclear capability, I think they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons -- Pakistan to the east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west, and us in the Persian Gulf.

Unwelcome news (to the White House)

There they go again, those bureaucrats at the International Atomic Energy Agency. On Aug. 28, the very day Bush was playing up the dangers from Iran, the IAEA released a note of understanding between the IAEA and Iran on the key issue of inspection. The IAEA announced:

The agency has been able to verify the nondiversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

The IAEA deputy director said the plan just agreed to by the IAEA and Iran will enable the two to reach closure by December on the nuclear issues that the IAEA began investigating in 2003. Other IAEA officials now express confidence that they will be able to detect any military diversion or any uranium enrichment above a low grade, as long as the Iran-IAEA safeguard agreement remains intact.

Shades of the preliminary findings of the U.N. inspections -- unprecedented in their intrusiveness -- that were conducted in Iraq in early 2003 before the United States abruptly warned the United Nations in mid-March to pull out its inspectors, lest they find themselves among those to be shocked and awed.

Vice President Cheney can claim, as he did three days before the attack on Iraq, that the IAEA is simply "wrong." But Cheney's credibility has sunk to prehistoric levels; witness the fact that the president was told that this time he would have to take the lead in playing up various threats from Iran. And they gave him new words.

The president's new formulation

As I watched the president speak on Aug. 28, I was struck by the care he took in reading the exact words of a new, subjunctive-mood formulation regarding Iran's nuclear intentions. He never looked up; this is what he said:

Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

The cautious wording suggests to me that the White House finally has concluded that the "nuclear threat" from Iran is "a dog that won't hunt," as Lyndon Johnson would have put it. While initial press reporting focused on the "nuclear holocaust" rhetorical flourish, the earlier part of the sentence is more significant, in my view. It is quite different from earlier Bush rhetoric charging categorically that Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons," including the following (erroneous) comment at a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in early August:

This [Iran] is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon.

The latest news from the IAEA is, for the White House, an unwelcome extra hurdle. And the president's advisers presumably were aware of it well before Bush's speech was finalized; it will be hard to spin. Administration officials would also worry about the possibility that some patriotic truth teller might make the press aware of the key judgments of the languishing draft of the latest NIE on Iran's nuclear capability -- or that a courageous officer or official of Gen. Anthony Zinni's stature might feel conscience-bound to try to head off another unnecessary war, by providing a more accurate, less alarmist assessment of the nuclear threat from Iran.

It is just too much of a stretch to suggest that Iran could be a nuclear threat to the United States within the next 17 months, and that's all the time Bush and Cheney have got to honor their open pledge to our "ally" Israel to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential. Besides, some American Jewish groups have become increasingly concerned over the likelihood of serious backlash if young Americans are seen to be fighting and dying to eliminate perceived threats to Israel (but not to the United States). Some of these groups have been quietly urging the White House to back off the nuclear-threat rationale for war on Iran.

The (very) bad news

Bush and Cheney have clearly decided to use alleged Iranian interference in Iraq as the preferred casus belli. And the charges, whether they have merit or not, have become much more bellicose. Thus, Bush on Aug. 28:

Iran's leaders ... cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces ... The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.

How convenient: two birds with one stone. Someone to blame for U.S. reverses in Iraq and "justification" to confront the ostensible source of the problem -- "deadeners" having been changed to Iran. Vice President Cheney has reportedly been pushing for military retaliation against Iran if the United States finds hard evidence of Iranian complicity in supporting the "insurgents" in Iraq.

President Bush obliged on Aug. 28:

Recently, coalition forces seized 240-millimeter rockets that had been manufactured in Iran this year and that had been provided to Iraqi extremist groups by Iranian agents. The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last few months ...

QED

Recent U.S. actions, like arresting Iranian officials in Iraq -- eight were abruptly kidnapped and held briefly in Baghdad on Aug. 28, the day Bush addressed the American Legion -- suggest an intention to provoke Iran into some kind of action that would justify U.S. "retaliation." The evolving rhetoric suggests that the most likely immediate targets at this point would be training facilities inside Iran, some 20 targets that are within range of U.S. cruise missiles already in place.

Iranian retaliation would be inevitable and escalation very likely. It strikes me as shamelessly ironic that the likes of our current ambassador at the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilizad, one of the architects of U.S. policy toward the area, are now warning publicly that the current upheaval in the Middle East could bring another world war.

The public buildup

Col. Pat Lang (U.S.A., ret.), as usual, puts it succinctly:

Careful attention to the content of the chatter on the 24/7 news channels reveals a willingness to accept the idea that it is not possible to resolve differences with Iran through diplomacy. Network anchors are increasingly accepting or voicing such views. Are we supposed to believe that this is serendipitous?

And not only that. It is as if Scooter Libby were back writing lead editorials for the Washington Post, the Pravda of this administration. The Post's lead editorial on Aug. 21 regurgitated the allegations that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is "supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq;" that it is "waging war against the United States and trying to kill as many American soldiers as possible." Designating Iran a "specially designated global terrorist" organization, said the Post, "seems to be the least the United States should be doing, giving the soaring number of Iranian-sponsored bomb attacks in Iraq."

As for the news side of the Post, which is widely perceived as a bit freer from White House influence, its writers are hardly immune. For example, they know how many times the draft National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program has been sent back for redrafting ... and they know why. Have they been told not to write the story?

For good measure, the indomitable arch-neocon James Woolsey has again entered the fray. He was trotted out on Aug. 14 to tell Lou Dobbs that the United States may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program. Woolsey, who has described himself as the "anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs," knows what will scare. To Dobbs: "I'm afraid within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they [Iran] could have the bomb."

As for what Bush is telling his counterparts among our allies, reporting on his recent meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy are disquieting, to say the least. Reports circulating in European foreign ministries indicate that Sarkozy came away convinced that Bush "is serious about bombing Iran's secret nuclear facilities," according to well-connected journalist Arnauld De Borchgrave.

It is up to U.S.

Air strikes on Iran seem inevitable, unless grassroots America can arrange a backbone transplant for Congress. The House needs to begin impeachment proceedings without delay. Why? Well, there's the Constitution of the United States, for one thing. For another, the initiation of impeachment proceedings might well give our senior military leaders pause. Do they really want to precipitate a wider war and risk destroying much of what is left of our armed forces for the likes of Bush and Cheney? Is another star on the shoulder worth THAT?

The deterioration of the U.S. position in Iraq, the perceived need for a scapegoat, the knee-jerk deference given to Israel's myopic and ultimately self-defeating security policy, and the fact that time is running out for the Bush/Cheney administration to end Iran's nuclear program together make for a very volatile mix.

So, on Tuesday let's put away the lawn chairs and roll up our sleeves. Let's remember all that has already happened since Labor Day five years ago.

There is very little time to exercise our rights as citizens and stop this madness. At a similarly critical juncture, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was typically direct. I find his words a challenge to us today:

There is such a thing as being too late. ... Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity. ... Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: 'Too late.'

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/61328/

Cross post from Progressive Action and Progressive Politics

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:43:44 GMT

Sept. 15: Impeachment Movement Comes to Washington

Mike said Today, 8:28 AM:

Sept. 15: Impeachment Movement Comes to Washington

By plane, train, cars and buses thousands of ImpeachBush.org members are traveling from all 50 states to Washington DC for a massive march on September 15 demanding Impeachment and an end to the war in Iraq.

"Each and every one of us must do all that we can to support the major Peace/Impeachment demonstration in Washington, DC on September 15, 2007, backed by more than a million votes for impeachment, and accelerating. The rally will begin at 12 noon at the White House, followed by a march to the Capitol."
-Ramsey Clark

Please make a donation today by clicking this link.

If you need a ride to DC it is urgent that you contact a volunteer transportation center in your area now and buy your bus ticket on one of the many chartered buses coming to Washington DC. Click this link to find a transportation center near you. The buses have to be paid for now so it is important that you make a reservation and get your ticket.

If you would like to be a transportation contact for your area, click this link.

If you cannot personally come to DC but want to help others come, please make a donation today by clicking this link. You can make a secure on-line donation or send a check.

Government Fines September 15 Organizers $10,000 for putting posters

One of the anti-war organizations mobilizing for the September 15 protest was fined $10,000 for putting up posters promoting the rally in Washington DC. This is an unprecedented action. The ANSWER Coalition is mobilizing political support and is filing a lawsuit against the DC government for this outrageous attempt to stifle the September demonstration. The group has said that it will not pay one penny for the exercise of its First Amendment rights.

Bush's Interior Department is also threatening other large financial penalties against the group. The posters have been put up for earlier demonstrations. They conform to the government regulations and are completely legal. This is one more attack on Free Speech rights and an attempt to repress and criminalize those who are mobilizing against the Bush government.

The last thing Bush and Cheney want to see is a huge mass demonstration calling for Impeachment and End to the War at the moment that General David Petraeus makes his scheduled report to Congress about the "progress of the Iraq war." Led by Iraq war veterans and their families, September 15 is shaping up as the biggest political showdown in recent years.

Please tell your friends and families to get on the bus and come to Washington DC on September 15.

We need to raise a huge amount of money for buses, posters, leaflets, sound and stage and the other expenses. We have no corporate funding. The ImpeachBush.org movement will succeed only because of the support from you and others who understand that impeachment is the defining issue for this country and its future. Please make a generous donation today.

Ramsey Clark, Cindy Sheehan are just a few of the well know speakers who will be addressing the September 15. Acting with resolve, We the People, can make the difference in the face of this transparent criminality by high government officials. But we must act right now.

From all of us at,

ImpeachBush.org/VoteToImpeach.org

reply to thread print send permalink

A True Majority video you must watch to believe

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:25:34 GMT

Today is Hiroshima Day, the 62nd anniversary of the first atomic bomb attack in history.

We've come up with a 90-second video that shows the truth in a simple way you'll never forget. (click here to watch it).

What kind of relationship do you have with your Congress

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:53:01 GMT

I have been blessed , or cursed, to have lived in many different states. Michigan, Florida, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and Maryland. I can attest to having pestered congress people in all of those states. I regularly spoke with staffers in Joe Lieberman’s office who would assure me that Senator Lieberman was firmly on the side of…pick a bill, while I would watch him vote exactly the opposite while watching the vote on TV. Senator Dodd’s office was always accommodating and assured me my views would be accurately passed along. I was in upstate NY when Hillary became a senator for New York. It had been ard be represented by Alphonse DeMato. She supposedly refused to come speak in the area because of ck flies. Untrue of course. In all of the years there I never even saw a black fly. She started getting a good press in a highly republican area because of her hard work and the benefits the area began to see for the first time in years. We were 20 miles from Canada and sometimes felt more Canadian than American. She continued to impress people in the area and her office was not only responsive but even regularly sent e mails with her position on certain topics. During the last few years I have regularly filled out web forms to a number of Senators regarding the war in Iraq. “while you were pontificating 12 US troops died”. I am in Maryland now. I truly have great representation. Elijah Cummings always responds to web form contact, pretty generic letters but he does at least give his reasons for voting the way he does. His staff is appropriate. Ben Cardin is new and so far seems to be mirroring the voting of Barbara Mikulski and that is a good thing. Let me tell you about the office staff of Barbara Mikulski. They go beyond anything I have ever dealt with before. Generally the phones are answered by an older sounding woman who not only listens but actually comments and even was comforting one day when I was close to tears with something like the Patriot Act. My web comments are always addressed have a personal relationship with that office. It helps that Senator Mikulski always votes the way I would…..Oh and BTW she voted no on the war. One of 23 Senators who had the guts to say NO! How is your relationship with the people who represent you? "Love many, trust few, harm no one"

Greens: Democrats, retreating on impeachment

http://keithb7862.gaia.com — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:46:58 GMT

Greens: Democrats, retreating on impeachment and withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

Submitted by danielifearn on Fri, 2007-08-03 15:20. Elections

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

For Immediate Release: Thursday, July 26, 2007

Contacts: Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.org ; Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org

Greens: Democrats, retreating on impeachment and withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, don't deserve votes in 2008

By refusing to impeach, Democrats acquiesce to Bush-Cheney high crimes and misdemeanors, say Greens
Greens criticize Congress's silence on Bush executive order criminalizing antiwar protest and demand repeal of the order

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders reaffirmed the party's support for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney and demand for immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, and sharply criticized Democratic Party leaders for retreating on impeachment and troop withdrawal.

Greens also demanded that Congress act to repeal President Bush's July 17 executive order titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq," which effectively outlaws antiwar protest by allowing the White House to confiscate the financial assets of anyone who openly opposes the war.

Carl Romanelli, Pennsylvania Green candidate for the US Senate in 2006: "Democrats are pretending to be the party of opposition to the Bush agenda. They have pretended to oppose the war, while joining Republicans in Congress to pass recent legislation for renewed war funding. They refuse to consider impeachment for the Bush Administration's numerous high crimes andmisdemeanors. Much of the Bush agenda will remain in place even if Democrats retake the White House and prevail again in Congress in 2008. The only hope for changing the political direction of our country is for the Green Party to advance, with a few Green victories for congressional seats. Voters who support troop withdrawal and impeachment are throwing away their votes if they vote Democrat in 2008."
Daniel Brezenoff, Green candidate for Congress in California's 37th District: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats have opposed the Iraq War only in their rhetoric. They've ignored widespread public demands for a rapid pullout of US troops, and only favor bills for delayed withdrawal plans and leaving some troops in Iraq to protect US interests. Democratic leaders have endorsed benchmarks like passage of the Iraqi oil law, which would place 2/3 of Iraq's oil resources under the control of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, BP, and other western corporations. Rep. Pelosi and her fellow Dems know that these companies will need a strong US military presence in Iraq as they plunder Iraq's oil reserves. Greens have declared their support for Iraqi labor unions and the tens of thousands of Iraqis calling for defeat of the oil law and an end to the US occupation."

Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry, Green vice presidential hopeful for 2008: "Despite direct entreaties by Cindy Sheehan, Greens, and other antiwar Americans, Rep. John Conyers [Mich.], Rep. Nancy Pelosi [Calif.], and other Democratic leaders are refusing to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Democrats are rebuffing the call to hold Bush and Cheney

accountable for some of the most worst abuses of power in US history. The Democrats' refusal to
impeach can only mean acquiescence to the Bush-Cheney-Rove crimes. That's why we Greens have taken the lead on projects like the opening of the National Impeachment Center in Los Angeles
to ensure the American people have a place, program, and plan to get heard. Some Green Party members have joined Cindy Sheehan in peaceful civil disobedience, for which they were arrested on Monday. In December, 2006, the Green Party endorsed an impeachment motion introduced in the House by Rep. Cynthia McKinney [D-Ga.].

Peter L. Thottam, Executive Director of the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center, former Green

candidate for the California Assembly: "The National Impeachment Center is appalled by Speaker Pelosi's and Congressman Conyers' categorical rejection of a growing majority of American voters, a majority of whom are now insisting that Congress fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities and begin immediate hearings on impeaching Bush and Cheney. We are now calling upon American citizens everywhere not to fund or support support any elected officials who do not support HR 333 and/or the impeachment of Bush and Cheney."

Kristen Olson, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States: "Why have Congress members who claim to oppose the Iraq War remained silent on President Bush's July 17 executive order giving the White House the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever engages in antiwar activity? The order potentially criminalizes anyone who protests the war. For instance, language targeting of persons who undermine "efforts to promote economic reconstruction" can be used against anyone who criticizes the Iraq oil law, enabling the pillage of Iraqi oil by US and UK oil companies. The executive order is a vicious assault on the US Constitution. We demand that Congress act to overturn the order immediately."

MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193
• Green Party News Center

Green Party Speakers Bureau
2007 national Green Party meeting in Reading, Pa.: video footage, blog and media coverage

Green Party Peace Action Committee (GPAX)

Presidential Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq, and here.

"Iraq War is Impeachable, Not Just a 'Strategic Blunder'" Green Party press release, February 20, 2007

Impeachment resolution passed at Green Party National Meeting, July 2003

"Impeachment now -- as a defensive tactic" By Alan Kobrin [Florida Green Party], OpEdNews.com, July 19, 2007

"Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement" By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 20, 2007

Source

Gonzales, Pelosi, and the Survival of Congress

http://keithb7862.gaia.com — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:36:50 GMT

Gonzales, Pelosi, and the Survival of Congress
David Swanson August 1, 2007

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that if she were not Speaker she would probably back impeachment. Other Congress Members are of course free to do what even she admits she would do in their position. They should, I think, start taking her advice and ignoring her ban on impeachment.

The reason Pelosi is being questioned about impeachment has to do with Gonzo, Alberto Gonzales, and a proposal just introduced to impeach him. In the movement to impeach Cheney and Bush, is this a distraction or an opening act?

Fifteen principled members of Congress, all Democrats, have signed a bill to begin the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Hundreds of other Congress Members have stubbornly refused to heed the clear demand of the majority of their constituents.

But suddenly a completely new group of Congress Members, again all Democrats, has announced support for impeaching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. This groups includes Congress Members who are not usually leaders in the cause of justice. And it includes Members who have been lobbied intensely to impeach Cheney and Bush but who have resisted in favor of heeding Speaker Nancy Pelosi's ban on using the Constitution in Congress.

The initial sponsor is Jay Inslee of Washington State who less than six months ago had to lobby the leadership of his state's legislature not to permit a vote on a pro-impeachment resolution. One of the initial cosponsors is Tom Udall of New Mexico, whose state legislature also came close to passing such a resolution. There were rumors in New Mexico that - as in Washington State - pressure against the resolution had come from DC.

Other cosponsors are Xavier Becera, Michael Arcuri, Ben Chandler, Dennis Moore, Bruce Braley, Earl Blumenauer, and Peter DeFazio. From this list of names it should be clear that this is not a statement against illegal war. This is not a declaration of progressive principles in opposition to illegal spying, detentions, torture, and murder, much less the plundering of the poor to enrich a corporate oligarchy. Rather, this is statement at long last of a minimal willingness to defend the rule of law and the power of Congress. These House Members did not raise impeachment when Gonzales backed illegal spying, torture, and detentions, or when it first became clear that he had used the Justice Department as a wing of the Republican National Committee. They spoke up after Gonzales repeatedly lied to Congress and refused to answer Senators' questions.

Of course, there may be a confluence of influences behind this decision. Two forces are pushing impeachment forward. One is American citizens, who have recently become much more aggressive, sitting in Congressional offices, and standing in front of them with Honk-to-Impeach signs that have a tendency to disrupt entire days of work. The other is the Bush-Cheney administration, which has in recent weeks refused to comply with subpoenas, announced that it will refuse to cooperate with contempt citations, and of course commuted the sentence of a top staffer convicted of obstructing justice.

Now, merely impeaching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would fall as short of what's needed as merely convicting I. Lewis Scooter Libby. Both men are covering up the crimes of Cheney and Bush. But impeaching Gonzo and sending him packing might just open the door to impeachment, might in fact restore impeachment in many people's minds to a place of honor (rather than sex scandal) in our system of checks and balances. If the Democratic leadership allows Gonzales to be impeached, or is forced to see it happen, we may jump a big step closer to impeaching Cheney, whether Nancy Pelosi intended that to be the result or not. Timing in this will be a factor. If Congress takes all of August off and then drags Gonzales' impeachment out for weeks, the clock may tick too far ahead. Our job is to speed them along. Another factor may be Senate conviction or acquittal. Our job is to push for Senate conviction while praising the House already for impeachment and demanding that Cheney's impeachment get underway.

Inslee's resolution is short and sweet, but a blank slate that opens itself up to any tangential time-wasting investigation imaginable. And there are the usual two problems with investigations: they're not needed and they can't pry anything out of the Bush-Cheney administration. After all, that's why we're impeaching Gonzales: for refusing to answer questions and lying. Inslee's bill reads as follows:

RESOLUTION

Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

1 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall

2 investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the

3 House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales,

4 Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes

5 and misdemeanors.

We have a petition to Congress people can sign at Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet.org that lists several of Gonzo's crimes. One relates to torture.

On 1/25/02, Gonzales wrote a memo to President Bush authorizing the commission of war crimes by claiming the war against terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

On 8/1/02, Gonzales commissioned a memo to President Bush which defined "torture" only as an interrogation that causes "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions." This definition is contrary to The War Crimes Act and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Unusual or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a treaty ratified by the United States. Although this memo was retracted on 12/30/04, it remained in effect for over two years and authorized an unknown number of acts of torture.

Gonzales knew or should have known that, pursuant to memoranda written by, commissioned or concurred in by him, prisoners in United States custody would be subjected to willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment; and great suffering or serious injury to body or health, in violation of The War Crimes Act.

COUNT II involves Military Commissions

Between 9/11/01 and 11/13/01, Gonzales helped draft the Military Order establishing the Military Commissions, signed by President Bush on 11/13/01. This order mandated conduct by members of United States military forces which constitute war crimes under The War Crimes Act.

Gonzales knew or should have known that the Military Commissions, in whose creation he participated, would deprive prisoners in United States custody who will be tried before them, of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the Third Geneva Convention and Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions.

On 1/18/07 Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the U.S. Constitution does not provide the right to habeas corpus, but rather only bars the government from taking that right away (except in the case of rebellion or invasion). This logic would overturn many of the rights that U.S. law has based on the Constitution for over two centuries, as well as overturning rights positively expressed in the Sixth Amendment.

COUNT III relates to Illegal Domestic Surveillance

Since the inception (date unknown) of the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretap program, Gonzales has defined, condoned, concealed and defended the administration's continued violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

On 2/6/06, Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force enacted by Congress on 9/18/01 authorized warrantless domestic surveillance. However, the secret programs may have been launched earlier, the AUMF did not grant the President the right to violate FISA and the Fourth Amendment, and Congress has since amended FISA four times without granting the President those rights. On 1/17/07, Gonzales informed Congress the illegal wiretapping was approved by an unnamed Judge of the FISA Court without providing any evidence that illegal acts had actually ended. On 7/24/07, Gonzales informed Congress there was more than one secret program.

COUNT IV: Corrupting the Department of Justice

Investigations by the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in 2007 established a pattern of firing U.S. Attorneys who failed to implement the corrupt plans of the White House to steal elections through highly-publicized prosecutions of non-existent voter fraud. At the same time, U.S. Attorneys who filed such prosecutions kept their jobs.

COUNT V: Perjury

In multiple appearances before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in 2006 and 2007, Gonzales deliberately misled Congress about the firing of U.S. Attorneys and the warrantless wiretapping program.

My advice to the House Judiciary Committee is this: Stick to perjury - just do it and do it quickly. Include other counts if you can do so quickly. Your goal is to impeach efficiently and move on to your important business of... well, whatever that important business is you're always talking about. Your goal is not to drag Gonzo's crimes in front of us for months. We are painfully aware of them. That's why we've finally been able to force you to take a stand. Please don't imagine that you are going to discover new evidence or that Gonzales is going to squeal on his bosses, or that we need any evidence we don't already have in order to subsequently impeach and convict them. But, and this is important too, if you impeach Gonzales only for perjury, please take steps to make clear to the public that perjury is not somehow a uniquely impeachable offense - just because Clinton and Gonzales were both impeached for it. An impeachable offense is treason, bribery, or any other high crime and misdemeanor.

Could this all be a distraction? Maybe, but I think it's a lot less dangerous in that regard than Censure of Cheney or Bush. This is the right tool: impeachment. It's just not yet addressed to the right people. If we impeach Gonzales, we can and logically must then impeach the men for whom he committed his impeachable offenses. But there is no time to waste.

And there is no time for a month-long vacation.

The people of Iraq cannot expect any summer vacation. Nor can the U.S. troops occupying their country. Nor can the people of New Orleans STILL without homes.

August should be a time for Congress to reclaim some measure of respect from the American people by accomplishing something that cannot be vetoed or signing statemented: the impeachment of the Attorney General and as soon as possible the Vice President.

A group of 9-11 widows recently sent a letter to Congress that read, in part:

"Watching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testify before Congress on July 24, 2007, for the third time, was excruciatingly painful. During Gonzales' testimony, it became abundantly clear that Americans were witnessing the unraveling of the fabric of America. We do not feel that this is an overstatement. The Attorney General, a man who supposedly personifies America's rule of law, obfuscated, committed perjury, and belittled the very institution, the Congress, which makes America a great Democracy. Over and over, we publicly witnessed Gonzales' refusal to answer the questions posed by you - a Committee authorized to conduct oversight duties. You were made to look frustrated and foolish as your attempts at Executive Branch oversight were thwarted by the bizarre, circular non-answers of Attorney General Gonzales. For the third time, you were unable to penetrate his stonewalling. We want to know, is it not a crime to mislead and outright lie to the Congress? How many more opportunities will you give Attorney General Gonzales to make a farce of our system by denying Congress information that would allow you to do your job and properly perform your oversight role?

"....it appears that you are becoming unwittingly complicit in your own undoing. It is evident that what we are watching is the U.S. Congress in the process of making itself irrelevant. When the Executive Branch alone is allowed to act without any oversight, or any accountability, then what we will become is a dictatorship. And once all Americans realize that Congress is unable to perform any oversight, whether it is due to lack of will or complicity, you will no longer be needed. Once it becomes apparent that the Executive Branch is not only making the laws but also deciding which laws to follow, the Congress will be just a quaint, unnecessary and useless artifact."

I couldn't have said it better, so I'll leave it at that.

Search

Kucinich to Submit YOUR Impeachment Petitions!!!

http://keithb7862.gaia.com — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:39:35 GMT

Thursday, August 02, 2007

BREAKING: Kucinich (D-OH) to Submit Your Impeachment Petitions into the Congressional Record

In a meeting Thursday, July 26th, 2007, members of ImpeachForPeace.org and After Downing Street met with Congressman Dennis Kucinich in his Washington DC office to present the Congressman with thousands of "Do It Yourself Impeachments" collected over the past few months. DIY Impeachment Memorials are actually a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson's Manual"), which empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment against any federal official themselves. These Memorials support the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

During our meeting, Congressman Kucinich agreed to place all signers of the DIY Impeachment Memorials specifically referencing Cheney into the Congressional record. Rep. Kucinich also agreed to enter into the record the names of signers of regular petitions to impeach Cheney. Because there is a limit to the number of pages that a representative can submit to the Congressional Record each day, Rep. Kucinich stated he will continue to submit petitions every day until all the names are submitted. The most powerful statement for impeachment is the submission of a Memorial, however, so if you have not yet sent a Memorial for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney to ImpeachForPeace.org, please do so! Go to http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html and download the Memorial. Then send it to the address listed on the cover letter.

"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.

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

Since then, Kucinich held a press conference informing the public of this.

Enter your name into the Congressional Record

For more on the DIY Impeachment process, see this YouTube video

Source

Gaia: ImpeachPod

Re: Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape

Re: Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape

Re: Impeachment Coalition Taking Shape

Activists in Vermont town want Bush, Cheney subject to arrest

Contact your reps to support HR 333

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

America - here it is. What are we gonna do?!

Putting up Posters

Cross post

Re America's Sixty Families.

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

Re: Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

By Ray McGovern, AlterNetPosted on September 3, 2007, Printed on September 3, 2007http://www.alternet.org/story/61328/

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/61328/

Cross post from Progressive Action and Progressive Politics

Sept. 15: Impeachment Movement Comes to Washington

A True Majority video you must watch to believe

What kind of relationship do you have with your Congress

Greens: Democrats, retreating on impeachment

Greens: Democrats, retreating on impeachment and withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

Gonzales, Pelosi, and the Survival of Congress

Kucinich to Submit YOUR Impeachment Petitions!!!

Thursday, August 02, 2007

BREAKING: Kucinich (D-OH) to Submit Your Impeachment Petitions into the Congressional Record

By Ray McGovern, AlterNet
Posted on September 3, 2007, Printed on September 3, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/61328/