A toxic political atmosphere settled over Washington in 1998; left untended, unchallenged and unabated the accumulated corrosive effect has been that the emergence of an American populous that expects little if anything from its government, an erosion of the American will, and an acceptance of rampant culture of corruption in Washington that the American people now believe they can do nothing about. Nothing is further from the truth. This American psychosis of Cynicism has got to stop now!
I am a graduate of Kent State University and I lived only a few miles from the campus when it marched into the pages of history in a hail of bullets in an America taking a stand in an earlier mismanaged war…Vietnam. Those were hard times, but at least America still had a functioning heart and soul, a dream, hope and the will to speak to right and wrong, without excuse, without enabling denial and surrender to mind numbing cynicism and defeatism.
Wake up please. Bush is as Guilty as hell and has no business being the President of the nation, and I am still waiting to hear a good reason, not a convenient reason why he and his subordinates should not be Impeached and tried as War Criminals in an International Forum!
For the many I speak with, all I can say is: “You're damned-right we've had enough of this administration! Jail is the only-place for them, and the criminal-idiots in Congress who have obstructed justice for six-years, what scumbags they are. Jail, nothing-less will do.” And while many just don’t see anything happening in this coutry to serve the average citizen, and they don’t believe that the law and traditional standards of justice can be applied to our political leaders (no leader falls unless brought down by his own) because they have manipulated and written themselves into a position above and beyond the law where they can authorize the deaths of 1,000s of our young service people with a pack of lie and incompetent leadership, can ignore the most pressing needs of our society whiler plundering the Tax Treasury of this nation on behalf of themselves, their friends and campaign contributers.
Well that is about to come to a screaming halt with the new year and the dismissal of all the verbal lint that followed the November Election. The pirrranah will be returning to the city and as I wrote over a week ago all bets are off as:
“WASHINGTON – The tectonic plates of Washington power have shifted, presenting both President Bush and the new Democratic majority in Congress with an opportunity to work together and leave behind the politics of confrontation.From the Democrats' end, Ms. Pelosi already has appeared to clamp down on talk of impeaching the president by some of the more vocal liberals in the House. Still, life under the Democrats is expected to include hearings and inquiries into aspects of the Iraq war and the larger war on terror. The challenge will be for the Democrats not to appear on a witch hunt.Impeachment may be a hush, hush word for the moment in the Halls of Congress, but flaming organizational and internet energies are building rapidly for a major Richter Scale assault on the President in 2007. The tremors are building up and early in 2007, despite rhetoric of bipartisan unity, the Halls of Congress are about to shake as the same public that voted for change is gearing up to demand Justice and the restoration of Constitutional Government in this nation.”
Impeachment investigations are not a distraction!
These corporate "whores" we call Congress need to understand, real quick like, that investigations into the crimes of this administration are NOT a distraction and we demand that they perform their duty and investigate these people completely...in a bipartisan way!
This nonsense that Impeachment is "off the table" is simply not true. Impeachment investigations must be done before this country can ever hope to "move forward". How can we "move forward" with the albatross of tacit approval by the American people to the criminal acts of this regime hanging on our neck? Justice demands that we investigate, investigate, investigate...and where appropriate, convict, convict, convict; then, criminally prosecute!
Home Downing Street.Org
Impeachment Events in DC on January 4th
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2006-12-28 02:34. Activism Impeachment
January 4, 2007: Demonstrate in Washington DC as Congress opens!Rally at 12 Noon, Upper Senate Park, Constitution & Delaware NW
At 7 p.m. - Voices Speak Out for ImpeachmentBallroom, National Press ClubSpeakers to include Cindy Sheehan, John Nichols, & Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*
BUSH MUST GO!
IF WAR CRIMES, TORTURE, AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ARE NOT REASON TO IMPEACH, WHAT IS?
The whole program of the Bush administration must be stopped. If George Bush is allowed to finish out his term, all the destruction and the whole direction he has taken society will be condoned, legitimated and made permanent. We demand Congress investigate and hold accountable the Bush Administration for criminal liability and bring articles of impeachment against the President.
Generations from now people will ask what did the people of this country do when they knew their government was committing war crimes: launching a war based on the unlawful doctrine of “preventive” war; indiscriminately using cluster bombs, depleted uranium and chemical weapons against civilians; and carrying out an illegal occupation?
What will you say when they ask why a President who decided he could order torture with impunity stayed in office?
Will your answer be that we did nothing because Congress refused to act, counseling governing from the center and working with the President and seeking unity and common ground with war criminals, religious fanatics and fascists?
Your government, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly immoral and illegitimate war in Iraq – with Iran now in its sights.
Your government is openly torturing people. In violation of international law, with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, it has made torture legal and granted itself immunity from criminal prosecution.
Your government is creating a police state – obliterating basic constitutional protections, such as the right to habeas corpus, the right to privacy and the right to dissent.
For the war to end now, for torture to stop, to restore rights stolen, we the people must act. No one will do this for us. That which you do not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn – or be forced – to accept.
We can and must create a political situation where the Bush regime’s whole program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office and where the whole direction he has been taking society is reversed.
January 4, 2007: Demonstrate in Washington DC as Congress opens! Impeach Bush!
THE WORLD CAN”T WAIT - DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME!
Rally at 12 Noon, Upper Senate Park, Constitution & Delaware NWEndorsers:AfterDowningStreet.org
Democracy Rising Bill Goodman, Center for Constitutional Rights*
ImpeachBush.org
ImpeachForPeace.org
ImpeachBush.tv
National Lawyers Guild
Cynthia McKinney
Cindy Sheehan,
Gold Star Families for Peace
Gore Vidal
United for Lt. Watada
The World Can’t Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime
Rev. Lennox Yearwood,
Hip Hop Caucus
*For identification purposes only.
*For identification purposes only.
January 4, Thursday, 7 p.m. - Voices Speak Out for Impeachment Ballroom,
National Press ClubSpeakers to include Cindy Sheehan, John Nichols, & Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights*
Add your name to this Call for Jan. 4th - email World Can't Wait National Director Debra Sweet at:
For more information and to help plan and mobilize for January 4, contact DC World Can't Wait,
World Can't Wait DC Chapter (202) 536-4313dc@worldcantwait.org
Home
Want to End the War? Ask for Investigations!
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2006-11-18 01:20. Activism Congress
Here's a one-page info sheet to use in lobbying your Congress Member and Senators. Here's more information:
Public awareness of the lies that led to the war and the crimes committed during the war helps build public demand for the troops to come home. Not every committee in Congress can work fulltime on simply ending the war: a legislative process that must be pursued but which will be uphill and subject to veto or signing statement. Many committees in the House and Senate, without taking any energy away from ending the war, can finally conduct the investigations that have gone undone for 6 years, exposing evidence that could very well lead to criminal, civil, or political accountability, as well as pressure to end the war and precedent to help prevent the next war.
Polls: majority of public wants investigation of war lies.
Ask your Representative and Senators to conduct investigations.
Our top priorities for Congressional investigations: 1-Misuse of intelligence leading up to the war.2-Waste, fraud, misuse of funds, including in launching the war in secret, including in construction of permanent bases3-War crimes, extraordinary rendition, torture
Nancy Pelosi has announced the creation of a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel composed of members of the House Intelligence and Appropriations committees and working within the House Appropriations Committee to oversee spending on intelligence.
Other committees:
HOUSE
Intelligence - Silvestre ReyesPre-war and post-war intelligence on WMD and Iraq-Al Qaeda links. We need an investigation of the Bush Administration's misleading us into the war and continuing to lie after the invasion. Such an investigation should seek documents including:
• the complete 2002 National Intelligence Estimate;• the records of National Security Council meetings on Jan. 30, Feb. 1, and March 16, 2001;• the records of Cheney's energy meetings;• the CIA's Senior Executive Memorandum of January 12, 2002 on Hussein Kamel;• the records of Bush's late July, 2002, budget discussions on Iraq with Nicholas Calio;• the records of the July 20, 2002, U.S.-U.K. intelligence conference at CIA headquarters;• the October, 2002, one-page NIE summary described by Murray Waas and discussing aluminum tubes;• the January, 2003, National Intelligence Council memo on Niger described by the Washington Post;• the records of CIA plans to create pretext for war: DB/Anabasis, authorized by Bush on Feb. 16, 2002;• the U.S. records of the January 31, 2003, Bush-Blair meeting at the White House;• the British and possible U.S. records of early 2003 conversations between Jack Straw and Colin Powell described by Philippe Sands;• the complaint filed by a CIA agent in Doe v. Goss claiming he'd been punished for providing unwelcome intelligence;• the records of the White House Iraq Group's work of marketing the war to the American public;• the memo in which Bush proposes bombing al Jazeera.
Judiciary - John ConyersExtraordinary rendition and torture (unless Intelligence is doing this)
Appropriations - David ObeyMisappropriation of funds to begin the war in Iraq prior to Congressional approval
Subcommittee - John MurthaAll of our priority investigations (unless being done elsewhere)
Government Reform - Henry WaxmanWaste and fraud in war appropriations
Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security Emerging Threats and
International Relations - Dennis KucinichMisuse of Pre-War Intelligence (if not being done elsewhere)
Armed Services - Ike SkeltonPermanent bases and war crimes, including the use of illegal weapons and the targeting of civilians, journalists, and hospitals.
Armed Services SubCommittee on Terrorism - Marty MeehanSubCommittee on Oversight and Investigations - possibly Marty MeehanPermanent bases and war crimes, including the use of illegal weapons and the targeting of civilians, journalists, and hospitals.
Veteran's Affairs - Bob FilnerDepleted uranium (if not being done elsewhere)
SENATE
Intelligence - John RockefellerSame as House Intelligence above.
Judiciary - Pat LeahyExtraordinary rendition and torture (unless Intelligence or Armed Services is doing this) Waste and fraud in war appropriations (unless being done elsewhere)
Appropriations - Robert ByrdMisappropriation of funds to prepare for Iraq invasionWaste and fraud in war appropriations (unless other Senate committees are doing this and/or Waxman is taking lead)
Armed Services - Carl LevinExtraordinary rendition and torturePermanent basesWar crimes, including the use of illegal weapons and the targeting of civilians, journalists, and hospitals.
Office of Special Plans (unless Intelligence is doing this) All of our priority investigations (unless being done elsewhere) Office of Special Plans (unless Intelligence is doing this)
»
UNITED FOR PEACE JAN. 29TH ACTION LINK Check in here!
AFTER DOWNING STREET.ORG ACTION LINK JAN 27-29 Check in here also!
Home
March, Rally, Lobby in DC
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2006-11-16 19:28. Activism Impeachment
Come to Washington, D.C., on January 27. Join in the march for peace being organized by United for Peace and Justice,
and impeachment events on January 28th being planned by Progressive Democrats of America.
Make appointments now to meet with your Congress Member on January 29th to demand impeachment and peace. Get organized with others in your Congressional District.
TIP: Buy a dozen or more Impeachment Shirts, bring them to D.C., sell them at a profit, and pay for your trip.
Sign Up for Lobby Day Now
1. Register now for the UFPJ Congressional Advocacy Day (lobby day) January 29, 2007
March to the Capitol on J27 -- march into your Rep. and Senators' offices on J29!Register Here:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/modinput4.php?modin=121
Plan to attend the Sunday Strategy and Training Sessions
We strongly encourage everyone who plans to lobby to attend the training and meeting-planning session on Sunday January 28. This session will allow you to meet with others in your state and congressional district to plan for the most effective meeting possible. Training for lobby day is tentatively scheduled to begin at noon at Bethesday Chevy Chase High School (near the metro, plenty of free parking). Morning sessions will be organized by UFPJ member groups to focus on organizing and strategy on a variety of issues. Stay tuned for more information.
Print Out a Flyer and Make Copies
Click image for flyer in Word. Blank areas on right are for you to fill in local info.
THE INFORMATION RESOURCE CENTER
Count of the DeadArticles of ImpeachmentDowning Street DocumentsWhite House MemoRecent EvidenceEvidence of War LiesState of WarConstitution in CrisisMajor ReportsBonifaz to ConyersTalking PointsYoo MemoFirst Iraq, Then SaudiBush letter to CongressBush report to CongressBush to U.N.Bush in Cincinnati2003 State of the UnionPowell at U.N.Powell's PresentationFULL LIST
Activism
1998 CRS on Censure1998 CRS on Impeachment2002 Uranium Memo2003 State of the UnionA Clean BreakA Pretext for WarAgainst All EnemiesAP: Weapons that Weren'tArticles of Impeachment
Audio of Bush Admin. LiesBasic SummaryBBC DocumentaryBBC TranscriptBlair ImpeachmentBlair's Big LieBodyguard of LiesBonifaz to ConyersBush in CincinnatiBush letter to CongressBush Violates Hundreds of Laws
Bush report to CongressBush to U.N.Bush's Uranium LiesCarne RossCATO Institute reportChain of CommandCheney Meets the PressCheney's Nuclear DrumbeatCIA Iraq InquiryCNN: "Dead Wrong"COE on Detentions
Condoleeza Rice's RoleConstitution in CrisisCount of the DeadCounter DossierCrusadeCurveball WarningsDean on Plame and BushDeath SquadsDefense Planning GuidanceDowning Street DocumentsEvidence of War Lies
Executive Order 13303Facing the Ugly TruthFirst Iraq, Then SaudiFive Biggest LiesFrom Contaiment to...Frontline reportFurther ReadingGo Massive!Hood-WinkedInspections Worked
Iraq and LondonIraq ConfidentialIraq on the RecordIraq War ReaderIraq War: The TruthIraq-9-11 Connection LiesJamal al-GhurairyJuly 22, 2005, hearingJune 16 Testimony
Kay ReportLies of George W. BushLt. Gen. OdomMajor ReportsThe Melbourne MinutesNaji SabriNational Security StrategyNewbold, Lt. Gen. GregNext World OrderNiger ForgeriesNo 9-11 ConnectionNo Al-Qaeda Connection
Oil, Power, and EmpireOutside the BoxPaul PillarPentagon Propaganda 2Pentagon Propaganda 3Pentagon PropagandaPerle: War Illegal.Permanent BasesPlame Leak Timeline
Plan of AttackPlans for Iraq's OilPNAC Bush letterPolitics and TerrorPolitics of TruthPowell at U.N.Powell's PresentationPrice of Loyalty ExcerptPrice of LoyaltyPrisons Used for Illegal Detentions and Torture
RawStory ArticleRay McGovern BookReally, No 9-11 ConnectionRebuilding A.'s DefensesRepublican Party PlatformRobin Cook's DiariesRumsfeld on 9/11/2001Searchable database of liesSecrets and Lies
Senate Policy Committee Hearing, June 26, 2006Senator RobertsSenators' LetterSorrows of EmpireSource of documentsState of WarSuing the CIASunday Times SummarySwift and Serious
Talking PointsTelegraph article 1Telgraph article 2The SpoilsThey KnewTime magazine
Timeline OneTimeline TwoTimeline Three
Timeline FourTimeline FiveTimeline Six
TortureToward a Neo-Reaganite...Tragedy and FarceTrent Lott Spills BeansTyler DrumhellerU.N. Cover; Decision MadeUncovered
Uranium ForgeriesUS Bugging Security CouncilU.S. v. BushVIPS PublicationsWar Crimes Committed by the United States in Iraq and Mechanisms for AccountabilityWar on IraqWar Planning in 2001Warrior-KingWeapons of Mass DeceptionWhat Bush Was ToldWhat I Heard About Iraq
White House MemoWho Gets the Oil?WikipediaWillful BlindnessWinnebagos of DeathWMD LiesWMDs Didn't MatterWolfowitz InterviewWorldwide Attack Matrix
Worse than WatergateYoo MemoYossef Bodansky
MORE EVIDENCE
JOHN DEAN CALLS FOR CONYERS TO HEAD UP IMPEACH DRIVE (WATCH YOU TUBE VIDEO)
7 hours 16 min ago
· Kennedy's warning7 hours 48 min ago
· I don't trust...10 hours 32 min ago
· for clarification11 hours 59 min ago
· Casualty of War12 hours 27 min ago
· AMEN12 hours 38 min ago
· on CONYERS12 hours 43 min ago
· New Scutiny?13 hours 7 min ago
· YUP.13 hours 9 min ago
· I'm sure there must have13 hours 12 min ago
VETERANS FOR PEACE.ORG
TO THE CHOIR (MORE WITHIN)
THE OCCUPATION PROJECT
TO THE CHOIR: If they vote for war, occupy 'em!
Related Project:The Occupation Project
Categories: Take Action
By Mike Ferner
Mike Ferner is a National Board member with Veterans For Peace
After nearly four years of war I’d wager that a few million Americans have held a candle at a vigil, carried a sign at a rally, passed out a flyer, forwarded an email to friends, or gone to a demonstration in a distant city. If you, Dear Reader, are one of these stout souls, this letter is to you.
But first, may I ask a favor? For the rest of this letter please forget that at least once during these years of protest you no doubt mourned that “only the choir” participated. The choir – people who actually do something for peace – is precisely who I’m writing to.
No doubt it’s frustrating that, except for a few grand occasions, “only the choir” shows up. But consider this: of the millions of women in the U.S. at the time, relatively few became active suffragists with the staying power to eventually get votes for women. Of the millions of workers suffering from the Great Depression, relatively few answered the call to sit down in the auto factories to win recognition for unions. Of the millions of blacks bearing the weight of segregation, relatively few sat down at lunch counters.
In their day they were “the choir.” When they were the only ones who showed up for vigils and rallies, they no doubt bemoaned that “only the choir” had come again. They came to action after action, moving things forward imperceptibly each time. But when conditions were right, they acted one more time. And then they made history.
Several indicators confirm that conditions are right again.
· The November elections clearly proved the public wants to end the war. That sentiment will surely grow in the months ahead.
· This spring, likely in March, Congress will vote whether to continue the war with another $160,000,000,000 “supplemental appropriation.”
· This February, the peace movement’s choir, of which you are one, will up the ante of protest. Voices for Creative Nonviolence, joined by
· If we miss this opportunity to greatly hasten peace, the war will still eventually end. “Eventually,” however, will be measured in additional thousands of lives lost, even more thousands suffering horrific injuries, and the world becoming more dangerous.
· All this clearly adds up to a historic opportunity.
You have already done something for peace. Now will you consider taking a giant step that will mean so much more?
Republicans for Impeachment
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2006-12-16 02:28. Impeachment
Republicans must take the lead.
Since early on, in May 2005, AfterDowningStreet has had Republican and ex-Republican members supporting investigations and impeachment of Bush and Cheney. And why not? It was Republicans putting the rule of law above their president that led to Nixon's resignation.
Republicans are very welcome in the impeachment movement. One Republican Congressman, Ron Paul of Texas, has said that Bush should be impeached. Very few Democrats in Congress have said as much.
Republicans like Scott Ritter and John Dean have been outspoken voices for accountability for years now.
Groups like Republicans for Humility have been part of After Downing Street from the beginning, and non-partisan groups such as Gold Star Families for Peace, Veterans for Peace, and Iraq Veterans Against the War were our first members.
So, join in the conversation.
Help pass local and state resolutions.
And plan to be part of future events.
You'll notice that Progressive Democrats of America and Democrats.com are very active members of AfterDowningStreet and that we often link to tools provided on their websites. These are activist groups seeking to reform the Democratic Party, and we work with them because they share our goals for preserving and strengthening our (small d) democracy. Please work with us, and don't let group names worry you.
Impeach Petitions & Resources
Submitted by yankhadenuf on Mon, 2006-11-20 21:48.
http://impeachbush.meetup.com/
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88
http://www.thefourreasons.org/
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/december10
http://www.impeachpac.org/
http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc12/petition.html
http://www.impeachnow.org/
http://elandslide.org/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=impeach&refer=home
http://radio.weblogs.com/0116902/stories/2003/01/18/impeachBush.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/wayout/petition.html
IMPEACH PNAC> "OUT" THE CABAL !
http://tinyurl.com/a8uz9
Impeachment Books
"United States v. George W. Bush et al.," by Elizabeth de la Vega, an indictment, a presentation to a grand jury charging Bush and gang with fraud -- very well argued and documented, even entertaining.
"The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism," by John Nichols, a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States, a history and portrait of the practice of impeachment.
"Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush," by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a short book that lists and explains four (multi-part) articles of impeachment.
"The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens," by Elizabeth Holtzman (former Congresswoman and member of the Nixon impeachment panel) and Cynthia L. Cooper, an excellent and readable book laying out five major grounds for impeachment of Bush, plus an extra section on Dick Cheney.
"The Case for Impeachment," by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky, an amazingly popular and extremely readable book that explains the context while also setting forth six articles of impeachment against Bush, plus an extra section on Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales.
"Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney," edited by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips, with an introduction by Howard Zinn, a wonderfully well written collection of essays organized around a list of 12 grounds for impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
"George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying," by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, a book that not only collects the evidence but also tells us what Congressman John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, is thinking (the full text, minus a new introduction by Joseph Wilson, is available here.)
"Verdict and Findings of Fact," by the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States, a report that looks at five major international crimes and overlaps significantly with most lists of impeachable offenses (the full text is available at the link and can also be purchased for $10);
"Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar," a comic book account of Bush's impeachable offenses – the crimes really are self-evident, but pictures don't hurt.
"Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Administration," by Lewis Lapham, a collection of essays from Harper's magazine, concluding with one called "The Case for Impeachment," which focuses on Rep. Conyers' report.
"The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America," by Jennifer Van Bergen. Find out what the Bush Plan is and how it diverges from what the law and Constitution say.
Images
Images from March 2006 and Later
Flyers and Graphics from May 2005 to February 2006
Photos from May 2005 to February 2006
Shirts, Stickers and Other Stuff to Buy posted between May 2005 and February 2006
http://orangetoimpeach.blogspot.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20061211/cm_thenation/1147059
'Impeachment is Not Optional'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20061211/cm_thenation/1147059
John Nichols Mon Dec 11, 12:43 PM ET
The Nation -- After the death of her soldier son in
SEARCH
So far, only one member of the House, outgoing Georgia Democrat Cynthia McKinney, has proposed actual articles of impeachment against Bush and Vice President Cheney. But more than three dozen House Democrats, as well as Independent Bernie Sanders, who in January will join the Senate, signed onto incoming
SEARCH
For a city that has long embraced anti-war activism, few participated in the political rally that started at the Capitol on Sunday afternoon, which was part of a nationwide effort called "Human Rights Day." Its intent, according to organizers posting online, was "putting impeachment on the table."
Jane Jensen, founder of Military Families for Peace, said she marched in the protest warmed by an inner fire of indignation stoked by Bush's reaction to the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton report and his reluctance to pull out of Iraq.
"I think it is so awful that, as cold as it is, I am out here," she said.
Shouting, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, George Bush has got to go," a core of about two dozen activists marched down State Street to the Library Mall and back, gathering a few supporters along the way but failing to attract a sizable crowd among the holiday shoppers.
In contrast to the rioting in Madison during the Vietnam era, spectator Rachel Gallagher of McFarland noted that public response has been more subdued during the Iraq war.
"It's interesting that in the Vietnam days, there would have been many, many more protesters, versus this war, where it does appear that the 'poor man' is dying, and there is not a loud enough voice for him," she said.
Public reaction to the protest was mixed, with many shoppers smiling as the protesters passed by or honking their horns in support.
Former Madisonian Thelma Lindsey rolled down her window to shout encouragement as she drove around the Capitol Square and said she needed to "park my car and get out there with them."
"I just really feel that he is not for the people," she said. "We have so much going on over here that we need to be in tune with. So many of our people are dying."
Other shoppers stopped and stared in astonishment and some complained that the activists were ruining their holiday experience at the Capitol.
"I am rather disappointed because we came here to take pictures with a foreign exchange student and we wanted to get him in front of the statue and we have protesters out here wearing the American flag and 'impeach' signs," Christine Kvapil of Cornell, Wis., said.
Kvapil thinks that Bush is doing a "fantastic job" and was visiting the Capitol with her husband, their three children and Oleg Svarkov, a 17-year-old exchange student from Slovakia.
Svarkov paused as he snapped photos of the protesters to share his viewpoint on the rally.
"They can have free speech if they want," he said. "In my country, most people don't like Bush, too, for the war in Iraq. He is doing a good job for the economy."
Sheri Wideen was also visiting the Capitol with her husband and two children and said that she was initially irritated when the protesters entered the rotunda at the end of the rally.
"I did feel like, 'I'm here to enjoy the tree and not think about political things,'" she said. "Then I thought, 'If my child were in Iraq, would I feel differently?'"
David Swanson of Charlottesville, Va., is counting on similar realizations to build upon a groundswell to hold Bush accountable for decisions he made leading to the Iraq war.
Swanson is one of the cofounders for the nonpartisan coalition After Downing Street.org, which organized the nationwide "Human Rights and Impeachment Day" events in more than 75 cities on Sunday.
He said their movement has "incredible public support" that will snowball when the balance of power swings to the Democrats in January.
"We all think we are some little fringe group," Swanson said. "We need to make each other aware that we are 51 percent and growing, and we need to get more active."
The hustle and bustle of the holiday season and looming final exams no doubt contributed to low attendance at the rally, but a selection by UW a cappella group "Tangled Up in Blue" suggested that many are waiting for more than a change in the weather.
In an impromptu concert as the protesters passed by, the young women sang lyrics from a song by John Mayer:
"It's not that we don't care,
"We just know that the fight ain't fair
"So we keep on waiting
"Waiting on the world to change."
The Democrats’ Impeachment Road MapIt’s finished, ready to go — and waiting for November.
EVEN THE “BRIGHT ON THE RIGHT” KNEW IT WAS COMING!!!!By Byron York
There’s a word you won’t find in the text of Democratic Rep. John Conyers’s new “investigative report” on the Bush administration, “
Yet the 350-page “Constitution in Crisis,” released last week, is, more than anything else, a detailed road map for the impeachment of George W. Bush, ready for use should Democrats win control of the House of Representatives this November. And Conyers, who would become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — the panel that would initiate any impeachment proceedings — is the man who could make it happen.
While it’s absent in the body of the report, the I-word does appear a few times in Conyers’s 1,401 footnotes, which include citations of authorities ranging from the left-wing conspiracy website rawstory.com to the left-wing antiwar sites democracyrising.us and afterdowningstreet.org to the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian to the left-wing magazines The Nation and Mother Jones to the left-wing blogosphere favorite Murray Waas to the New York Times columnists Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich to former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal to the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh. (Sources for “The Constitution in Crisis” even include one story co-written by the disgraced Internet writer Jason Leopold.)
Relying on such material, Conyers has created what might be called the definitive left-wing blogger’s history of the Bush administration. “I would like to thank the ‘blogosphere’ for its myriad and invaluable contributions to me and my staff,” Conyers writes in the report’s introduction. “Absent the assistance of ‘blogs’ and other Internet-based media, it would have been impossible to assemble all of the information, sources and other materials necessary to the preparation of this report.”But Conyers’s report is more than the world’s longest blog post. Far more seriously, it is the foundation for possible articles of impeachment, detailing charge after charge against the president.
“Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this administration’s misconduct,” Conyers wrote Friday in a message posted simultaneously on the DailyKos and Huffington Post websites. “The report…compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush administration has thumbed its nose at our nation’s laws, and the Constitution itself.”A few months ago, when there was speculation that Democrats planned to impeach Bush if they won the House, the party’s leadership moved quickly to stop the discussion.
In May, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told the Washington Post that Pelosi had told her fellow Democrats “impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it.” But Conyers, who would likely be the single-most important person in the undertaking, was never on board.
“There’s no way I can predict whether there will ultimately be an impeachment proceeding underway or not,” he said last week in an interview with the liberal website tpmmmuckraker.com. “The Constitution in Crisis” is Conyers’s sign that, should the opportunity arise, he is ready to go.LIES, FRAUD, COVERUPS, RETRIBUTION, TORTURE…
Conyers’s report is divided into two parts. The first accuses the Bush administration of a variety of crimes involving the war in Iraq, and the second of crimes involving what the administration calls the terrorist-surveillance program and what its critics call “domestic spying.” In many areas, legal analysts, Republicans and even some Democrats, might find Conyers’s case so tenuous and ill-sourced as to be laughable.
But even a cursory reading of “The Constitution in Crisis” shows that the man who might be chairman is very, very serious.On the war, Conyers argues that the Bush administration’s case for war, its decision to go to war, and its conduct of the war have been, in essence, an exercise in criminal fraud. The report lists four laws which Conyers says the president violated in the run-up to the war:
Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371)Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001) War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301)
On the question of committing a fraud against the United States, Conyers argues that President Bush, intent on “avenging [his] father and working with the neo-cons,” made the decision to go to war in Iraq before asking Congress for the authority to do so. That is the heart of the alleged fraud; every act that followed, Conyers writes, was part of the crime — even if those actions do not, at first glance, appear to be criminal acts.
Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371)Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001) War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301)
On the question of committing a fraud against the United States, Conyers argues that President Bush, intent on “avenging [his] father and working with the neo-cons,” made the decision to go to war in Iraq before asking Congress for the authority to do so. That is the heart of the alleged fraud; every act that followed, Conyers writes, was part of the crime — even if those actions do not, at first glance, appear to be criminal acts.
“‘Defrauding the government’ has been defined quite broadly and does not need an underlying criminal offense and alone subjects the offender to prosecution,” Conyers writes in a legal analysis section. “While this statute is similar to obstructing or lying to Congress…it is broader. It covers acts that may not technically be lying or communications that are not formally before Congress.
”Besides the alleged fraud, Conyers also contends that the administration’s preparations for war — the moving of military equipment and personnel to the Gulf region — violated at least two other laws. “Our investigation has found that there is evidence the Bush Administration redeployed military assets in the immediate vicinity of Iraq and conducted bombing raids on Iraq in 2002 in possible violation of the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, and laws prohibiting the Misuse of Government Funds, 31 U.S.C. 1301,” he writes.
And key elements of the president’s case for war, Conyers says, violated yet another statute. “We have found that President Bush and members of his administration made numerous false statements that Iraq had sought to acquire enriched uranium from Niger,” the report continues. “In particular, President Bush’s statements and certifications before and to Congress may constitute Making a False Statement to Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.”In the next section of the report, Conyers alleges that the administration, in its treatment of prisoners, both in Iraq and in the broader war on terror, has violated three laws:
Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-40A)The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)Material Witness (18 U.S.C. 3144)
Conyers suggests that American officials might be tried under the War Crimes Act for “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions, and might also be liable under the Anti-Torture Statute. “Those who order torture, or in other ways conspire to commit torture, can be held criminally liable under this statute,” the report says. “The statue doesn’t require a person to actually commit torture with his own hands.”
Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-40A)The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)Material Witness (18 U.S.C. 3144)
Conyers suggests that American officials might be tried under the War Crimes Act for “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions, and might also be liable under the Anti-Torture Statute. “Those who order torture, or in other ways conspire to commit torture, can be held criminally liable under this statute,” the report says. “The statue doesn’t require a person to actually commit torture with his own hands.”
Conyers singles out the two attorneys general of the Bush presidency, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, as potential targets of prosecution.
From the war itself, Conyers moves to the issue of what the report calls “coverups and retribution” related to the war. “Inevitably, information began to seep out exposing the many falsehoods and deceptions concerning the Iraq war,” the report says. “The release of this information — including information detailing the Niger-Iraq uranium forgers — led members of the Bush administration to react with a series of leaks and other actions designed to cover up their misdeeds and obtain retribution against the critics.” In the course of that reaction, Conyers suggests, the president and his aides broke four laws:
Obstructing Congress (18 U.S.C. 1505)Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. 2302)The Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. 7211)Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 1513)
The most famous case of alleged retribution, of course, involved the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, but Conyers broadens his charges to include alleged retribution against several others who have publicly disagreed with the administration, including former General Eric Shinseki, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, and former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. Conyers also places antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan on the list, and even an ABC News reporter named Jeffrey Kofman. (In that case, the administration, unhappy with a report Kofman had done, allegedly told The Drudge Report about a profile of Kofman published in the gay publication
Obstructing Congress (18 U.S.C. 1505)Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. 2302)The Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. 7211)Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 1513)
The most famous case of alleged retribution, of course, involved the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, but Conyers broadens his charges to include alleged retribution against several others who have publicly disagreed with the administration, including former General Eric Shinseki, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, and former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. Conyers also places antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan on the list, and even an ABC News reporter named Jeffrey Kofman. (In that case, the administration, unhappy with a report Kofman had done, allegedly told The Drudge Report about a profile of Kofman published in the gay publication
The Advocate, thereby sending out word that Kofman was gay — although the fact that he was profiled in The Advocate suggested that Kofman was already quite open about that fact.) In the case of Sheehan, Conyers describes the administration’s allegedly criminal acts this way:
Instead of meeting with Sheehan, the administration and other conservative media outlets began to attack Sheehan. Columnist Maureen Dowd noted that the “Bush team tried to discredit ‘Mom’ by pointing reporters to an old article in which she sounded kinder to W.
Instead of meeting with Sheehan, the administration and other conservative media outlets began to attack Sheehan. Columnist Maureen Dowd noted that the “Bush team tried to discredit ‘Mom’ by pointing reporters to an old article in which she sounded kinder to W.
If only her husband were an undercover C.I.A. operative, the Bushies could out him. But even if they send out a squad of Swift Boat Moms for Truth, there will be a countering Falluja Moms for Truth.”
The attacks continued as Fred Barnes of Fox News labeled Sheehan a “crackpot.” Conservative blogs then started talking about Sheehan’s divorce…The president also joined in on the attack by criticizing Sheehan as unrepresentative of most military families he meets….
The final part of “The Constitution in Crisis” is a long discussion entitled “Unlawful Domestic Surveillance and the Decline of Civil Liberties Under the Administration of George W. Bush.” In this matter, Conyers alleges that the president and the administration have broken five laws:
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222)Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2702)Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. 3121)
“The warrantless wiretap program disclosed by The New York Times,” Conyers writes, “directly violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801; and the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and, just as dangerously, threatens to create a precedent that may be used to violate numerous additional laws.
The NSA’s domestic database program disclosed by USA Today also appears to violate the Stored Communications Act and the Communications Act of 1934. In addition, the administration appears to have briefed members of the Intelligence Committees regarding these programs in violation of the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. 401, and we have found little evidence they provided useful intelligence or law enforcement information.”
Most of Conyers’s discussion of surveillance is familiar to anyone who has followed the issue, but some readers may be surprised by his suggestion that the administration, in addition to all of its other alleged crimes, broke the law when it notified Congress about the NSA surveillance program.
Most of Conyers’s discussion of surveillance is familiar to anyone who has followed the issue, but some readers may be surprised by his suggestion that the administration, in addition to all of its other alleged crimes, broke the law when it notified Congress about the NSA surveillance program.
The administration informed eight top officials in the House and Senate — four Republicans and four Democrats — about the program.
Conyers argues that was a crime. “Briefings of this nature would appear to be in violation of the National Security Act of 1947, which governs the manner in which members of Congress are to be briefed on intelligence activities,” he writes.
“The law requires the president to keep all members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of intelligence activities. Only in the case of a highly classified covert action (when the U.S. engages in operations to influence political, economic or military conditions of another country) does a statute expressly permit the president to limit briefings to a select group of members. Covert actions, pursuant to the statute, do not include ‘activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence.’“
A CAST OF THOUSANDS
A CAST OF THOUSANDS
It would take a long discussion — perhaps one as long as “The Constitution in Crisis” itself — to do justice to all of Conyers’s allegations. The same might be said of his sources. For example,
Entitled “Bush’s Uranium Lies: The Case for a Special Prosecutor That Could Lead to Impeachment,” it was written by a Connecticut lawyer named Francis T. Mandanici. Readers might remember Mandanici from Whitewater days, when he engaged in a personal crusade against Kenneth Starr, filing ethics complaint after ethics complaint against the independent counsel. Readers with longer memories might recall that before Mandanici attacked Starr, he was fixated on the Bush family. In a November 1992 story about the savings-and-loan investigation involving the first President Bush’s son Neil, the Washington Post reported the following:
A federal grand jury in Denver investigating the failure of Silverado Banking, Savings and Loan Association heard from an unusual witness yesterday — a Connecticut lawyer with no firsthand knowledge about the Colorado S&L’s collapse, who says that President Bush’s son Neil should face criminal charges for violating banking laws while serving on Silverado’s board.
In a rare legal proceeding, the grand jury investigating Silverado’s collapse spent 1 1/2 hours meeting with Francis Mandanici, a Bridgeport public defender who persuaded the panel to listen to what he has to say about the case.
Motivated by what he admits is a long-standing grudge against President Bush, Mandanici said he researched thousands of pages of documents in the Silverado case and developed what he contends is evidence of a dozen felony violations by the president’s son.
Today, Mandanici seems to be pursuing a similar course with George H. W. Bush’s other son George. As for his motivation, Mandanici once told the online magazine Salon, “I guess I never left the ‘60s.”
Besides Mandanici and the entire liberal side of the New York Times columnist lineup, other writers cited in “The Constitution in Crisis” include left-wing journalists and bloggers Glenn Greenwald, Robert Dreyfuss, and Larisa Alexandrovna. “The Constitution in Crisis” also cites the occasional unknown writer like Carmen Yarrusso, who, according to a search of the Nexis database, seems to have written mostly letters to the editor — and who in 1998 was described in a brief article in the Boston Globe as being “a humorist from Brookline, N.H.”
Conyers’s defenders will no doubt argue that such writers make up a minority of the sources cited in “The Constitution in Crisis.” But the interpretive structure of the report is undoubtedly inspired their work — and that of similar writers in the left-wing blogosphere. And the nature of the other sources on which the report is based — newspaper articles, transcripts of interviews, and previously released government documents — also suggests that the Conyers report is not the product of a real investigation. Conyers would likely respond by saying that as a member of the minority party in the House, he has no power to issue subpoenas, compel testimony, and demand the production of documents from the administration. That’s true. But if he were to win such power, it seems fair to say that he has already decided the conclusions he will reach.Reading Conyers’s various statements on the Huffington Post, where he is a regular contributor, it’s clear that Conyers believes his case against George W. Bush has not received enough attention. And indeed, “The Constitution in Crisis” has been overlooked by many major press outlets.
It shouldn’t be. The point is not the legitimacy, or lack of legitimacy, of Conyers’s charges. It is the fact that Conyers might be just a few months away from the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee.
If he wins that seat, and he moves toward impeachment — and how could he not, if he believes the president broke not one, not two, not three, but 26 laws and regulations? — observers who haven’t been paying attention might express surprise or call such action precipitous. To that, Conyers can answer, correctly, that no one should be surprised. After all, he’s been making the case for a long time, whether or not anyone was listening. — Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book
The Constitution in Crisis (68 comments )
READ MORE: Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, 2006
Final "Constitution in Crisis" ReportSix Years of Unchecked Abuses -- Had Enough?
Cross Posted at Daily Kos
Today, I am releasing the final version of my report, the "Constitution in Crisis." The report, which is some 350 pages in length and is supported by more than 1,400 footnotes, compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush Administration has thumbed its nose at our nation's laws, and the Constitution itself.
Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this Administration's misconduct.
Our Constitution established a tri-partite system of government, with the notion that each branch of government would act as a check on the other two. Unfortunately, for the last six years, the Republicans in Congress have largely viewed themselves as defenders of the Bush Administration, instead of a vital check on overreaching by the Executive Branch. By doing so, I believe they have acted to the detriment of our Constitutional form of government.
We have seen so many transgressions by this Administration that it is easy to forget last week's scandal amid this week's new outrage. I am hopeful that compiling all of these events of the last few years will help wake all of us up to the gravity of these matters and the cumulative damage to our country.
We have a mountain of reports that strongly indicate that this Administration was well aware that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they told the Congress and the American people the opposite in order to satisfy a predetermination to go to war. The "smoking gun" of these reports is the Downing Street Memoranda, contemporaneous reports from the highest reaches of the British government recounting meetings with their American counterparts, meetings where the facts were being fixed around the policy of going to war.
We have a mountain of statements from Administration officials making claims designed to conflate Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda, and corresponding mountains of reports that credible intelligence officials in our government disputed such claims. We also have evidence showing that government officials instituted policies which endorsed the use of torture in violation of U.S. law and international treaties.
We have scores of sources indicating the Administration engaged in a concerted effort to discredit and defame anyone who came forward to expose these outrages, and have largely done so without consequence. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson dared to question whether Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, Administration officials retaliated against him by outing his wife as an undercover C.I.A. operative. When General Eric Shinseki and others in the military dared to dispute the Administration's wildly optimistic assessments of what was needed to pursue the Iraq conflict, he was summarily replaced. The pattern repeats itself with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Economic Adviser Larry Lindsey. And Cindy Sheehan. And the list goes on and on.
The American people have paid the price for this strategy of deception followed by, in the words of one anonymous Republican official, "slime and defend." We have paid with the lives of more than 2,500 of our sons and daughters in uniform and in hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxes.
The Administration also appears to have used the war on terror as an excuse to eviscerate the basic protections afforded to us in the Constitution. There have been warrantless wiretaps of law-abiding Americans, in clear contravention of federal law, not to mention the creation of a huge unchecked database of the phone records of innocent Americans.
All the while, the Republican Congress sits idly by. Rather than performing its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch, it has chosen to stymie any and all efforts at oversight. After six long years of deceptions, attacks and yes, outright lies, I am convinced the American people have had enough.
Impeachment plans began seriously coalescing in 2005, after the NY Times published classified aspects of the NSA surveillance program. In mid- December of that year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, asked a group of presidential scholars whether President George W. Bush had committed an impeachable offense when he authorized the NSA foreign surveillance program. John Dean, the long-time Bush critic of Watergate fame provided Boxer with the answer she and most other Democrats were looking for: “Bush is the first president to admit an impeachable offense,” he said.
Around the same time, Senator John Kerry, D-MA, told a gathering of 100 Democrats that, should they capture the House in 2006, there would be a “solid case” for impeachment based on President Bush's “misleading” the American public over prewar intelligence. Kerry was picking up where another prominent Democrat had, on November 1, 2005, left off. On that day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a rare closed Senate session with other Democrats to look into the “misinformation and disinformation” used by the Bush administration to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Boxer and Kerry weren't the only prominent Democrats discussing the possibility of impeachment during 2005. Such matters were also being discussed by Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, who, along with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and left-leaning Republicans Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, called for both Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committee investigations into the NSA wiretaps. And on December 20, 2005, Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, underscored those calls, saying:
I look forward to further inquiry in the House and Senate on these matters. The American people deserve the truth. We must gather the facts and determine once and for all whether the law was violated. There is no question that the U.S. Congress has impeached presidents for lesser offenses.
More recently, Rep. Brad Miller, D-GA, said, “The Democrats on the House Science Committee are collecting stories of the intimidation or censoring of scientists. We’re building a case for hearings by the Committee, which may be unrealistic to expect under the current majority, or to be ready for hearings next year if Democrats gain the majority in November.” [Emphasis added.] Miller was making that threat in relation to accusations by leftists and Democrats that Bush was silencing those concerned about global warming.
And then there are the constant calls by congressional Democrats, led by Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, to investigate the treatment of terrorist prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay and other locations. But most telling of all was Senator Harry Reid's November 2005 attempt to begin the “Phase II“ investigation into the Bush administration's use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War. Reid said Congress must subpoena administration officials and documents in order to determine how Bush built his case for war.
To some observers, the Democrats' endless calls for investigations might appear to be simply a dead-end continuation of the 2000 election – heavy on anti-Bush vitriol and posturing, light on concrete action. And such observers might have been right, if not for the fact that a bill, H.R.635, aimed at investigating articles of impeachment, was submitted to Congress on Dec.18, 2005. The submission of that bill by John Conyers Jr. was, first and foremost, a legislative victory for the radical Left and its sugar daddy, Shadow Party leader George Soros, who for all practical purposes guides the anti-U.S., terrorist-sympathizing agendas of the Democratic Party by funding groups that push far-Left candidates and threaten the careers of existing Democratic Party members who do not tow the radical Left line.
Conyers's H.R. 635 involves creating “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.”
Justifying the submittal of that bill, Conyers said, “There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power.” And he was right, for since the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, radical left-wing groups had been calling for Bush’s impeachment– and organizing petition drives to pressure legislators to that end.
The committed activists Conyers spoke of include:
International ANSWER;
its founder, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who has advised Conyers on impeachment issues);
Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer Barbara Olshansky, who advises Conyers on impeachment related issues and wrote a book on impeaching Bush that has served as a template for H.R.635;
the National Lawyers Guild;
Veterans for Peace;
Workers World Party; and
most of the 911 'truth' movement.
But the most committed and influential of those pro-impeachment groups, and the ones that gathered most of the signatures that Conyers uses as his justification for H.R.635, are AfterDowningStreet and ImpeachPAC. Both are directed by a rising star of the radical Left, David Swanson.
David Swanson was failed presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich's press secretary. He is also one of the principal organizers of the AfterDowningStreet- CensureBush coalition and the director of MeetWithCindy and KatrinaMarch. A Progressive Democrats of America board member, Swanson also directs Democrats.com and has beaten the pro-impeachment drum for the Huffington Post. His ImpeachPAC website is a high-traffic clearinghouse for the impeach-Bush movement. Its stated purpose is “electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney.”
ImpeachPAC has so far gathered well over 500,000 pro-impeachment signatures. Rep. Conyers cites those signatures, and others, as a major reason for filing H.R. 635 and its related bills: H.R. 636, which calls for censuring President Bush and H.R. 637, a bill calling for the censure of Vice President Cheney. During the time of leftist hysteria over the discredited Downing Street Memo, on June 16, 2005, Conyers delivered those and other impeachment related petitions to the White House gate. He had just finished conducting farcical impeachment ''hearings'' in the basement of the Capitol. One of the star ''witnesses'' giving ''testimony'' at those ''hearings'' was Cindy Sheehan. As he was delivering the petitions, Conyers was surrounded by a sympathetic crowd screaming anti-white, racial slurs.
Initially, H.R. 635 had 19 cosponsors, but due to an intense lobbying effort by David Swanson, MoveOn and a host of other radical Left “netroots” groups, that number has swollen to 37. Cosponsors now include prominent legislators Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX; Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA; Rep. Jim McDermott, D-WA; Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY; and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-IL.
The bill's most recent cosponsor is Rep. Hilda L. Solis, D-CA, who signed on to the measure on May 3, 2006. But then, less than two weeks later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in an effort to deny the Republicans a potent election issue, announced, should Democrats win the House in 2006, impeachment was “off the table.” Her statement was a warning to fellow Democrats against further cosponsorship of Conyer's bills. Since that warning, cosponsorship of H.R.635 has died out.
Although Pelosi said impeachment was “off the table,” she also said that a Democratic-controlled House would “launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters.” [Emphasis added.] When asked if those “other matters” would be related to impeachment she said, “You never know where it [investigation] leads to.”
Should Democrats gain control of Congress in November, Pelosi's politically expedient, ban on cosponsoring Conyer's bills will be lifted, and Democrats will rush to endorse them. Those bills (concerning “other matters”), will advance through Congress, since 72 congressmen, overwhelmingly Democrats, officially supported two recent lawsuits brought by the Legal Left against Bush: ACLU vs. NSA and CCR vs. Bush. Both suits allege that the Bush Administration broke the law when it ordered warrantless wiretaps of suspected terrorists and terrorist operatives. Those suits are central to the Left's drive to impeach George W. Bush, since their outcomes will officially determine whether he did in fact break the law in the NSA matter. Currently, both of them are winding their way through the courts.
Some might be tempted to dismiss the impeachment machinations of John Conyers and the radical Left as little more than fruitless protest by a frustrated, impotent minority against an individual and Administration it hates. After all, legislators often file impractical, non-viable legislation in order to dramatize an issue. But in light of five years' worth of endless calls by influential Democratic Party politicians and a few left-leaning Republicans to investigate the Bush Administration's approach to the War on Islamist Terror, H.R. 635-637 must be considered as legislation with a future.
Then there is a detailed impeachment blueprint designed by the Legal Left, and prepared at the direction of John Conyers Jr. called “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance.”
The Constitution in Crisis (CIC) is a 354-page text detailing charge after charge against the Bush Administration. Those charges are divided into two general categories: crimes committed during the planning of the Iraq War and during its prosecution, and crimes involving the Bush administration's use of anti-terror surveillance programs since it began. In summary, the CIC claims that the entire Iraq War undertaking has been a criminal enterprise based on Bush's desire to avenge Saddam Hussein's assassination attempt on his father and to fulfill the desires of “neocons.” In other words, Bush and a predominately Jewish cabal committed crimes by misleading Congress and the American people into war. And during that war they illegally spied on and tortured people.
The Constitution in Crisis states that Bush broke numerous U.S. laws. John Conyers and the Center for Constitutional Rights have drawn up a list of laws allegedly violated by the Bush administration that are contained within the Constitution in Crisis's pages. They include:
Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371)
Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001)
War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)
Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301)
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222)
Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2702)
Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. 3121)
Obstructing Congress (18 U.S.C. 1505)
Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. 2302)
The Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. 7211)
Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 1513)
Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-40A)
The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)
Material Witness (18 U.S.C. 3144)
All of these are serious charges. Unfounded they may be, but John Conyers would become head of the House Judiciary Committee if the Democrats win in November. And then, not only would he be in position to order investigations of the charges, he would be obligated by his Congressional oath to do just that.
What would the financial cost of such investigations be? In the 1990s, President Clinton was accused of perjury. That charge and the others surrounding it were far less complex than those currently leveled by the Left at Bush and his administration. The investigations of Clinton disrupted the business of Congress, became the focus of the country, and cost American taxpayers at least $80 million. Investigating all of the complex charges leveled by Conyers and the Democrats would grind Congress to a halt – in the middle of a war – and would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
An intriguing question arises: If Democrats won control of Congress in November, why would they expend enormous political and financial capital on pursuing articles of impeachment against a lame duck President?
Some have speculated that such actions would be political payback for the Clinton impeachment. Others speculate that the Left's extreme hatred of Bush is reason enough for it to pursue his destruction through impeachment or censure. Though both rationales are plausible, either separately or in conjunction with each other, there is a more important, and therefore more likely, reason for the Democratic Party (should it win Congress) to initiate endless investigations of Bush – its obsession to abandon Iraq and end the War on Islamist Terror.
Facing the serious possibility of a pro-war Republican winning the 2008 presidential election, the Democratic Party has a narrowing window of opportunity to end the Iraq War and realize its Vietnam Dream. The best way to make that dream come true would be to level and investigate charge after charge against the Bush Administration, destroying its legitimacy to have initiated the Iraq War and to have conducted it.
Naturally, an avalanche of anti-Bush, antiwar press would accompany such investigations. Opposition to a war perceived as having been unjustly waged, would skyrocket. The public's call for an end to the war would justify its de-funding in the eyes of Congress.
The ploy of leveling serious, unfounded charges against one's political opponents has served the Democratic Party well in the past. It is the ideal one to effect a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-NY, who will head the powerful House Ways and Means Committee upon a Democratic Party victory in November, has hinted that de-funding the Iraq war will be both his and the Democratic Party's priority. To Rangel, de-funding the war is a moral imperative. “[The Iraq war] is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country…This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed,” he has said.
To carry out an impeachment of President Bush, the Democrats need to capture both the House and the Senate. But to cause serious disruptions of the body politic during our nation's time of war, they only need to win the House. With John Conyers, Jr. heading the House Judiciary Committee, Charles B. Rangel heading the House Ways and Means Committee, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and other far-Left Congressmen in control of important House committee chairs, endless investigations of the Bush administration in order to end the Iraq War will almost certainly commence.
Participating Organizations: Democrats.com, Progressive Democrats of America, After Downing Street, Gold Star Families for Peace, Hip Hop Caucus, Democracy Rising, Velvet Revolution, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Traprock Peace Center, Consumers for Peace, CODE PINK,
With your help, we want to organize grassroots teams in all 435 Congressional Districts plus 5 Delegate Districts (DC, PR, VI, GU, and AS). Please volunteer below!
Our Mission: to persuade each of our Representatives to support
Impeachment: Support John Conyers' Watergate-style investigation (H.Res. 635) of Bush's Iraq War lies - and immediately introduce Articles of Impeachment for Bush and Cheney
Getting Out of Iraq: Support John Murtha's bill to remove troops from Iraq (H.J. Res 73) and Jim McGovern's bill to end funding for the Iraq War (H.R. 4232)
The Problem: For a year, we have tried all of the traditional lobbying techniques including marches, petitions, emails, letters, calls, town hall forums, and even face-to-face meetings with our Representatives. Yet despite all this effort, not one Representative is willing to introduce Articles of Impeachment, while fewer than 30 have co-sponsored Rep. Conyers' Watergate-style investigation. On Iraq, John Murtha's bill has nearly 100 co-sponsors but not the 218 needed to force a floor vote; Jim McGovern's bill has fewer than 20 co-sponsors, even though George Bush just asked for $120 billion more for a war America does not support and cannot afford.
The Solution: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King faced far worse resistance from political leaders when they tried to end segregation in the South. So they took their movement to the streets and marched peacefully directly into the face of that resistance. We will take our inspiration from them, and bring our movement peacefully into the face of our resistance: the 435 Members of Congress who are supposed to represent us but refuse to do so. (We'll make an exception for the House Honor Roll - Members who support our three priority bills above. For those Members, we will focus on Member Meetings to persuade them to introduce Articles of Impeachment.)
Home Protests: Every weekend, we will march peacefully in front of the homes of our Representatives. (We suggest Saturday at 10:00 a.m. because that is when Members are most likely to be home, but local groups can set their own times.) We will carry signs and distribute flyers to their neighbors with our simple demands. Here are flyers to print and hand out. If your group is really energetic, here are some "extra credit" ideas.
Birddogging: Whenever our Representatives appear at public events in our communities, we will protest peacefully with our signs and flyers
Member Meetings: We want to schedule face-to-face meetings with our Representatives in their district offices to get immediate action on our legislative demands. The best dates are:
February 20-24—Presidents Day RecessMarch 17-24—St. Patrick's Day Recess ** March 19: 3rd anniversary of start of war *** April 10-21—Easter Recess
Volunteers: For each Congressional District chapter we will need volunteers with these skills:
Protest: an experienced grassroots organizer capable of scheduling events, showing up, recruiting friends, bringing signs and flyers, and dealing with any problems (unruly activists, unwelcome pets, aggressive passers-by, inquiring or unfriendly police)
Web: a computer user with very basic HTML (using this site's built-in WYSIWYG editor to put links onto text) and search skills to find local activists by researching our outreach links and using local networking sites like Meetup and CraigsList
Outreach: a good networker who can contact potential local allies (identified with the help of the Web coordinator above) and persuade them to join our efforts
Lobby: a confident speaker who can clearly communicate our simple goals to the Representative in a friendly, professional manner, and who is prepared to rebut the most frequently-offered objections
Media: a well-organized person who can keep a list of local reporters with phone/cell/email, get friendly with them, keep them informed of upcoming events, and respond quickly to their inquiries. Here is a sample press advisory to use.
Email: an experienced list moderator who can create and moderate a Yahoogroup for CD chapter members
Students: an energetic student who can reach out to college and high school students
Tasks: Our CD volunteers should aim to accomplish these tasks:
Protest: organize peaceful Home Protests (except in AR, AZ, HI and MI and a few cities) and Birddogging. You should review your right to protest so your protests are fully within the law. (Consult a local attorney or the nearest chapter of the ACLU if you have any questions.)
Web: create a CD home page like http://democrats.com/ny-07 following these instructions: http://democrats.com/cd-web
Outreach: follow our links to contact local leaders of allied groupshttp://democrats.com/cd-outreach
as well as local political party groups and other grassroots networking strategies
Lobby: explain our mission to your Representative if you get the chance during Home Protests and Birddogging events; also schedule and lead Member Meetings at their office
Media: contact local media to let them know about the protests and meetings
Email: create a Yahoogroup for the CD to share info and coordinate events
Students: identify progressive student groups at area colleges (including community colleges) and high schools, and ask them to join our protests
If you really want to organize a chapter but cannot find 6 volunteers, you can certainly take on more than 1 task.
Of course all the volunteers should work closely together so get to know each other by having non-political fun!
1. Create or Update your Democrats.com User Account
If you have not yet created a user account at Democrats.com, please create one now. Be sure to enter your street address so you are assigned to the right CD. You can enter the volunteer task you prefer in the "Organizer" field.
If you already have a Democrats.com user account,
2. If you want to be a lead organizer in your CD, apply to be a Congressional District Point Person with Progressive Democrats of America. If your application is approved, you (and possibly one other person) will be our primary contact(s) in your CD.
After You Volunteer:
Help us spread the word! Urge your progressive friends and relatives to visit this page and volunteer:http://democrats.com/cd
CD Organizing - More Ideas
CD Outreach
CD Web Coordinator
House Honor Roll
Right To Protest
The movement to impeach President Bush and VP Dick Cheney gained momentum with the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, a document that revealed to the world what British officials understood long before the 2003 invasion began: that the Bush Administration was committed to invading Iraq and would willingly promote or accept intelligence that was manipulated to assist their efforts. With new revelations that the Bush Administration authorized surveillance operations on US citizens without court approval, the case for impeachment has become overwhelming.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, America’s leading institution of constitutional scholarship, has developed a legal case for the impeachment of George W Bush. Now, in collaboration with Melville House Books and progressives across the U.S., they are sponsoring a “National Teach-In” to share their case, what’s at stake, and what impeachment means for every American. Visit articlesofimpeachment.net to learn how you can participate, join or host your own teach-in.
BOOK:
Bush Was Set on Path to War (NYT)
Bush's NSA Program (FindLaw)
The Downing Street MemoPublished by The Sunday Times (UK), May 1, 2005http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew RycroftDate: 23 July 2002S 195 /02cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary,Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, JohnScarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, JonathanPowell, Sally Morgan, Alastair CampbellIRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULYCopy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
George Bush's double-secret-probation 911-liefest is now over. CNN quotes 911 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean saying it was "marvelous". Indeed we have something to marvel over. The administration is getting away with its failure to protect us on 911. Bush's negligence is finally and officially forgiven. No one shall be held accountable. Ever.
The majority of Americans believe Bush did a fine job protecting us from terrorists. Except of course, for the one little slip-up. When asked at a recent press conference if Bush could think of any mistakes he'd made during his first term, he drew a blank. Couldn't think of a thing.
If we still had a free mainstream press in this country, someone would have had the balls to ask:"Um, Mr. President, remember that vacation? We know, you take a lot of them, but this was sort of...special?
Condi briefed you that Al Qaeda was determined to strike in the US? After getting this briefing… you went fishing, remember?""Do you still think fishing was the appropriate response to this information?"But there is no longer a free press—only a half dozen global corporations spewing infoganda, occasionally balancing one press release against another, but more often simply parroting the party line. The commercials never end.Operation: Vacation couldn't be interrupted for anything mundane as the looming terrorist threat.
Let's face it, if our president has to actually show up at work more than two or three months out of the year haven’t the terrorists already won? The truth is out there, laid bare in a bunch of widely read, thoroughly documented books by former counter-terrorist czar Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward, and Greg Palast whose new expanded edition of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy could be called "The REAL 911 Commission Report".
These books, and Ron Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty quoting Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, reveal the Bush Administration placed priorities like tax cuts, "Star Wars," carving up Iraq, anti-porno and anti-prostitution efforts on the front burner, and took anti-terrorism off the stove entirely.
No one knows this as well as the families of the victims, the people who forced the administration to investigate 911. Many think the attacks could have been prevented—and unlike our President, they’ve done their homework.
Many of them, life-long Republicans, have said that while the Clinton administration may not have done enough, the Bush Administration did absolutely nothing to prevent the attacks.Absolutely nothing.
Those not blinded by lifelong loyalty to the GOP know the administration is guilty of far more than doing nothing. Knowingly or unknowingly, they directly aided and abetted the terrorists. The "Visa Express" program, initiated by the Bush administration in 2001, obtained the passports for three out of the eleven of the 911 terrorists—without a background check.
The brainchild of a long-time State department appointee, "Visa Express" was instituted during a period in which the administration was struggling to mend fences with our good allies, the Saudis. Bush's palpable disinterest in the middle-east (he joked about the Clinton administration’s strenuous efforts for peace there) had caused a lapse in the usual US / Israeli / Palestinian dialog. Instead of our measured indignation at over-active Israeli reprisals for Palestinian terror, Bush praised Ariel Sharon as a "man of peace."
Over and over again. Angered, Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan wrote a scathing letter to the White House, threatening a major rift if the US abdicated its fair broker role in the Middle-Eastern conflict. If we weren't going to pretend to be fair to the Palestinians, the Saudis would take their oil and service contracts elsewhere.
The Bush Administration went to appeasement 'battlestations'. Bush ordered FBI, CIA and other national security and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigation of Saudi nationals—including known terror suspects. Assured by Saudi officials that al Qaeda wouldn't strike, the Administration relaxed Clinton-era protections against terrorism and eased pressures on the Taliban.The Bush Administration delivered a letter promising the Palestinians a "viable" homeland. The crisis averted, the Bush family's precious relationship with the house of Saud secure, Bush took time for another well-earned vacation.
Weeks later, Saudi terrorists led by Saudi expatriates—supported by prominent wealthy Saudis and funded by Saudi money, educated in Saudi funded fundamentalist Madras schools—killed 3000 innocent Americans.And the administration started blaming Clinton, whose advice vis-à-vis Osama they had ignored.
This fact is documented in John Ashcroft’s memo detailing the justice department’s priorities under the new administration. Terrorism was dropped from the list entirely. Under Ashcroft, the FBI and the Department of Justice were more interested in prosecuting pornographers, draping the naughty bits of the statues in his office building, and holding daily prayer sessions than fighting terror. When personally requested to authorize wiretaps in on-going domestic surveillance operations, Ashcroft declined, claiming not to understand the process.
After downgrading terror as a justice department priority, he stopped flying commercial aircraft, commandeering the Justice department’s private jet, and monopolizing it. He justified this behavior on the basis of a ‘threat assessment.’ When it came to saving his own skin, Ashcroft could somehow process the information. When it came to protecting his fellow Americans, well, let’s just say that John had other priorities.
The People for the American Century, (PNAC) in documents freely distributed on the internet, wished for another Pearl Harbor type attack on the United States, to allow them to realize their Pax Americana in a single generation. When powerful people wish for hideous crimes, they have a tendency to occur. When a mob boss does this, it's called racketeering. When the People for the New American Century, also known as the Bush Administration, wished for another Pearl Harbor, it was called patriotism. And their wish came true.
9/11 - Commission or Coverup?by Mike Hersh and E. O'Connell, April 30, 2004
As the 9/11 Commission winds down into the final phases of an apparent cover-up, lingering questions remain unanswered - even unasked. Aside from several oddities and unanswered questions - conflicts between the official "coincidence theory" and inexplicable facts including:1. Absence of fighter jets which should have scrambled to interdict the hijacked airliners, 2. Incongruities between photographic evidence of damage to the Pentagon grounds building and an airliner impact,3. The sequence of events at the World Trade Center which defy physics.The 9/11 Commission should have investigated the possibility that some elements in the US military and / or intelligence services may have condoned if not orchestrated the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Inconceivable?
Hysterical conspiracy theory? Unfortunately not.November 7, 2001 ABC News reported that during the early 1960s, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff - the interface between the military and civilian leadership - entertained a strategy to manipulate the nation into war against Cuba. David Ruppe's story, Headlined "Friendly Fire" and sub-headed "Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba" detailed:"Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities."These US Government plans included "hijacking planes" and "orchestrating terrorism in U.S. cities."
The motivation, confirmed by ABC, was "to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro." ABC based its report on a book called "Body of Secrets," by reporter James Bamford. ABC News explained, "America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: 'We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,' and, 'casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.'
"We have conclusive evidence highly placed officials formulated plans to "Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War." This is according to ABC News, not some internet conspiracy theory. The concept of killing innocent Americans with the avowed intention of driving us into war against a despot targeted as a threat to national security dates back to the John F. Kennedy years. In 1962, government officials targeted Fidel Castro's Cuba.
Was it Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2001? So we know government officials not only foresaw, but considered using terrorism as a tool to trick the public into supporting war in 1962, but is there any proof current administration officials would consider this?
Yes. PNAC - the Project for the New American Century - published a blueprint for remaking US Defense and Middle East polices. They advocated invasion of Iraq to establish a beacon of Democracy. In their January 26, 1998 letter to then-President Clinton, PNAC advocated "military action as diplomacy is clearly failing" and "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power." Among the signatories were Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as well as other high-ranking Bush Administration
officials Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, and Paul Wolfowitz. See:
www.newamericancentury.orgPNAC called for an aggressive military-based approach to American foreign policy in their document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century A Report of The Project for the New American Century," dated September 2000. Presaging Bush "Axis of Evil" rhetoric and policy, PNAC claimed "adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons." They considered Iraq an attractive pretext to establish US military control of the oil-rich Persian Gulf region: "Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
These statements and others calling for an "increase in strength, more permanent basing arrangements" in the Gulf place the Bush Administration rush to war in Iraq in clearer context. According to these documents, top-level Bush policy-makers hoped to establish a large permanent military presence in the region, and they considered Iraq the ideal location.Lamenting restraints "Domestic politics and industrial policy" placed on their ambitions, the PNAC members observed, "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
See: Rebuilding America's Defenses, pp. 16, 26, 29, 51.How much different is Northwoods from PNAC and 9/11? Flash forward forty years. Taken together with the obstruction, secrecy and bald-faced lies from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and others, reports about plans to engineer support for war through a "new Pearl Harbor" (PNAC) or "hijacking planes" and "orchestrating terrorism in U.S. cities" (Northwoods).ABC reports, according to evidence Bamford uncovered, "The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years."We don't have to wait four decades. We have the PNAC plans dating back to early 1998, as well as evidence the Bush/Cheney administration planned to carry out the PNAC plans within days after assuming power, several months before 9/11/01.
This as revealed by former Bush Administration officials Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill.We have conclusive evidence highly placed officials formulated plans to "Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War." This is according to ABC News, not some internet conspiracy theory. The concept of killing innocent Americans with the avowed intention of driving us into war against a despot targeted as a threat to national security dates back to the John F. Kennedy years.
In 1962, government officials targeted Fidel Castro's Cuba. Was it Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2001? These and other lingering questions remain unanswered - even unasked - in the carefully orchestrated, constrained and obstructed investigation into the most deadly attack on US soil in US history. In the wake of the Team Bush's catastrophic failure to keep us safe, we may not be able to force the Bush/Cheney PNAC Administration to come clean, but we can - and must - force them out of office.
THE TIME FOR AMERICAN’S TO ONCE AGAIN RISE UP AND REGAIN CONTROL OF THIS NATION AND OUR FUTURE IS NOW! JOIN THE EFFORT; YOU WILL NOT BE ALONE! Ed.
THE TIME FOR AMERICAN’S TO ONCE AGAIN RISE UP AND REGAIN CONTROL OF THIS NATION AND OUR FUTURE IS NOW! JOIN THE EFFORT; YOU WILL NOT BE ALONE! Ed.
