Dennis thinks we should wake up...

i agree... we've been sleeping in while our country has been stolen right out from underneath us...

dennis kucinich at the dnc...



i'm actually more than a little surprised that kucinich was allowed to even get NEAR the dnc podium when a former democratic president, jimmy carter, didn't even make an APPEARANCE...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

In a parallel universe, Ramsey Clark would be called a hero for insisting on the impeachment of George Bush

why, in our society, in the world of today, is a man like this marginalized...?


Ramsey Clark
Photo courtesy of the BBC and AFP

William Ramsey Clark (born December 18, 1927) is a lawyer and former United States Attorney General. He worked for the U.S. Department of Justice, which included service as the 66th United States Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson. He is a left-wing activist and has been known for his continuing advocacy for civil and human rights political causes. He is also known for his role as defense attorney in the trials of Saddam Hussein. He was a recipient of the Gandhi Peace Award and the Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience Award.

[...]

Following his term as Attorney General he worked as a law professor and was active in the anti–Vietnam War movement. He visited North Vietnam in 1972 as a protest to the bombing of Hanoi. He was also associated with the New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison before resigning to run for political office.

In 1974 he was the Democratic Party's candidate for the United States Senate from New York, losing to Jacob Javits. In 1976, Clark again sought the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, but was a distant third in the primary behind Daniel Patrick Moynihan, (the winner), and Congresswoman Bella Abzug.

More recently, Clark has become controversial for his political views and publications. While mildly denouncing the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. in 2001, he has also strongly opposed any retaliation against Afghanistan as well as against Al-Qaeda. He has been a strong opponent of the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan and the rest of the world from the very beginning.

In 1991, Clark accused the administration of President George H. W. Bush and "others to be named" of "crimes against peace, war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" for its conduct of the Gulf War against Iraq and the ensuing sanctions; in 1996, he added the charges of genocide and the "use of a weapon of mass destruction". Similarly, after the 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Ramsey charged and "tried" NATO on 19 counts and issued calles for its dissolution.

[...]

Clark is affiliated with VoteToImpeach, an organization advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush. He has been an opponent of both 1991 and 2003 Persian Gulf War conflicts. "Impeachment is the most important issue facing Constitutional government in the United States. Impeachment will determine whether the American people will hold the Bush administration accountable for its High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

in the united states, as we near the end of the first decade of the 21st century, anyone who has the courage to say what so desperately needs to be said, should be accorded only the highest of accolades...

A message from Ramsey Clark
"Bush has no right to lecture about human rights"

A price the American people are paying for the failure of the House of Representatives to impeach Bush, Cheney and their cabal for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity -- the greatest assaults on peace and human rights of this century -- is the Bush Administration’s bellicose drum beat for war against a widening circle of chosen enemies.

Imagine George Bush with the blood of a million Afghans and Iraqis on his hands, the shame of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo hanging around his neck, having trashed the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, lecturing China for violating human rights at the World Olympics in Beijing, a hopeful symbol of international cooperation through the peaceful competition of athletes in friendship.

Imagine George Bush lecturing Russia on human rights after insisting on putting U.S. (not NATO) Star War missile sites on the Russian border in Poland and the Czech Republic despite the tragic lessons of the Cold War, all told the greatest crime in history. Among its costs are expenditures that could have provided food for all, vastly reduced poverty on the planet, progressed toward quality universal health care, education and housing for everyone. Instead it took more lives by military violence on five continents and greater military expenditures than World War II and released the genie of nuclear weapons to a status beyond control. Can the planet survive another arms race? And what was George Bush planning when he urged immediate admission of Georgia to NATO just months before Georgia invaded South Ossetia?

Imagine George Bush who committed wars of aggression, the “Supreme International Crime,” against Afghanistan and Iraq, invading and occupying both, judging Russia’s conduct as” unacceptable," and demanding withdrawal of Russian forces because it sent troops into Georgia to protect the population of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from an invasion by Georgia that killed citizens and peace keepers alike, destroyed property and had driven tens of thousands from their homes.

Nor was Georgia a stranger to Russia. It had been a part of Russia since 1801 for nearly all the last two centuries. It had great power within the USSR. Joseph Stalin was from Georgia, as were L. P. Beria, longtime head of the NKVD and many others, Edward Shevardnadze, the Soviet Union’s last Foreign Minister and the first President of the Government of the independent Georgia that separated from the Soviet Union in 1990.

George Bush took a keen interest in Georgia, which is on Russia’s southern border, but on the opposite side of the planet from the U.S., early in his Presidency and in Mikhail Saakashvili. Under Bush’s direction the U.S. provided major military arms and training for Georgia. It persuaded, or paid Georgia which had no interest in Iraq to send 2000 troops to there, a number exceeded only by the U.S. and U.K. It trained and supported the Georgian troops for duty in Iraq. Saakashvili, a U.S. law school graduate, to quote the New York Times “...positioned himself to become one of the world’s most strident critics of the Kremlin” and with the strong support from the U.S. he was elected President of Georgia.

The U.S. helped them militarize what had been a weak Georgian state. The Pentagon helped overhaul Georgia’s military forces, train its commanders and staff officers. U.S. marine strained Georgian soldiers in the fundamentals of battle. The forces were equipped with Israeli and U.S. firearms, reconnaissance drones and other sophisticated equipment, including anti-aircraft weaponry. That the U.S. trained and equipped Georgian forces fled in the face of Russian forces should have told us something about the U.S. training and equipping of foreign militaries.

All this U.S. support and manipulation was with the public goal, urged by George Bush, of making remote Georgia, though a thousand miles from Europe across the Black Sea and Russia, member of NATO and placing Abkhazia and South Ossetia under Georgian control by force.

As in most matters in which George Bush takes aggressive action, oil is a factor in some form. Georgia has made itself available for a pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan then across Georgia to the Black Sea, a major Bush goal, carrying oil from Azerbaijan and former Soviet Republics in Central Asia, produced in large part by U.S. oil companies, to Western markets by-passing Russia. Western Europe shared this U.S. interest.

President Bush visited Georgia in 2005, the first U.S. President to do so. Condoleeza Rice visited while National Security Advisor to Bush and since. Saakashvili has been a frequent guest at the White House and in the Washington corridors of power.

It is George Bush’s enticement and incitement of Georgia that created the present crisis. We have not been told what has been paid Georgia for it.

Suppose NATO had agreed to Georgia membership before Georgia invaded South Ossetia, as the U.S. urged. NATO would have been bound by mutual defense pact to defend Georgia as a Member. NATO, a Cold War creation, which includes all the former colonial powers, should be abolished. The U.S. persuaded NATO to share blame for its assaults that balkanized Yugoslavia which was created to end centuries of violence in the Balkans through unity. It tried to persuade NATO to join in its wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. It nearly succeeded in Georgia.

The U.S. has a major military airbase in Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet Republic to Russia’s south and more than 1500 miles east of Georgia which is used to bomb Afghanistan. The U.S. has surrounded Russia with military bases from the Baltic states south across its western border with Europe then east for more than 2500 miles to its borders with Xinjiang Province in western China and Mongolia.

Now we can see the hypocrisy of the U.S. calling NATO into emergency session to address the Georgia crisis with false claims made repeatedly about the ceasefire and withdrawal terms negotiated by President Sarkozy of France, only to back down from all its threats and demands for action after fomenting international friction on false pretenses. The world cannot be made safe for hypocrisy, or mendacity.

It is noteworthy that Georgia is within one hundred miles of the border of Iran across Armenia. While George Bush vigorously protests Russian confrontation with Georgian troops which invaded South Ossetia, he has continued his threatening of Iran with a war of aggression for its alleged but unproven efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability while he engages in a huge U.S. expenditure for new nuclear weapons. The U.S. now has its largest Naval presence in the Gulf region since the Gulf war, pointed toward Iran. The probability that President Bush will cause Israel and the U.S. to attack Iranian nuclear facilities plants during his remaining months in office remains high. Such an attack would violate the Nuremberg Charter and Article 56 of Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Convention 1979, which protects “Works and Installations Containing Dangerous Forces,” including nuclear facilities, from attack, because of the “consequent severe losses among the civilian population” from the blast and radiation.

As Bush's crimes grow, so does our responsibility to act. Please bring your friends and family members into the impeachment movement by sending them to ImpeachBush.org and make a donation today so that the movement to Impeach and Indict Bush and Cheney will keep growing. Click this link to make your donation.

Ramsey Clark
August 22, 2008

in a just, principled society, in a world not ruled by those thirsting for money and power, clark's message would never have to appear, and the criminals that hold sway over our lives would have never been able to do so...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

It's still not too late to dump the bastards...! A call to action...!

thanks to ralph lopez at daily kos...

From Impeachment Left to Right

The 110th Congress isn’t over. We’re starting our work, and then we’re doing it in a period where the Congress is in recess. I’m calling everybody back. We’ve got a huge amount of work to engage in.- John Conyers on DemocracyNow Radio, Aug.14,2008

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers has taken the highly unusual step of calling his committee back from summer recess in order to investigate allegations by Ron Suskind that the Bush administration forged a letter to buttress the links made between Saddam and 9/11, and Saddam and WMD. The congressional Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq, the ""War Resolution" which, as far short as it fell of a congressional declaration of war, gave the invasion its constitutional legal cover, and gave Bush the authorization to invade only after he had certified to congress the existence of these two critical links. If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and if he did not possess WMD, the war was off.

The Authorization for the Use of Force stipulated:

Sec. 3 (b) Presidential Determination.--

In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

On March 23, 2003, the president certified just that:

-"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." -George Bush, certification to Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, March 23, 2003

"Armed force against Iraq is consistent with...actions against...nations...who...aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11..." are the operative words in that statement without the subordinate clauses.

After the flurry of impeachment articles embodied in HR 1345, read on the House floor on June 9, 2008, Rep. Dennis Kucinich followed up on July 10 with a single article which lasers in on the exact war lies Suskind's alleged forgery has called attention to. Not that the document is needed to show Bush lied. He admitted as much, which in a courtroom is prima facie evidence which supercedes any other.

In a press conference with Tony Blair in Jan. of 2003, Bush said:

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

And on Sept. 18, 2003, on Meet the Press, Bush drove the nail in all the way:

-"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.

Conyers' reconvening of his committee was the result of enormous public pressure, most poignantly that coming from military families wanting to know why their loved ones are dead. Despite the exquisite, shining clockwork political operation now in place at the Executive Branch, working hand in glove with the media spin machine, it's still not that easy to get 4100 Americans killed over lies. Bush knew Americans would not subject their troops to such an uncertain fiasco over 17 violated UN resolutions, or Saddam's brutal but by no means unique human rights record. If we attacked every country which violated UN resolutions, we'd be bombing Tel Aviv.

So Bush lied.

What is needed now is a full-court press by the public, especially those citizens up until now silent, to transform the Suskind investigation into true impeachment hearings. Public pressure, and only public pressure, resulted in the stunning but buried hearings of July 25, 2008. On that day only 17 out of hundreds of citizens from across the country who packed the hallway outside the Judiciary chambers were allowed into the room. As people chanted "Shame!" it was explained by Judiciary staff that the rest of the seats were taken by the media. The joke turned out to be on you, the public. Media packed the room, but not one American newspaper, not one network news station, reported the dramatic six-hour testimony which outlined some of the most serious charges which can be made against a U.S. president.

This country is now learning what many already know: that democracy is not given. It is demanded. Few politicians are interested in your right to freedom from search and seizure without a warrant, or your right to a jury trial even if George Bush thinks you are an "enemy combatant." They already belong to a class of the powerful who will merit special consideration. Some, with good reason, may argue that we already have a two-tier system of justice, for the rich, and for the poor. But like the movie says, you ain't seen nothing yet.

There is nothing partisan about impeachment. Just as politics should stop at the water's edge (except for John McCain, who injected himself into the Georgia crisis in a manner which would have earned Obama a withering barrage,) it stops when the very process by which we govern ourselves is in peril.

This is why someone like Bruce Fein, a former Reagan deputy attorney general who "trashed the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, stating that it required a "hallucinogenic intellectual flight" on the part of Justice Harry Blackmun to draft the opinion," according to CommonDreams.org, has come out as one of the most effective spokemen for a Bush impeachment. Why? CommonDreams goes on:

This is what did it: The disclosure that the National Security Agency (NSA) is engaged in the domestic wiretapping of American citizens in the United States without first obtaining warrants. The Bush Administration had crossed the line. Within twenty-four hours, Fein went into constitutional combat mode. And he hasn’t stopped since.

For Fein, there is nothing really to debate; the law is settled. In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, permitting the government to conduct electronic surveillance on citizens in the United States if it first gets a warrant from the FISA court, which exists for that reason only. The FISA court rarely has denied such a request.

Fein says:

"The President could pick and choose which statutes to obey in gathering foreign intelligence and employing battlefield tactics on the sidewalks of the United States."

Please do three things:

1. Call Judiciary Committee members, give a message saying we know the difference between a show, and impeachment. This is fast.

2. Participate in the campaign to reach Judiciary members' campaign contributors, to ask them as one citizen to another to withhold contributions until the member does this clearest of patriotic duties. Why this route? Because congressmen have shown themselves to be impervious to any amount of constituent pressure. Rep. John Olver (D-MA) even said, at a town meeting "Spare me, I know full well the overwhelming majority of my constituency is in favor of impeachment" as he told the packed room he would not co-sponsor any resolutions against either Bush or Cheney. We used to think that representatives were there to represent us. We have learned better. But we're not done with them.

3. Start now to prevail on the media to cover important hearings when they happen. Participate in the advertiser boycott.

There will be naysayers, and the Pelosians who seems to think that a super-majority of Pelosians is the answer. These are the same people who betrayed Americans by failing to stop the Iraq War, when they were given a majority to do just that. Better the Pelosians understand that doing their duty to impeach will be seen as a down-payment on regaining the trust of the rank-and-file, and the American people. Otherwise all promises are empty. Any national healthcare will be written by big pharma and the insurance companies. Presidents will continue to get their blank checks for war. As for the naysayers on impeachment, as the saying goes, either lead, follow, or get out of the way.

From Impeachment Left to Right

DIARIST'S NOTE ON COMMENTS: An awful lot of the good folks here are commenting along the lines of "I can dream that it's really true," that's great, but please don't forget to call and write as well. No one is taking care of our rights for us, we've got to do it ourselves. Conyers is not there to convince us he is going to really do something. We are here to convince him he must. I would trade every hand-wringing comment across the Internet on this topic for a one strong email to congressmen/contributors/news media.

he's right... we simply can't give up on this... it's way too important...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"Why does Pakistan get all the good impeachments?"

juan cole asks an excellent question...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Hearing on the limits of executive power

a week ago friday in the house of representatives...

Vincent Bugliosi



Bruce Fein



Bob Barr



Dennis Kucinich



and, as i write this on saturday, august 2, 2008, criminals are still in charge of our country...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Sign Kucinich' Impeach petition

do your part this july 4th... it's not too late...

This is Your Moment. Impeach Bush NOW! Sign the Petition.



sign here...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Russ Feingold describes the pending FISA bill as an "impeachable offense" and says he will filibuster

from democracy now...

“One of the Greatest Intrusions, Potentially, on the Rights of Americans Protected Under the 4th Amendment”–Sen. Feingold Blasts Telecom Spy Bill

here's some of the meat...

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, this is a great blow to the rights of the American people. And much of the publicity has been about a very important aspect: giving these telephone companies immunity that cooperated with the President’s illegal program. We think that should be decided based on current law, not some kind of a retroactive immunity. But that’s essentially what this bill does.

But you know what? Even worse are the provisions of the bill that will make it very easy for the government to essentially suck up the communications, all communications of Americans that go overseas, whether it’s an email or a text message or a phone call to a daughter, junior year abroad, or a child who’s in Iraq or a reporter or a business associate. This is one of the greatest intrusions, potentially, on the rights of Americans protected under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the history of our country.

And unfortunately, it’s going to go through with the help of some Democrats. So this is a very, very sad day for our Constitution and for our rights, and it’s not justified by the terrorism issue, because we do not have any problem at all with going after anybody that we have reasonable suspicions about. It has to do with sucking all this information into a huge database in a way that is very intrusive on the privacy of all Americans.

[...]

The President takes the position that under Article II of the Constitution he can ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We believe that that’s absolutely wrong. I have pointed out that I think it is not only against the law, but I think it’s a pretty plain impeachable offense that the President created this program, and yet this immunity provision may have the effect not only of giving immunity to the telephone companies, but it may also allow the administration to block legal accountability for this crime, which I believe it is.

[...]

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, explain exactly what you think is an impeachable offense.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, you know, this is one of the things that’s been debated over the centuries, but I believe that when—it has to do with the rule of law and the very structure of our system of government, in other words, not just the issue that many have been concerned about, misleading the country into war, the Iraq war. That was a terrible thing, and, you know, some say that’s an impeachable offense. But to me, when the law is clear, when it’s absolutely clear that there is a clear statute and the President creates his own idea of a law and says he doesn’t have to follow the duly elected laws of the land, to me, that’s right at the core of what the founders of this country meant when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors.

[...]

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, will you filibuster this bill?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also—Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We’re not just going to let it be rubberstamped.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you filibuster, though?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: That’s what I just described.

hey, russ... when is your buddy, chris dodd, going to speak out publicly...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Nancy Pelosi = rubber chicken = Nancy Pelosi

shirley golub is trying to unseat nancy pelosi in her san francisco district... i wish her the very best...

here's her much-viewed rubber chicken campaign ad...



should you be so moved, you can contribute here...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Nancy Pelosi is a traitor to her nation by not leading the charge against the criminals in the White House

from the peace team...

There is something truly phenomenal going on in San Francisco. A political novice by the name of Shirley Golub has the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, running scared, afraid that if she agrees to debate the challenger she will not be able to defend her record of capitulation, afraid the voters of the 8th congressional district will no longer make excuses for political cowardice ... just afraid.

And that's exactly the way Shirley Golub called it last week, when she called Nancy Pelosi out for being a political coward, using those exact words. Listen to the radio ad they are all talking about for yourself.

Click here to listen.
Click here to donate to
Shirley Golub's campaign.

[...]

With the revelations that directives to torture came straight from the White House, in excruciating detail, from meeting of the principals at the highest level, it is a national disgrace that Congress has not already commenced impeachment hearings, of the Vice President who presided over it all, and the absentee President who now admits he knew about the whole thing.

What are we to call this but the most abject cowardice? Why would we believe that anything would change by electing more cowards cut from the same cloth? If Congress is incapable of standing up for itself now, why would be believe that under some subsequent administration they would acquit themselves with any actual valor?

And yet there are now those trying to make a controversy out of telling the truth, when the real controversy is all the lies. There are those who would try to make a scandal out of confronting scandal, when the real scandal is those who are too frightened to expose it.

So listen to Shirley Golub's new radio spot again, and ask yourself if there is even a single word she speaks that is not the straight unadulerated truth.

there is only one honorable thing for the complicit and criminal members of the bush administration to do and that is to resign... by extension, the speaker of the house of representatives, by refusing to uphold the duties of her office, should resign as well... the key word, however, is "honorable," a word that carries no meaning in bushworld or, evidently, in pelosiworld either...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Sic 'em, Bob

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), one of Floida's few Patriotic Politicians.

This is in response to George W Bush's personal attorney, Michael Mukasey.





His attitude IS rubbing off on his fellow-congressmen. Will it be too little, too late? Will it be before the Cabal takes up residence in Paraguay?

Lord, Help Us.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"The US Congress cannot conspire in Bush's destruction of US civil liberty and expect a future restoration of civil liberty"

paul craig roberts articulates the precise issue that bothers me the most about the serial capitulation of our congress, unfolding once again as we watch, aghast...

No matter who is the next president, the Bush Regime has established that the executive branch is no longer a co-equal branch of government. It is the primary branch, armed with unaccountability and the discretion to consult with other branches of government if it so wishes. The US Congress cannot give up the powers it has given up during the Bush years and ever expect to get them back.

The US Congress cannot conspire in Bush's destruction of US civil liberty and expect a future restoration of civil liberty.

Republican federal judges who have aided and abetted the rise of an executive branch dictatorship cannot expect the judiciary to continue as a check on the unconstitutional and illegal behavior of the executive branch.

The Bush Regime, with the complicity of Congress and the judiciary, has destroyed the American constitutional system.

[...]

In the November 2006 congressional elections, voters gave Democrats control of Congress in order to rein in the Republican administration, but by then Congress had been reduced to an impotent branch of government and has proven to be incapable of reining in even an unpopular president with a 19% approval rating.

If a Regime that has come to be despised and deplored by a majority of Americans and the world can ride roughshod over law and the Constitution, constitutional government obviously has no future in America.

[...]

The only power the House has left is impeachment, and Pelosi is too frightened to use it. Why is the Speaker of the House afraid to use the power the Constitution gives her to remove from office a president who deceived Congress and the American people, who violated US and international law, and who is a clear and present danger to American liberty, to the US Constitution, and to peace and stability in the world?

good question... i'm torn between two possible answers... one is, yes, congress is frightened because something big enough and dark enough is being held over their heads that effectively prevents them from fulfilling their oath of office... the other is simply that they are co-conspirators, that they are getting something for themselves out of this horrible, country-destroying charade...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

No, no, no, no, and no... Contempt citations DON'T substitute for IMPEACHMENT, dammit...! [UPDATE]

are we supposed to think that, after sitting on your ass AND the contempt citations for SEVEN GODDAM MONTHS, and then filing them knowing DAMN GOOD AND WELL that the doj would refuse to take action, SUBSTITUTES for REMOVING THE CRIMINALS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE...? if that thought even crossed your fuzzy little brain, nancy, i am F****** OUTRAGED...

House Democrats really didn't expect the Justice Department to present their contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury for prosecution.

But the effort and having a civil lawsuit at the ready as a backup in their fight against the White House over the 2006 firings of nine federal prosecutors has satisfied, for now, some liberals who for a year have wanted much more: Bush's impeachment.

Even before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to reach Congress' highest office, the California Democrat had rejected demands from many in her party for impeachment.

Until two weeks ago, she had sat for seven months on the contempt citations sought by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee against Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and his former counsel, Harriet Miers.

and NOW we're supposed to WAIT for the CIVIL SUIT to move glacially forward...? NO, i say... INHERENT CONTEMPT AND IMPEACHMENT...!

[UPDATE]

my final letter to pelosi...

Madame Speaker,

I just finished reading the following news item in the Associated Press (link follows).
-----

[excerpts from above article]

-----
I am outraged. So far, I have attempted to be polite and reasonable in my communication with you and my U.S. Senator, Harry Reid. I have repeatedly expressed my desire to have both of you take strong action against the criminals who currently occupy the White House. However, now that you have stonewalled impeachment hearings for fourteen months, stalled for seven months prior to submitting contempt of Congress citations (all the while knowing that the Department of Justice would not pursue them), and failed to invoke the option for inherent contempt (CRS Congressional Oversight Manual, May 1, 2007), I have no choice but to conclude that you have violated your oath of office.

I am abundantly clear that the unconstitutional, balance of powers-negating mechanisms of unfettered executive power seized by George W. Bush under the bogus claim of the "unitary executive" and an illegal interpretation of our Constitution, will remain intact as the new president is sworn in on 20 January 2009.

Madame Speaker, regretfully I can no longer entrust you, your leadership, or your colleagues with the sacred and sworn obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution. There is nothing left for those of us who cherish our country but to move to replace our government with one which will respect the principles upon which the United States was founded.

This will be my final communication with you.

Sincerely,

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Hey, Nancy, you worthless bitch... Shirley's putting HERSELF on the table...!

shirley golub is challenging nancy pelosi in her home district and has a few things to say about impeachment...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Kucinich on Bush: "We know the State of the Union. It's a lie."

god bless 'im... he's like the energizer bunny... he just keeps on goin'...

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio may get excluded from Democratic presidential debates, as he has been recently, but no one can deny him the floor in the House.

And today Mr. Kucinich took to the floor to fire off his latest salvo at the Bush administration: his plans to introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Bush on Jan. 28 — the day of Mr. Bush’s State of the Union speech.

Accusing the administration of lying about the need for the war in Iraq, Mr. Kucinich said he did not need to hear the president’s assessment. “We know the State of the Union,” he declared. “It’s a lie.”

He also fired a volley at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California who has maintained that impeaching Mr. Bush is not on the table for Congressional Democrats. “If impeachment is off the table,” Mr. Kucinich said, “truth is off the table. If truth is off the table then this body is living a lie.”

truer words were never spoken...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

In the history of our nation, there has never been a stronger case for impeachment [UPDATE]

listen up, people...

In the history of our nation, we have never encountered a moment where the actions of a President or a Vice President have more strongly demanded the use of the power of impeachment.

congressman robert wexler last night on the floor of the house...



[UPDATE]

how very interesting... i glanced at this post just a moment ago to find that the video had been replaced by a banner stating that "you cannot view this video on this website..." wexler's website offers the code to embed the video, so i know it's not restricted... i returned to wexler's site, re-copied the embed code, replaced the code in the post body, and re-posted... it works now, but let's see what happens after a while...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

George McGovern: "The only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president"

from the wapo...

Why I Believe Bush Must Go
Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.

By George McGovern

Sunday, January 6, 2008; Page B01

i don't need to elaborate on my views except to say that our country desperately needs to have both of them removed by the most expeditious and legal means at our disposal...

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

[...]

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

[...]

Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.

[...]

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.

eloquent, rational, and spot-on...

send your appreciation to senator mcgovern here...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Rep. Wexler's op-ed on impeachment gets major media exposure - FINALLY

the philadelphia inquirer...

The charges against Cheney are not personal. They go to the core of the actions of this administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority supports hearings, according to a Nov. 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70 percent of voters say the vice president has abused his powers, and 43 percent say he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.

Some people argue that the Judiciary Committee cannot proceed with impeachment hearings because it would distract Congress from passing important legislative initiatives. We disagree. First, hearings need not tie up Congress for a year and shut down the nation. Second, hearings will not prevent Congress from completing its other business. These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the vice president - not of our commander in chief - and the resulting impact on the nation's business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton presidential impeachment hearings. Also, even though President Bush has thwarted moderate Democratic policies that are supported by a vast majority of Americans - including children's health care, stem-cell research, and bringing our troops home from Iraq - the Democratic Congress has already managed to deliver a minimum-wage increase, an energy bill to address the climate crisis and bring us closer to energy independence, assistance for college tuition, and other legislative successes. We can continue to deliver on more of our agenda in the coming year while simultaneously fulfilling our constitutional duty by investigating and publicly revealing whether Cheney has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence - not politics - should determine the outcome. Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an administration that has consistently skirted the Constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.

yes, it's ANOTHER letter...

Dear Representative Wexler,

I have followed your efforts since you set up your website a few weeks ago and I could not be more supportive. My hat is off to you for your courage and dedication in forcefully stepping up to address the critical constitutional crisis faced by our nation. It is clear that you take your oath of office seriously. Would that more of your colleagues choose to follow your example.

I have grave concerns about the state of affairs in the U.S. For more than seven years, we have witnessed breathtaking lawlessness, unprecedented corruption, a complete disregard for international norms and obligations, illegal and unconstitutional domestic surveillance, bald-faced lies, verifiable war crimes, and a trampling of our precious founding principles carried out with impunity by our elected, appointed, and civil servant leaders. Those in positions of authority who attempt to derail this unheralded coup d'etat are ridiculed, attacked, marginalized, and threatened, while ever more sweeping government powers are enacted and crimes committed, often through stealth and under claims of executive privilege and national security.

This most serious national crisis, rather than being brought before the public by the fourth estate, and driving our citizens, our Congress, and our courts to swift action, has been greeted with deafening silence. Were it not for the alternative media, weblogs, and the internet, I would be in the same position as most of my fellow countrymen, perhaps experiencing a sense of things not being quite right, but nevertheless preoccupied with the rhythm of my daily life and more mundane concerns.

Let me be clear, Representative Wexler. Yes, I support starting impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney. They are years overdue, and I totally fail to comprehend the stonewalling by Representative Conyers and Speaker Pelosi. But, even more than that, I support the removal of the current administration by the most expedient and legal means possible. As I write this, the mechanisms of unfettered executive power continue to be put in place, Congress continues to abdicate its oversight role - and, in effect, to nullify its constitutionally-mandated separate-but-equal, balance of powers authority - and the Bush administration still has another thirteen months in office, an unacceptably long time. Moreover, if those mechanisms are not rolled back and forcefully repudiated, they will remain in place when our next president in inaugurated on 20 January 2009, and that is even more unacceptable.

Please, Sir, I call on you to do whatever is in your power to remove this terrible curse from our country. There is no time to lose.

Best regards,

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Congressman Wexler's call for impeachment hearings: 100,000, heading for 500,000

if you haven't signed, go do so here...

We have already reached 100,000 supporters. Thank You.

Now We Need Each of You To Send an Email to Ten More People to Get 250,000 Signed Up at WexlerWantsHearings.com by the End of the Year.

I can guarantee that your 100,000 voices calling for impeachment hearings will now be heard in Congress. Together, through our new Quarter Million Person Challenge, let's now set a new goal of 250,000 Americans signing up to demand action.

It has been just 5 days since I called for impeachment hearings for Vice-President Dick Cheney and already over 100,000 people - including you - have answered that call by adding your name as an impeachment supporter at www.WexlerWantsHearings.com. This is a truly remarkable response that demonstrates the power that average, everyday Americans can have when we come together to pursue justice and accountability.

Never mind that the national media ignored my call and rejected an op-ed that I wrote along with my Judiciary Colleagues Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). The Netroots and citizen activists like yourself are spreading our message and demanding action.

Quarter Million Person Challenge

Our movement continues to grow by the hour and the day. But, with the media blackout, I need your help to grow our effort. With 100,000 supporters already signed-up, if each of you e-mail ten of your friends (a "Chain-ey letter") about www.WexlerWantsHearings.com and the need for Cheney impeachment hearings we will reach over a million Americans and perhaps we can reach a new goal of 250,000 signers by the end of the year!!


Join Me Thursday Night on Blog Radio to Discuss Our Next Steps

On this Thursday at 9:00 p.m. (EST) and 6:00 (PST), please join me as I appear on live on the Internet to discuss my efforts to convince Congress to hold impeachment hearing.

Congressman Wexler Live on Blog Radio:

WHEN: Thursday, December 18, 9:00 pm (EST)/6:00 pm (PST)

WHERE: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/fpc (a link will be posted at www.wexlerwantshearings.com and www.wexlerforcongress.com )

WHO: Rep. Wexler will appear live on Florida Progressive Radio with host Kenneth Quinnell of the Florida Netroots Caucus, Bob Fertick of Democrats.com, as well as Dave Lindorf, author of "The Case for Impeachment," and David Swanson with AfterDowningStreet.org.


More on the Media Blackout

The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, and Boston Globe have all rejected our op ed (though the Miami Herald just put an edited version in its "Letters to the Editor" section). We have heard from the editors of some of these publications and they are telling us that they are getting overwhelmed with phone calls and letters of complaint. (Well done everybody!)

In short - we need to keep the pressure on if this news will spread far beyond the Netroots community.


With warm regards,

Congressman Robert Wexler

www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

send it along to your friends and relatives...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Sign Wexler's petition

see yesterday's post...

45,109 as of 4:45 p.m. PST, heading for 500,000...

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 unneccesary war but violated the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to hold impeachment hearings.

sign the petition here...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Faced with media censorship, Congressman Wexler pleads for Cheney's impeachment

after getting rejected by the major print news outlets, he set up his own website...

As the House Judiciary Committee continues to refuse any action on proposals to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, three of that panel's members tried to take their case to influential op-ed pages of the nation's largest newspapers.

They were turned down by every one -- including the New York Times, Washington Post and Miami Herald -- so now one of the lawmakers has taken his campaign to the Internet.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) on Friday launched a new Web site, WexlerWantsHearings.com to advance his call to impeach Cheney. The site hosts an op-ed article censored by the nation's major newspapers and outlines the case for impeaching Cheney.

this must be what media censorship in the old soviet union felt like, only THEY didn't have the internet...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments