Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Impeach+Bush+Cheney: News And Views Today From Brooklyn To Iowa: NEWS FLASH (11:30 PM): More On Arrests Today At Nadler's Office

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Impeach+Bush+Cheney: News And Views Today From Brooklyn To Iowa: NEWS FLASH (11:30 PM): More On Arrests Today At Nadler's Office

Impeach+Bush+Cheney: News And Views Today
From Brooklyn To Iowa:
NEWS FLASH (11:30 PM): More On Arrests Today At Nadler's Office

“It’s The Judiciary Committee Stupid!” Campaign Lead Link

Work With Wexler

NEWS FLASH (11:30 PM): More on Arrests today at Nadler's Office


Elaine Brower and 3 other World Can't Wait activists arrested at IMPEACHMENT SIT-IN at Congressman Nadler's office

The Bush Regime has now been caught lying about Iran, destroying the taped evidence of its torture of prisoners – blatantly impeachable offenses, and much more. Yet what major candidate is even talking about stopping torture and repealing the new laws codifying it? What major candidate is supporting impeachment of these criminals? It is up to the people to act.

Today 10 people sat in in the Brooklyn office of Jerold Nadler, a key member of the House Judiciary Committee that could initiate impeachment hearings -- yet Nadler has joined Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leaders in declaring impeachment off the table.

Protesters demanded to talk with Congressman Nadler to express the sentiment of millions that Bush & Cheney should be impeached for their crimes. On behalf of the Congressmen, his aids refused to even let the protesters talk to Nadler on the phone and instead threatened them with arrest.

At 5:00 PM four women protesters were arrested, and as of now they are still being held at the 60th Precinct (West 8th Street & Surf Avenue) in Coney Island. We have heard, not yet confirmed, that they will be charged with criminal trespass. We demand their immediate release and that all charges be dropped. The criminals are in the White House.

Just before their arrest, they were interviewed by New York 1, WBAI Evening News and the Thom Hartmann show on Air America.

Press reports on the sit-in and arrest can be found at:

We will keep you posted as this develops.

Sitting in today at Congressman Jerold Nadler's office in Brooklyn NY, demanding impeachment. News tonight on NY1:"The activists want Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler to use his position as the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties to force a hearing on the matter. They claim that Congress has every legal right to impeach, but efforts are being thwarted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The speaker took the issue off the table when the Democrats gained control of Congress." Supporters of World Can't Wait protested peacefully, were arrested, and are still being held by the NYPD Wednesday night.

Debra Sweet, Director, The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime


The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead with Attorney General Michael Mukasey's announcement that the Justice Department has opened a formal criminal investigation into the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes. Mukasey said that after a preliminary inquiry that began Dec. 8, "there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this matter." The attorney general didn't clarify what evidence might have been discovered or what crimes could be under investigation, but everyone agrees the main focus is likely to be obstruction of justice.

USA Today leads with news that the price of oil reached $100 a barrel yesterday for the first time. It didn't stay there for long and ended up closing at $99.62. The NYT points out that the $100 mark apparently came courtesy of a "lone trader" who appeared to be "looking for vanity bragging rights." Regardless, the price still increased $3.64 and USAT says it won't be long before it reaches consumers, particularly since experts point out that gasoline prices usually rise in the spring.

Mukasey appointed John Durham, the No. 2 federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to lead the investigation. Both the LAT and NYT say that appointing someone from outside Washington was an "unusual move," but everyone points out that it was a clear attempt to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. In fact, the U.S. attorney's office in eastern Virginia, where the CIA's headquarters is located, has recused itself from the case. The CIA's inspector general also recused himself because he predicted that he would be called as a witness. No one has anything bad to say about Durham, a veteran prosecutor whom everyone describes as tough and relentless. He's probably best known for leading an inquiry into allegations that FBI agents and police officers in Boston had ties with the mob.

The Post does point out that Durham is a registered Republican, but the LAT notes he's largely seen as apolitical. Congressional Democrats criticized Mukasey's decision not to name an independent special counsel, which means Durham won't have the same broad powers as Patrick Fitzgerald, who recently investigated the leak of the identity of a CIA operative. Durham will report directly to the deputy attorney general, and the NYT points out the investigation will probably last several months and might not be over until after the end of the Bush presidency. Lawmakers vowed to press on with their own investigations, but the LAT says they will likely slow down as some witnesses could now be more reluctant to testify before Congress.

After so much waiting, it's hard to believe it's finally here. But it's true; after the most expensive campaign in the history of the Iowa caucuses, tonight actual voters will state their preferences in a race that is still up in the air. All the papers front the last-minute efforts of the campaigns to convince Iowans that they should brave the subfreezing temperatures to caucus. The NYT points out that the vast difference in the level of excitement between the two parties was evident even on the last day as the Democratic contenders spoke to audiences of hundreds of people, while Republicans addressed much more intimate gatherings. The LAT says the Democratic candidates "shifted to a somewhat quieter tone after days of discord" and largely avoided mentioning their opponents by name.

On the Republican side, things were a bit more heated. Mike Huckabee suggested Mitt Romney was trying to buy an Iowa victory, and Romney criticized Huckabee for choosing to fly to California for an appearance on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno. The WP points out that some of the candidates were clearly turning their sights to New Hampshire, as Romney also criticized Sen. John McCain, who is his strongest rival in the Granite State. Sen. Barack Obama also seemed to be looking east as he made a plea to Republicans and independents. The NYT notes at the end of the story that "perhaps the biggest uncertainty" lies with Rep. Ron Paul, as some Republicans are worrying that he might turn out more supporters than anticipated.

The WP's Dan Balz has a helpful guide to the Iowa caucuses and lists eight questions that tonight's contest could answer.

Back to Huckabee's TV appearance for a moment. The NYT says the trip to California "added to the mystery behind his campaign strategy." Also strange was that he didn't seem to realize that he would have to cross a picket line to chat with Jay Leno. Huckabee appeared to be under the impression that the deal reached between the writers' union and David Letterman's production company applied to all the late-night shows. Huckabee "does not appear to be able to distinguish between Leno and Letterman and yet is running for president of the United States," writes the Post's Lisa de Moraes. For her part, Clinton taped her appearance on Letterman's Late Show so she didn't have to leave Iowa.

The LAT catches late-breaking news out of Kenya, where police clashed with protesters who were gathering to stage the banned "million-man march" that was called by the opposition to protest the results of last week's election. Police fired tear gas, but early-morning wire stories report that the crowds did not appear to be as big as many feared. The country's main newspapers ran identical banner headlines: "Save Our Beloved Country."

The NYT and LAT front, while the WP goes inside with, dramatic accounts that detail how a mob set fire to a church on Tuesday and killed up to 50 people. "The church turned into an oven," says the LAT. The NYT notes that Western diplomats are trying to get the government and opposition leaders to the negotiating table, but neither seems open to compromise. "One of the most developed, promising countries in Africa has turned into a starter kit for disaster," says the NYT.

The WP fronts, and everyone mentions, the latest out of Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf defended the decision to postpone the elections until Feb. 18 and announced that Scotland Yard will help investigate the killing of Benazir Bhutto. The WP points out that it's unclear how much the Scotland Yard team will be able to contribute since the crime scene was compromised and there was no autopsy. The NYT says that the British investigators will probably concentrate on providing "technical support."

In a strange op-ed piece, the LAT's Rosa Brooks tries to make a parallel between Bhutto passing on the leadership of her party to her son to the possibility that Clinton will be elected president. She even quotes Bilawal Bhutto's Facebook profile: "I am not a politician or a great thinker. I'm merely a student." The NYT's Lede blog revealed last night that the profile was a fake. Brooks isn't alone as several news outlets also fell for the hoax.

"Their delay chokes the life out of democracy."Seattle Times - United States28]: It is simply not true that it would take "a year to work up a credible impeachment panel." History shows that the entire process could be completed in ...See all stories on this topic


The Iowa Scam: The undemocratic caucuses are a terrible way to choose a presidential candidate. By Christopher Hitchens

The Iowa caucuses : Facts about tonight's nominating contest.

The Brigadoon Complex: Where the Iowa caucuses went wrong.
By Jeff Greenfield

Now it's Iowa's turn to be heard
By Mark Z. Barabak and Peter Nicholas
A year of relentless, costly campaigning in the state wraps up with no clear front-runners.

Why Iowa? And what's a caucus, anyway?
By Mark Z. Barabak
Tonight about 200,000 Iowans will begin the process of selecting the presidential nominees. That number barely surpasses the population of Glendale, but the results will have an enormous effect.

Caucusgoers' questions reveal indecision
By Maria L. La Ganga and Seema Mehta
At campaign events, Iowans seek answers to a broad range of queries in an attempt to finally settle on a candidate.
By Susan Milligan
Globe Staff / January 3, 2008

DES MOINES - The Republican showdown in Iowa today between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney is emerging as an early test of the importance of money in the most expensive presidential race in history, as the underfunded Huckabee threatens to derail Romney's costly and well-organized campaign.

House Speaker Pelosi: Too Ignorant, Too Greedy, Too PartisanBy Alan Caruba(Alan Caruba) I give you Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi! Today, in the space of an hour, I received three news releases from her office and they are instructive and frightening. It is one thing to be partisan, but quite another to deliberately ...Warning Signs -

Big Mo’s Political winners and losers of 2007By Big Mo Nancy Pelosi – the first woman Speaker of the House proved to be an embarrassment. I say this as a nonpartisan observation. She been unable to marshal her party to pass meaningful legislation (please: raising the minimum wage, ...Hang Right Politics -

A Look Back on Pelosi’s Year Popularity: 4%...OOPS!By PrivatePigg Nancy Pelosi crashed through a glass ceiling when she became the first female House speaker a year ago. That turned out to be the easy part. The reality of leading a bitterly divided Congress at odds with a Republican White House is ...-

Opposites of 2007National Catholic Register - North Haven,CT,USABut as a congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi has supported abortion up to and including partial-birth abortion. Her first act in the new Congress — and one of her ...See all stories on this topic
Economy replacing war as top campaign issue:
By Jill Zuckman Chicago Tribune


The Carvilleism: “It’s The Economy Stupid” is back again and detracting from our efforts for sure.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — On Gunstock Mountain last week, not a single voter in a packed ski lodge asked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton about the Iraq war.

The closest Sen. John McCain came to Iraq during a town-hall meeting in Bedford was a question about U.S. intelligence on Iran.

At a crowded house party for former Sen. John Edwards, only one person asked how he planned to end combat missions and bring the troops home.

Not long ago, the war in Iraq dominated every campaign event and speech. But the war has receded as a campaign topic, giving way to preoccupations closer to home: the price of heating oil, the collapse of the real-estate market and the cost of health care.

"Iraq is fading as an important issue," said Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. "It's been declining since the late spring and early summer on both the Republican side and the Democratic side."

Among Democrats in New Hampshire, 57 percent said in June that the Iraq war was the issue most important to them, but by November that had dropped to 41 percent. Among Republicans, 36 percent said in June that they were most concerned about Iraq, and by November that figure was down to 22 percent, according to Smith's state polling.

At the same time, voters have become more concerned about their personal economic security. "It all goes back to the dictum in political science that people tend to vote their pocketbook," said Frank Cohen, a political-science professor at Franklin Pierce College in Rindge, N.H. In Bedford recently, Sheilagh Shiepe told McCain, R-Ariz., that when she picks up her children at school, she often hears other middle-class moms talking about going without food to cover the bills.

"When people can't pay their mortgages, the first thing they do is not buy their food," Shiepe said.


Cindy Sheehan's SF valuesSan Francisco Bay Guardian - San Francisco,CA,USANancy Pelosi's values and my values surfaced last month. On Friday, Dec. 14, I learned that since 2002, Pelosi has been a silent partner in the George W. ...See all stories on this topic

Part 2: Media Broadcasts PEOPLE'S PARADE At Rose Parade New Years Day
by Linda Milazzo Page 1 of 2 page(s)

In my article on New Years Eve, the night before the Pasadena Rose Parade and our White Rose Coalition's (WRC) unauthorized PEOPLE'S PARADE FOR DEMOCRACY, I questioned whether media would step up patriotically to broadcast our message to IMPEACH Bush & Cheney and END THE WAR.

We were well aware that media would already be present in huge numbers, since it capitalizes handsomely on Rose Parade revenues every year. But we also knew, through previous disappointments, the difficulty in getting corporate press to broadcast negative public sentiment toward Bush, Cheney, and War.

With our Democracy in decline, an immoral war raging on, criminals and cowards controlling our government, and H.R. 1955 and S. 1959 threatening our First Amendment freedoms, our White Rose Coalition believed it had a duty to begin 2008 with the clarion call to Americans that this is the year to RISE UP.

After weeks of strategizing under the inspired and frenetic leadership of Los Angeles National Impeachment Center (LANIC) Director, Peter Thottam, we ventured forward with our action. With visuals in tow, our group of 350 to 400 patriots from a dozen pro-peace/pro-impeachment organizations, embarked on our mission to usher in 2008 with THE WHOLE WORLD WATCHING.

Much to the delight of our 2008 White Rose Coalition, a substantial number of media actually did turn out. While the coverage was no where near what we would have liked, it exceeded our expectations.

Here's the follow-up report to my article: Will Media Broadcast THE PEOPLE'S PARADE At The Rose Parade New Year's Day?:

Prior to the Rose Parade, in the pre-dawn hours of New Years Day, several media outlets showed up to photograph, video and report on our Coalition. Since the giant replica of the Constitution wasn't scheduled to unfurl until during and after THE PEOPLE'S PARADE, the media was on hand to photograph the "incarcerated" chain gang bobbleheads of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.

Below is the youtube news report from Los Angeles Fox (Channel 11) reporter, Elizabeth Espinoza, uploaded by WRC member, Sharona I. Smith. Ms. Espinoza interviewed WRC head organizer, Peter Thottam. Peter is replete with Dick Cheney mask, and holding an IMPEACHMENT banner, alongside CODEPINK co-founder, Jodie Evans.

Other television broadcasters included KTLA (Los Angeles), KNBC (Los Angeles), and more. Unfortunately, the WRC doesn't have a full accounting of all the coverage yet. The 2008 White Rose Coalition would appreciate hearing from anyone who saw a televised broadcast of the PEOPLE'S PARADE, any visibility actions during the Rose Parade, or the Press Conference at Pasadena City Hall.

Here are some photos I took, along with some by Marcy Winograd, and one sent via an email from

WRC members were excited to see an energized dailykos diary with comments posted by Rose Parade viewers who were unaware of the WRC's planned actions. The kossacks bore witness to our members substantial impeachment presence:


Mukasey launches probe of CIA
By Richard B. Schmitt
A top mob-busting prosecutor will head the Justice Department's inquiry on the agency's destruction of videotapes of terrorism suspects' interrogations.

Mukasey launches probe of CIALos Angeles Times - CA,USAPatrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the agency would, "of course, ...See all stories on this topic

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Interogate the Interogators

The Justice Department opened a full criminal investigation Wednesday into the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced that he was appointing John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to oversee the investigation of a case that has challenged the Bush administration's controversial handling of terrorism suspects.

The CIA acknowledged last month that in 2005 it destroyed videos of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects. The acknowledgment sparked a congressional inquiry and a preliminary investigation by Justice into whether the CIA violated any laws or obstructed congressional inquiries such as the one led by the Sept. 11 Commission.

So what,and why is this garbage allowed to continue.

"The Department's National Security Division has recommended, and I have concluded, that here is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this matter, and I have taken steps to begin that investigation," Mukasey said in a statement released Wednesday. Your wrong. You need to do whatever it takes to extract information stupid.

Durham, who has served with the Justice Department for 25 years, has a reputation as one of the nation's most relentless prosecutors. He was appointed to investigate the FBI's use of mob informants in Boston, an investigation that sent former FBI agent John Connolly to prison. What does that have to do with the CIA interrogation methods, is beyond me.

"Nobody in this country is above the law, an FBI agent or otherwise," Durham said in 2002 after Connolly's conviction. Really, how about the illegals using everyone Else's social. How about dirty money in campaign financing of the Clinton's, or how about Fienstien's husband and the military contacts insider trading. I could go on and on.

Mukasey made the move after prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia, which includes the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Va., removed themselves from the case. CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson, who worked with the Justice Department on the preliminary inquiry, also removed himself. I wonder why?"The CIA will of course cooperate fully with this investigation as it has with the others into this matter," agency spokesman Mark Mansfield said.

Mukasey named Durham the acting U.S. attorney on the case, a designation the Justice Department frequently makes when top prosecutors take themselves off a case. He will not serve as a special prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald, who operated autonomously while investigating the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity.

"The Justice Department went out and got somebody with complete independence and integrity,"said former Connecticut U.S.Attorney Stanley Twardy, who worked with Durham. "No politics whatsoever. It's going to be completely by the book and he's going to let the chips fall where they may."

The CIA already has agreed to open its files to congressional investigators, who have begun reviewing documents at the agency's Virginia headquarters. The House Intelligence Committee has ordered Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA official who directed the tapes be destroyed, to appear at a hearing Jan. 16.

Rodriguez's attorney, Robert S. Bennett, had no comment."He'll suck the political air right out of the investigation and just go after the facts," said Mike Clark, a retired FBI agent who investigated Rowland. "He's going to do it his way and just keep digging." He will find nothing.

In June 2005, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, who was overseeing a case in which U.S.-held terror suspects were challenging their detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."
Five months later, the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos. The recordings involved suspected terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The Justice Department has argued to Kennedy that the videos weren't covered by his order because the two men were being held in secret CIA prisons overseas, not at Guantanamo Bay.

The tapes' destruction has riled members of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. In an opinion piece in Wednesday's New York Times, commission chairmen Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton accused the CIA of failing to respond to requests for information about the 9/11 plot.Anyone at the agency who knew about the tapes and failed to disclose them "obstructed our investigation," said Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Hamilton, a former Democratic House member from Indiana. The CIA has asserted that Kean and Hamilton's panel had not been specific enough in their requests and they should have asked for interrogation videos if that is what they wanted.

On Capitol Hill, the House Intelligence Committee wants to know who authorized the tapes' destruction; who in the CIA, Justice Department and White House knew about it and when, and why Congress was not fully informed.The committee, which had threatened to subpoena the records if they do not get access, also wants to know exactly what was shown on the tapes.

Since leaving the White House shortly before Christmas, President Bush has not addressed the tapes' destruction. Before going to Camp David, then his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Bush said he was confident that investigations by Congress and the Justice Department "will end upenabling us all to find out what exactly happened."

He repeated his assertion that his "first recollection" of being told about the tapes and their destruction was when CIA Director Michael Hayden briefed him on it in early December.
"Leaky" Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Mukasey's announcement proved that lawmakers "were right to be concerned with possible obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass the Mark Spitz of the senate., also lauded Mukasey's decision to launch a criminal inquiry. "The rule of law requires no less," Kennedy said. "Those tapes may have been evidence of a crime, and their destruction may have been a crime in itself." A Crime! ts a crime this hypocrite is still in publice service, may the soul of Mary Jo Kopechne rest in peace.

Sen. Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat seeking his party's nomination for president, (fat chance) said a criminal investigation is no surprise, but suggested that Mukasey should remove himself from oversight of the investigation and appoint a special counsel "completely independent and free from political influence."

All this is a waste of taxpayer dollars, this investigation will go nowhere.


Click here: Move to Impeach Cheney Gains Support in Congress - Salem-News.Com

Move to Impeach Cheney Gains Support in CongressBy sudhan A House Resolution to impeach US Vice-President Dick Cheney, Dennis Kucinich’s HR 333, is gathering more support. The national impeachment continues to grow and generate increasing interest since being referred to the House Judiciary ...Suzie-Q -

Go get him...Clip Source: www.commondreams.orgMove to Impeach Cheney Gains Support in CongressSALEM, Ore. - A House Resolution to impeach US Vice-President Dick Cheney, Dennis Kucinich’s HR 799, is gathering more support. The national impeachment ...Original Signal - Transmitting Buzz -

Move to Impeach Cheney Gains Support in CongressBy WorldProutAssembly The Op-Ed that ran in the Philadelphia Enquirer December 27th (Impeach Cheney now- The allegations that he abused power are credible.) states, "The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of ...
World Prout Assembly -

Man Will Walk 500 Miles To Impeach Bush and CheneyBy Michael Sandstrom Its about a whole collection of issues around the Constitution and the behavior of this administration, Nirenberg will walk to relay that message to Speaker Pelosi, Without this, Congress is telling history, We changed the Constitution. ...Care2 News Network - Newly Submitted -

One-Man March on Washington Stops in Philly, Meets Local Activists ...By dlindorff Nirenberg’s plan is to walk straight to the office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and there to demand that she stop blocking a hearing on Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H. Res 799 Cheney impeachment bill. He would also like to see a bill calling for - The Aggressive... -

One-Man March on Washington Stops in Philly, Meets Local Activists ...
Atlantic Free Press - Groningen,NetherlandsNirenberg’s plan is to walk straight to the office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and there to demand that she stop blocking a hearing on Rep. ...See all stories on this topic

One-Man March on Washington Stops in Philly, Meets Local Activists ...
By (Chris Cook) ... his 500-mile trek, Nirenberg explained that he had decided to march to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to tell her it was past time to move forward with impeachment hearings against the president and vice president. ...Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths... -


Democrats say Bush can’t pocket veto defense billThe Hill - Washington,DC,USAThe White House on Monday said it was pocket-vetoing the measure, but a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the president cannot use ...See all stories on this topic

House May Attempt Override of Bush’s Defense Bill - Washington,DC,USABoth House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., have signaled that they plan to treat Bush’s Dec. ...See all stories on this topic

CQ TODAY – DEFENSE Jan. 2, 2008 – 3:18 p.m.
House May Attempt Override of Bush’s Defense Bill Veto
By Kathleen Hunter, CQ Staff

Democratic leaders in Congress dispute President Bush’s contention that he has the authority to use a pocket veto to kill the fiscal 2008 defense policy bill and may attempt a veto override later this month.

Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., have signaled that they plan to treat Bush’s Dec. 28 memorandum of disapproval on the bill (HR 1585) as a normal veto, and have left open the possibility of veto override votes.

“Congress vigorously rejects any claim that the president has the authority to pocket veto this legislation, and will treat any bill returned to the Congress as open to an override vote,” a Pelosi aide said Wednesday.

When asked if the House would hold a veto override vote, the aide said, “We are exploring all legislative options and no action has been ruled out.”

Reid spokesman Jim Manley also said the legislative branch would interpret Bush’s action as a normal veto.

“There was no pocket veto because Congress was available to receive the veto message,” Manely said, adding that the Senate would “wait and see what the House does” before determining whether to attempt to override the veto.

Because the bill, which was passed overwhelmingly in both chambers last month, originated in the House, that chamber is required to act first on a veto message from the White House.

Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, declined to comment Wednesday on whether Republicans would support a veto override.

Bush — under intense pressure from the Iraqi government— vetoed the bill over a provision that the White House contends could have rendered Iraqi assets vulnerable to a freeze by plaintiffs seeking redress in U.S. courts for acts committed under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The Iraqi government had threatened to withdraw $25 billion worth of assets from U.S. capital markets last week if Bush signed the bill.

What Kind of Veto?

The White House, which did not threaten a veto of the bill until after Congress cleared the legislation, contends that Bush had the authority to invoke his constitutional power to pocket veto the bill because the House had adjourned for the year, making it impossible for Bush to return the bill to the chamber that originated it.

“Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law,” Bush stated in his memorandum of disapproval. The pocket veto, the White House says, took effect Dec. 31.

But congressional Democrats dispute that claim.

The Senate has been holding pro forma sessions every few days, and both the House and Senate have empowered their clerks to receive communications from the White House when Congress is out of session.

Also, the adjournment resolution adopted by both chambers (S Con Res 61) would allow House and Senate leaders to call Congress back into session if need be.

The issue has been made even murkier by the fact that the White House also has returned the measure to the House in a procedure that is similar to a regular veto.

In his statement, Bush said he was returning the bill the House “to avoid unnecessary litigation” and to “leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.”

White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel characterized the move as an “extra step . . . to make sure that Congress, when it returns in January, can move forward quickly with a fix to that legislation.”
Pelosi’s office declined to comment on what specific legislative strategies the House might pursue.

Although the second session of the 110th Congress officially begins Thursday, the House is not slated to return until Jan. 15 and the Senate will not be back until Jan 22.

The disagreement about Bush’s nullification of the bill reflects a longstanding dispute between Congress and the White House about exactly when a president can use a pocket veto to kill legislation. Such a veto is not subject to an override vote by either chamber of Congress.

A federal appeals court ruled in 1985 that it is unconstitutional for the president to use the pocket veto between sessions of Congress, but the Supreme Court in January 1987 vacated that decision without addressing the underlying issue. The high court found that the bill in question, which had sought to limit aid to El Salvador as part of an annual appropriations bill, had already expired.

Foreign Policy Belongs to the Bush TeamBy joejolly Nancy Pelosi, some time ago, made it known that she wanted to take a trip outside the country. An INDEPENDENT congressman had already made such a trip to Iraq without as much as a whimper from Republicans. He came back to America and ...Joejolly's Weblog - http://joejolly.wordpress.comits own and the dispute was thus moot.

Border Fence Gutted by PelosiBy Debbie Not only did Nancy Pelosi and her gang gut the border fence, this monstrous omnibus spending bill ALSO GIVES 10 MILLION OF YOUR HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS TO ATTORNEYS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS! According to CNS News: ...Right Truth -

Eric Leaver on US Foreign Policy and US Election IssuesBy Dori Eric Leaver on the Foreign Policy Questions in the US Elections and John Nurenberg on his walk from Boston to Washington, DC to ask Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Impeach George W. Bush. Produced by Dori Smith, -

The Utters of The PelosiBy Snooper(Snooper) Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war…”, as reported by Patrick J Buchanan. In other news, Dennis Prager reported, “This past weekend, a friend of mine ...Sick and Tired Americans -

Game theory and the U.S. presidential election of 08By Scott Harris Online Journal Guest Writer Jan 3, 2008, 00:53

Like every year in the U.S., Christmas is a time when families travel hundreds or thousands of miles to be with one another on the most widely celebrated Christian holiday of the year.

While parents and children; brothers and sisters; cousins, aunts and uncles catch up on the news of the past year, job changes, births and deaths -- one of the staples of most American holiday conversations is sports: Who won the big game, which coach should be fired and favored teams to win the Super Bowl or NBA championship.

With the coming year in U.S. politics possibly one of the most important in decades -- press coverage of the early Democratic and Republican presidential primary contests has been predictably disappointing -- treating the competition as if it were a mere sporting event.

As Paul Krugman aptly noted in his New York Times column of Sept. 27, 2007: "One of my pet peeves about political reporting is the fact that some of my journalistic colleagues seem to want to be in another business -- namely, theater criticism. Instead of telling us what candidates are actually saying -- and whether it’s true or false, sensible or silly -- they tell us how it went over, and how they think it affects the horse race."

With pundits guessing who will take the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the analogy of the political horse race seems appropriate. Much of the corporate media, whether in print or in expensive, slick TV extravaganzas endlessly present poll numbers and examine the shallowest aspects of the candidates statements, personal histories and even facial expressions. Hillary’s wardrobe; Obama’s admission of using drugs as a young man; Edward’s pricey haircuts; Giuliani’s limousine rides for his gal pal during an extramarital affair and Mitt Romney’s false statements about how his father had marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

While President Bush and his co-conspirators in the White House daily shred new paragraphs of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions, many Americans gathered around the holiday table this year found themselves uneasy about the authoritarian path the Bush crowd has steered the nation down in recent years. A feeling that the United States has taken the wrong road, departing dramatically from our nation’s self-image as a leader in democratic values and human rights.

But, sadly, all too many Americans, caught up in the day-to-day grind, often working two or three jobs just to pay the monthly rent or their sub prime mortgage, skyrocketing health insurance costs and rising college tuition payments aren’t armed with essential information about the crisis their nation faces in advance of the November 2008 presidential election.

President Bush’s illegal and deadly war in Iraq, warrantless spying on American citizens, phony reporters on the White House payroll, the censoring of government documents on climate change science and the secret detention and torture of U.S.-held terrorist suspects followed by attempts to cover up much of the wrongdoing through claims of executive privilege, stonewalling of evidence and the destruction of video tapes.

All this has an eerie echo of the Watergate era. But unlike Richard Nixon’s botched second rate-burglary and the subsequent cover-up that catapulted the nation toward impeachment proceedings widely investigated and covered in the press, the reality of today’s much more serious political crisis is by and large going unreported by the nation’s largest media corporations.

So as the calendar moved quickly to a new year, most Americans found themselves more fixated on the latest consumer gadgets and sports scores than on the political crisis gathering in Washington.

Sadly, even when the topic of politics does come up around the dinner table, more often than not these discussions mimic our media's obsession with the latest polls, who’s up, who’s down. Horse-race reporting on the 2008 election seem almost deliberately designed to prevent the stirring of passions among average citizens. When faced with vapid reporting on Rudy, Hillary, Obama or Mitt, who really would switch the channel from Monday night football to see the next candidates debate?

If the U.S. media system were ever to miraculously awake from its coma-like, myopic, corporate bottom line agenda, and replace their endless reports on Britney Spears and her younger sister’s pregnancy with detailed stories on the present threat to American democracy, maybe citizens would rise up to take their country back from one of the most corrupt and dangerous presidential administrations our nation has ever known.

What if Americans knew the basic facts regarding the lies and scandals chalked up by President Bush and his cronies as well as they knew the record of Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning? If average citizens were as well acquainted with the positions of all presidential candidates on national healthcare policy and free trade as they are with NBA star Kobe Bryant’s stats on points scored per game, America would be a far different place and the crisis of our democracy wouldn’t be nearly so deep and so frightening.

If Americans fully understood the crimes that are daily being committed in their name by the gang of thugs in the White House, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be forced to put impeachment back on the table and the presidential election of 2008 would actually compel candidates to decide whether they are for the U.S. Constitution or against it.

Scott Harris is executive producer of Between The Lines Radio Newsmagazine, which can be heard on more than 40 radio stations in the U.S. and Canada. Hear the program at
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online JournalEmail Online Journal Editor


General Info on the U.S. Presidential Election (38)



Election ISSUES ! (632)

Donation MONEY (107)

Presidential Election NEWS, BLOGS & POLLS (270)

NONPARTISAN Political Action Groups (80)

Critical INFORMATION on President BUSH and the REPUBLICANS (657)

SENATE & HOUSE Elections (133)




GET OUT The VOTE ! / Register to Vote (181)

BATTLEGROUND States & Swing Vote (274)

Voter GROUPS (267)

U.S. Presidential Election 2004 (746)

U.S. Presidential Election 2000 (138)

Today’s headline news story from the UK Independent reads "“Bloomberg tempted by open race for the US presidency”

“The already topsy-turvy race for the White House took on an even more complicated hue last night amid fresh signs that Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire Mayor of New York, may quietly be accelerating preparations to enter as an independent candidate.” Full article : :

I find this announcement interesting and right on schedule as expected. Creditable news sources report that he was already picked by the Bilderberg group last year. Judging by the picture above, I believe its probably true.

Here is an quote from an article which appeared in WorldNet Daily on Tuesday, 20 November 2007. It was a interview of Daniel Estulin titled" North American Union 'a couple years away'.WorldNet Daily:

“There are two sides in this equation; the powerful elite who control the world's wealth and the rest of humanity” Estulin "guarantees" today's Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani will not get the nomination of his party. With less certitude, he speculates the current mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, could still be positioned to head the GOP ticket. "Bloomberg, according to my sources within Bilderberg, will emerge as a credible candidate of consensus for the discredited American political establishment, your virtual "People's Choice" candidate," he says.”Full article here:

Usually when somebody visits a Bilderberg meeting, he is the next president of the United States. At least that has been the past history.


Legal FictionsThe Bush administration's dumbest legal arguments of the year.
By Dahlia LithwickPosted Friday, Dec. 28, 2007, at 6:32 PM ET

Alberto Gonzales

This time last year, I offered up a top 10 list of the most appalling civil-liberties violations by the Bush administration in 2006. The grim truth is, not much has changed. The Bush administration continues to limit our basic freedoms, conceal its own worst behavior, and insist that it does all this in order to make us more free. In that spirit, it seemed an opportune moment to commemorate the administration's worst legal justifications and arguments of the year. And so I humbly offer this new year's roundup: The Bush Administration's Top 10 Stupidest Legal Arguments of 2007.

10. The NSA's eavesdropping was limited in scope.

Not at all. Recent revelations suggest the program was launched earlier than we'd been led to believe, scooped up more information than we were led to believe, and was not at all narrowly tailored, as we'd been led to believe. Surprised? Me neither.

9. Scooter Libby's sentence was commuted because it was excessive.

Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was found guilty of perjury and obstructing justice in connection with the outing of Valerie Plame. In July, before Libby had served out a day of his prison sentence, President Bush commuted his sentence, insisting the 30-month prison sentence was "excessive." In fact, under the federal sentencing guidelines, Libby's sentence was perfectly appropriate and consistent with positions advocated by Bush's own Justice Department earlier this year.

8. The vice president's office is not a part of the executive branch.

We also learned in July that over the repeated objections of the National Archives, Vice President Dick Cheney exempted his office from Executive Order 12958, designed to safeguard classified national security information. In declining such oversight in 2004, Cheney advanced the astounding legal proposition that the Office of the Vice President is not an "entity within the executive branch" and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders. When, in January 2007, the Information Security Oversight Office asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resolve the dispute, Cheney recommended the executive order be amended to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office altogether. In a new interview with Mike Isikoff at Newsweek, the director of the ISOO stated that his fight with Cheney's office was a "contributing" factor in his decision to quit after 34 years.

7. The Guantanamo Bay detainees enjoy more legal rights than any prisoners of war in history.

This has been one of the catchiest refrains of the war on terror, right up there with the claim that the prisoners there are well-fed and cared for. The government brief in the December Supreme Court appeal on the rights of these detainees to contest their detentions proudly proclaimed that the "detainees now enjoy greater procedural protections and statutory rights to challenge their wartime detentions than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of war." That certainly sounds plausible. But as my colleague Emily Bazelon detailed here in Slate, a vast gaggle of historians, constitutional scholars, and retired military officers vehemently dispute that characterization of the legal processes afforded the detainees. The argument that Guantanamo prisoners have greater rights than they would otherwise be afforded relies on deep distortions of both fact and law.

6. Water-boarding may not be torture.

Water-boarding is torture. It's torture under the Geneva Conventions and has been treated as a war crime in the United States for decades. The answer to the question of its legality should be as simple as the answer to whether boiling prisoners in oil is legal. But in his confirmation hearings to become U.S. attorney general, Michael Mukasey could not bring himself to agree. He claimed not to have been "read into" the interrogation program and to be incapable of speculating about hypothetical techniques. He added that he did not want to place U.S. officials "in personal legal jeopardy" and that such remarks might "provide our enemies with a window into the limits or contours of any interrogation program." Even Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., seems to be catching on to what it means when senior legal advisers find themselves incapable of calling water-boarding torture.

5. Everyone who has ever spoken to the president about anything is barred from congressional testimony by executive privilege.

This little gem of an argument was cooked up by the White House last July when the Senate judiciary committee sought the testimony of former White House political director Sara Taylor, as well as that of former White House counsel Harriet Miers, in connection with the firing of nine U.S. attorneys for partisan ideological reasons. Taylor was subpoenaed in June and, according to her lawyers, she wanted to testify but was barred by White House counsel Fred Fielding's judgment that the president could compel her to assert executive privilege and forbid her testimony. As Bruce Fein argued in Slate, that dramatic over-reading of the privilege would both preclude congressional oversight of any sort and muzzle anyone who'd ever communicated with the president, regardless of their wish to talk.

4. Nine U.S. attorneys were fired by nobody, but for good reason.

Of course, the great legal story of 2007 was the unprecedented firing of nine U.S. attorneys who either declined to prosecute Democrats or were too successful in prosecuting Republicans. After months of congressional hearings, subpoenas, and investigations, the mastermind behind the plan to replace these prosecutors with "loyal Bushies" has yet to be determined. The decision is instead blamed on a "process" wherein unnamed senior department officials came to a "consensus" decision. No one is willing to name names, even though the firings were ostensibly legal, because, in the words of the president himself, these prosecutors all "serve at the pleasure of the president" and can be fired for any reason. Nevertheless, the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys—many of whom had stellar records and job reviews—remains shrouded in secrecy, although at least according to everyone who's testified, they were all fired for good reasons (which also cannot be articulated).

3. Alberto Gonzales.

I am forced to put the former attorney general into his own category only because were I to attempt to round up his best legal whoppers of the calendar year, it would overwhelm the rest of the list. As Paul Kiel over at Talking Points Memo so aptly put it earlier this year, Gonzales was and is clearly "the lying-est attorney general in recent history." Kiel went on to catalog Gonzales' six most egregious legal lies of the year, but I'll focus here on just two. First, his claim at a March press conference that he "was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on" with respect to the U.S. attorney firings. This was debunked shortly thereafter when Kyle Sampson testified that Gonzales was frequently updated throughout the process. Second, his April testimony that he had not "talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven't wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations," which was promptly contradicted by Monica Goodling's testimony about his efforts to coordinate his version of the story with hers.

2. State secrets.

Again, it's virtually impossible to cite the single most egregious assertion by the Bush administration of the state-secrets privilege, because there are so many to choose from. This doctrine once barred the introduction into court of specific evidence that might compromise national security, but in the hands of the Bush administration, it has ballooned into a doctrine of blanket immunity for any conduct the administration wishes to hide. The privilege was invoked in 2007 to block testimony about its torture and extraordinary rendition program, its warrantless surveillance program, and to defend the notion of telecom immunity for colluding in government eavesdropping, among other things. No longer an evidentiary rule, the state-secrets privilege has become one of the administration's surest mechanisms for shielding its most egregious activities.

1. The United States does not torture.

First there was the 2002 torture memo. That was withdrawn. Then there was the December 2004 statement that declared torture "abhorrent." But then there was the new secret 2005 torture memo. But members of Congress were fully briefed about that. Except that they were not. There was Abu Ghraib. There were the destroyed CIA tapes.

So you see, the United States does not torture.

Except for when it does.

Have a cup of coffee and don’t fret.

If you get a lot of idiotic email send your “friends” this greeting…

Gold at 28-Year High, Nears $850

Oil Futures Hit $100 a Barrel

We’ll Be Back Later Today As Developments Warrant.

No comments: