Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Impeach Bush and Cheney (Oped News Takes The Morning Headline!)

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, February 13, 2008

Impeach Bush and Cheney (Oped News Takes The Morning Headline!)

Impeach Bush and Cheney (Oped News Takes The Morning Headline!)

“It’s Still The Judiciary Committee Stupid!”, Plus Pelsoi, Hoyer and Conyer…Time To Pull Out All The Stops! Inundate All House Communications Channels; Stop In Every Office You Can And Deliver The Message…No Impeachment; No Election, No Re-Election!

Impeaching Bush and Cheney Is The Legal Responsibility Of This Congress and It Is Our Duty To See To It That That Congress Upholds The Laws Of This Nation And That They Fulfill Their Sworn Duty Inherent In Their Oath Of Office. If They Do Not; Each And Every Member Of The House Who Does Support The Constitution By Their Inaction Or Refusal To Honor Their Sworn Oath Must Be Defeated In Their Election Or Re-Election Bid In 2008.

So Wake Up Folks; There is more than election Hype to Attend to….

But First A Rather Candid Message!

OPed News

A New National Poll on Impeachment Is Possible By David Swanson

One of the reasons it's hard to convince Congress Members to support opening Cheney impeachment hearings is that they are not fully aware of the level of support among the public for impeaching the least popular vice president in history. There have been very few mainstream national polls done on the topic, primarily because polling companies have not done them on their own (or not published the results) and have refused to do them for money. The few polls that have been published are posted here.

Now, widely respected polling company Zogby International has agreed to allow to commission a poll question in a national telephone poll. The question Zogby has agreed to ask is one that has never been asked before. It corresponds to the effort being led in the House Judiciary Committee by Congressman Robert Wexler here.

This is the question:

"Do you support or oppose efforts of members of the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment hearings to investigate Vice President Dick Cheney?"

Those paying attention to the pulse of the public know that the results of such a poll will shock certain members of Congress living inside their protective bubble on Capitol Hill, not to mention members of the media. If we act quickly, the timing of the release of the poll results can line up nicely with momentum in Congress to make the impeachment hearings happen.

To make this poll happen, we need to raise $2,500.

Here's how: Go here to donate to OpEd News.

You'll notice that you can donate whatever amount you're able. You'll notice that the money goes to something called the International Humanities Center, which is an umbrella group that includes the nonprofit This is the place to give the money to, but you must indicate in the comment box when completing your payment by credit card or paypal that your contribution is for the impeachment poll. If you do indicate that, every dollar you give will be put to that use.

As the dollars come in, the Cheney graphic will fill up. Want change? Yes, we can? Let's change the conversation. Let's make John McCain take an impossible position. Let's make Congress do its job. Let's reinstate the Constitution and establish the rule of law. Yes, we can!

Oped News (Home)

OpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USA
Because Bush can do it! We are now at a point where every day we are dependent on the good sense of Bush/Cheney to not put us into tyranny. ...

See Also:

So how about the issue of holding criminals accountable instead of simply walking away and saying:”Oh It’s not going to happen, so why not do something else”. I have a suggestion as to what those folks can do…quite inappropriate for inclusion here!

People talk about commitment to one thing or another, as for me I would rather see the commitment of a Hubert Humphrey or Eugene McCarty and all the truly patriotic Americans who were in the streets in the 60s, and who did cause things to change. Those were my Americans and they still are.

The Firing Squad; Our Party Has Found A Way To Lose The White House Yet Again! (That Would Be A Circular Firing Squad)

We Have A Choice; “We Have A Decision To Be Made. “Do we really want The White House Back, Or Do We Want the White House Back on Party Insiders Terms?”

The Answer Is: If The People’s Voice Is Heard, Respected, Accepted and Honored; the White House Is Ours.

If The People’s Voice Is Heard, Rejected, And Brokered Away In The Backrooms Along The Way And A Corrupt Bargain Is Sealed In Denver; Then We Will Have Elected John McCain And Will We Have Squandered The Treasure Of Those Who Have Rallied To The Cry And Expectation For Change.

They Will Walk Away In Good Principled Conscience And In Contempt Of All Those Who Will Have Used And Abused Their Trust, Their Faith and Their Support, And They Will Have Their Revenge.

The Nation Will Suffer And Our Party Will Have Suffered An Unnecessary Grievous Wound That Will Simply Not Heal And Just Disappear. The Initial Sign Of Such A Back Lash Will Be Seen First In The Streets Of Denver! Welcome to the "Re-create 68" website, your virtual activists' Convergence Center for the Denver Democratic National Convention of 2008. This website was created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party.

R-68 agrees with the proposition, Potestas In Populo, "all power comes from the people." What stands between the people and power are the party machines. The parties were devised as a means to represent the people. Today they represent nobody, not even party members, but only party bureaucracy. The people have been left without appropriate institutions for their representation. We intend to create those institutes!

Impeach Bush and Cheney: 1st Black Water, Then Nspd 51 & Hspd-20, and now FBI/InfraGard! Are We Getting The Picture?

Blackwater: Now The Charge That the FBI is utilizing private industries in surveillance of Americans has been expanded to “Shoot to Kill Infra Structure Protection Authorization Card Carried Licenses” for the Para (Paranoid)-FBI Vigilante InfraGard Organization during time of Martial Law.

There Is More Than Enough Smoke Here To Check For A Fire!

87 yr-old NH state rep announces fast for impeachment
She is the 14-term State of NH representative who has introduced to the state house HR 24 to impeach Bush and Cheney. The public Hearing for the resolution is next Tuesday Feb. 19th (the day after President's day). ...

87-Year Old New Hampshire State Representative Says She Will Not ...
By Mikael
She is the 14-term State of NH representative who has introduced to the state house HR 24 to impeach Bush and Cheney. The public Hearing for the resolution is next Tuesday Feb. 19th (the day after President's day). ..

Bush, the war, our constitution - my thoughts
OpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USA
I think that Congress should bring impeachment proceedings against George Bush and Dick Cheney in order to determine (question witnesses without George Bush ...

Should Cheney be impeached?

Well, those who think the vice president should be impeached are getting increasingly upset with John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for sticking to oversight, not impeachment hearings. ...

Pelosi considers floor vote on Bolten, Miers contempt citations
By John Bresnahan, Politico. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told her Democratic colleagues on Tuesday night that the House has to consider criminal contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Harriett Miers, ...

Thomas Freidman and the Green Presidency
OpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USA
We had a perfect candidate - Dennis Kucinich! But everyone sold him out. The guy had the DREAM TEAM, too. A fantasitic economist, a great great legal team, ...

Report: Pelosi & AIPAC blackmail Kucinich to drop impeachment or ...
By Editor
Exclusive to New Jersey Impeach Groups - — We received a phone call today from a source in the Kucinich for President campaign, telling us there’s more to the story of Rep. Kucinich’s withdrawal than is publicly known. ...

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren Writes to John Conyers About Impeachment
on the topic of impeachment. Lofgren refers to the possibility of opening impeachment hearings on Vice President Cheney, President Bush, or a federal judge. She suggests that the impeachment of a federal judge may soon be on the agenda ...

Preaching for primary patience
Detroit Free Press - United States
John Conyers' offices, forces for and against President George W. Bush's impeachment may be to blame. On Tuesday, the same day a pro-impeachment Web site ...

Preaching for primary patience February 13, 2008

The prospects for a Michigan Democratic presidential primary do-over election -- a party-run caucus -- are probably not all that good. Why? Give credit to party leaders for recalling the advice: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

But if they throw caution to the wind and give it a go, let's hope they at least consider the approach of a blogger at going by the name Hazen Pingree (the name of a Detroit mayor and governor in the late 19th Century). The blogger suggests waiting until all other primaries and caucuses are concluded in June. At that point, if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama remain deadlocked, he says, both Michigan and Florida could have "overtime" contests to break the tie. "The eyes of the world would SERIOUSLY be on us."

19 Reps Sign Wexler's Impeachment Hearings Letter, 5 from Judiciary

Conyers persuadable!
Sound the Alarm … A MUST SEE VIDEO!! Hi Impeachment People,. 1) Mukasey seems to have crossed Conyers’ line in the sand by refusing to enforce contempt citations. Conyers says he can be persuaded to impeach. Let’s help him out. ...

Conyers' Phone Rings Steadily for Two Days with Impeachment
After Downing Street, David Swanson – There's a new rule on Capitol Hill: the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee can remove impeachment from the Constitution, but cannot also use telephones, Email, or fax machines.

Conyers to White House: We Need to Know More about Wiretapping
Although some of the requested materials have been provided to some Judiciary Committee members, much of the information has not, and it is crucial that ...

Let’s get started on getting rid of the arrogant Pelosi…Let’s get ...
That’s exactly what Cindy Sheehan is doing & you can help! We are gearing up to launch our campaign and need to put our money where our mouth is; help us raise $50000 by the end of the week to show Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the "Do ...

A challenger for Pelosi?
Shirley Golub, is challenging Nancy Pelosi for the Democratic Party congressional nomination in the 8th district (San Francisco). Won't you join her this Thursday at noon in front of Nancy Pelosi's office at 450 Golden Gate Ave,

Yet and still, first a brave candidate must step forward to make that challenge a reality, and in the 8th Congressional district of California, Shirley Golub has answered the call of destiny in her heart to make that happen. And Shirley has posted the most amazing video you ever saw to throw down that challenge, and you can see it at this page.

Shirley Golub "I'm On The Table" Video:

What Shirley is doing is leading a weekly demonstration in front of Nancy Pelosi's district office, every Thursday at noon, at 450 Golden Gate Ave, to literally put herself on the table and say, "I'm on the table, Nancy, and as long as I am, impeachment is too.". And so too with every other issue we expected action on at least a year ago, ending the indefensible occupation of Iraq, and every other issue on which Congress seems incapable of confronting the most unpopular administration in American history.

By inviting all her fellow constituents to join her in demonstration that grows week by week, Shirley Golub is looking to demonstrate that we the people have the numbers to replace ANY member of Congress who thinks they can long ignore the voices of their constituents. Please watch Shirley's kickoff mobilization video:

Boulder City Council ponders resolution on calling to impeach Bush

Activists want document drafted to call for president's impeachment

By Ryan Morgan (Contact)
Originally published 12:00 a.m., February 12, 2008
Updated 09:48 p.m., February 12, 2008


Wartime powers could mangle Constitution Guest column Alamogordo Daily News
By Ralph Lopez

Article Launched: 02/12/2008 12:00:00 AM MST

This Is Not About To Go Away Because People Believe It To Be True No Matter What Is Said To The Contrary!

Is Dennis Kucinich Getting McKinney´d
They told him that if he would drop his campaigns to impeach Cheney and Bush, they would guarantee his re-election to the House of Representatives.

Matthews: Obama Speech Caused 'Thrill Going Up My Leg'
Now they're having a hard time even fielding a candidate against Mark Warner. WILLIAMS: Well, let's talk about that feeling Chris gets up his leg when Obama ...

Will Superdelegates Decide Democratic Nomination?
The DNC warned both states that if they were going to move up their primaries arty rules, they would be stripped of their to January, in violation of ...

Analysis: Presidential Race Far From Over

SALISBURY, Md.- Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain swept Tuesday's Potomac Primary. But as some political observers note, the race for president- especially on the Democratic side- still has a ways to go.

In the Democratic race, Obama sought to widen his slim delegate lead over Clinton with wins in Maryland, Virginia and D.C. with a gain of 168 delegates. Meanwhile, in the Republican contests, McCain's gain of 119 delegates helped him tighten his grip on his party's nomination. It takes 1,191 delegates to clinch the Republican nomination, and McCain appears to be on track to reach the target by late April.

But as Dr. Michael O'Loughlin, chair of Salisbury University's political science department, said, the Potomac Primary would probably not be a deciding factor for either candidate, especially on the Democratic side.

"Even though Obama wins the Potomac Primary, I'm persuaded the Democratic race really isn't going to be decided until Ohio or Texas," O'Loughlin said. "It is the case that Ohio and Texas are delegate-rich states. In terms of mathematics, those states are going to be the tie-breaker states."

Indeed, Hillary Clinton is banking on wins in the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas where voters will select 193 and 141 delegates, respectively. Between them, the two states have another 55 superdelegates.

"We won't know what the general election is until another month," O'Loughlin said.

William Hall, past president of the Wicomico Republican Club, predicted Obama and McCain would be going head-to-head in the November general election.

"It's going to be McCain versus Obama," Hall said. "There's a dead heat as to who's going to win that one."

Hall said that the next president probably will be decided on the issues.

"With McCain you know where he stands on the issues," Hall said. "But with Obama, in the end he's going to have a real problem as he hasn't articulated anything."

O'Loughlin also said he believes McCain is going to be the GOP's nominee but noted that he will need to deal with distrust on the conservative right.

"Whether or not he can mobilize that wing of the party for November is a serious question," O'Loughlin said. "There's no way to paint a really rosy scenario on the Republican side. McCain's got a lot of shoring up to do, I think."

In homage to the great sportswriter (and Brookings Institution egghead) Gregg Easterbrook, we're dubbing today's spate of regional votes the Potomac Drainage Basin Primary. (It's no worse than any of the other nicknames we've seen.)

So in case you missed it, there's a primary vote happening today in Virginia, Maryland and right here in the District. Barack Obama's going to sweep those votes, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to keep losing contests until March 4's Ohio and Texas primaries, which she might also lose. Wow, those are a long way away. She's a goner.

And... scene.

So goes our cheeky ribbing of the media speculation-a-thon regarding today's primaries, which according to MSM bylaws a) must have a cutesy nickname (Chesapeake or Crab Cake?) and b) must be predictive of the nomination winner and, while we're at it, the winner of the November general election vote.

The Washington Post's Dan Balz throws some cold water on everyone's impulse to fast-forward the democratic process by patiently explaining that neither Obama nor Clinton can accurately be called the front-runner. Nor is the deadlock between them a sure sign that the Democratic Party has been "broken." Voters have two clear choices before them, and in upcoming contests, they are casting ballots for one or the other. That's called a nominating contest, not civil war.

And not to beat a dead horse, but New Hampshire should have shown everyone that the conventional wisdom is often wrong.

So, with no clear front-runner in this field, Clinton and Obama are still in the hunt for delegates in the area today, then in Wisconsin and Hawaii, then in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas, and so on and so on, until one of them racks up the 2,025 needed to clinch the nomination. Is that so hard to live with?

Even if all of today's Potomac Drainage Basin Primary contests fall to Obama, there are aspects to chew on other than who's up, who's down (to borrow a new Clintonism). For one, normally disenfranchised District voters found a purpose in getting up and braving the cold today. "If I could find somebody who was half Clinton and half Obama, that would have been the best way of voting," one excited Democratic voter told the Washington Post.

Those of us who live here have been dodging fellow Washingtonians outside Metro stops and on street corners waving placards for Obama or Clinton despite freezing weather. D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty has led impromptu rallies for Obama; meanwhile, campaign surrogates including Bill and Chelsea Clinton pumped up thousands of local college students this week. For a non-state that doesn't rank a voting member of Congress, that's pretty cool.

(Fenty may have broken election rules in his excitement today -- which, for the record, isn't so cool.)

For those really champing for a front-runner, there's John McCain. Realistically, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has no shot at overtaking McCain. That doesn't mean continuing to campaign is pointless.

Forcing McCain to continue to sell himself, especially when a very vocal wing of the GOP is revolting at his candidacy, can't be a bad thing for voters who have yet to give the candidates serious thought. And Huckabee wants the chance to prove he has appeal beyond his natural constituency: white evangelicals.

As voters become ever more concerned about the tanking economy, Huckabee is seeking to capitalize on the advantage this gives him over McCain, who doesn't count domestic policy as one of his strong suits. In a breakfast with the Christian Science Monitor, Huckabee protested that the media are trying to "ghettoize" him as the evangelical candidate.

To those who can't fathom why a candidate facing such long odds would want to go on trying to convince voters he's the best man for the job, Huckabee flatly denies that he's holding out for the usual goodies, i.e., some other political office.

Asked if he was plotting a Senate run against incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor, Huckabee responded, "There is a greater chance that I will dye my hair green and get tattoos all over my body and do a rock tour with Amy Winehouse than there is that I would run for the Senate. So let me put that one to rest."

People want this guy to drop out??

Which brings us to another issue: Both Huckabee and McCain, charmers that they are, have largely escaped the close scrutiny laid on former rival Mitt Romney and would-be rival Hillary Clinton. Keeping the GOP race going could force the media to talk about something other than inevitability. Like, oh, say, their platforms.

Huckabee's economic populism and previously stated support for a federal ban on smoking helped earn him the nickname "Huckananny." The former governor has since backtracked on the smoking ban, saying he thinks smoking regulations ought to be left up to states but that he would sign a federal ban if Congress passed it. Meanwhile, he's thrown federalism out the window on abortion, demanding that McCain join his support for a federal ban on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

McCain, who is pro-life, remains a federalist on abortion, in keeping with conservatives' original objection to Roe v. Wade (an historical fact that gets lost in the modern shoutfest on this issue). Both Romney and Rudy Giuliani eventually landed where McCain is, more or less, during their campaigns.

As for McCain, we pointed this out when the prodigal candidate went before CPAC last week: Why do so many war critics support his candidacy? McCain is arguing that, because he was right about post-invasion planning and the surge strategy, he is best qualified to command for the duration of the war. Do those anti-war voters really understand what a McCain presidency could mean for the war, not to mention U.S. policy toward neighboring Iran?

Both Clinton and Obama are arguing that a McCain win this November guarantees a third term for President Bush, and that might be accurate as far as the war goes. Asked about future U.S. involvement in Iraq, McCain says only that failure is not an option, which is essentially Bush's policy. The former war hero won't even address the possibility that brokering a coherent, sovereign Iraq might be out of reach, and so far, few are pressing him very hard on the matter.

Matt Welch, of the libertarian Reason magazine, has a new book out that's not flattering to McCain. He also penned an op-ed on McCain's war platform that recently appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

Our colleagues at On Call are posting returns tonight. Check back with The Gate tomorrow for analysis and reaction to the great Potomac Drainage Basin Primary of 2008.

Something must give — or will the fight be stopped?
Times Online - UK
A senior adviser to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has suggested that she — along with other “party elders” — will step into the ...more

Speaker Pelosi: Leaning Towards Obama
Newsroom America - New Zealand
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is said to be "leaning" towards presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama, the Times of London reported Tuesday. ...

Clinton Donors, Insiders Say Campaign Vanishing: Report
Newsroom America, New Zealand - Feb 11, 2008
Major donors, as well as insiders to her campaign, say Sen. Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the Democratic presidential nominee are evaporating,

Clinton Donors, Insiders Say Campaign Vanishing: Report
2008-02-11 05:09pm

Major donors, as well as insiders to her campaign, say Sen. Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the Democratic presidential nominee are evaporating, a top Web site reported Monday evening.

The Drudge Report, citing sources from The New York Times, said the paper is set to report in Tuesday editions that Mrs. Clinton's advisors "are increasingly concerned that, after her victories in the Feb. 5 primaries, she could be on a precipitous losing streak in nomination contests this month that could endanger her competitiveness in the upcoming votes in Ohio and Texas on March 4..."

The site said NYT reporter Patrick Healy "was polishing up a story which details how Clinton's losses last weekend in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine have thrown her campaign 'into a state of anxiety not seen since her drubbing in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, with major donors and supporters saying for the first time that they are deeply worried that the Democratic nomination may be slipping from her grasp.'"

Mrs. Clinton has been losing ground to rival Sen. Barack Obama for weeks, ever since states began holding their primary contests.

Last summer, Mrs. Clinton was the runaway favorite to capture her party's presidential nomination.

(c) 2008 Newsroom.

Analysis: Evangelical Message to McCain
The Associated Press -
... the primary was surprisingly hard-fought and underscored just how much work he still has to do to get a critical portion of the Republican Party base on ...

Analysis: Facing Losses, Clinton Recasts
Guardian Unlimited - UK
The list of excuses is long, but the justifications are wearing thin as Obama was expected to win primaries in Maryland, Virginia and the District of ...

ANALYSIS: Obama sweep heightens momentum; McCain's narrow Va. win
Poughkeepsie Journal - Poughkeepsie,NY,USA
“This attitude that somehow the party can’t survive having a primary really would be an indictment on the strength of the party,” the former Arkansas ...

Keep On Keepin' On
By Carl Davidson

If our peace movement wants to make some far-reaching gains in the 2008 election cycle, it doesn't have much time to waste. Super Tuesday is over, the remaining campaigns will end in November, and critical events are moving at a rapid pace.

Most important, ending the war in Iraq needs to be a greater part of everyone's political decisions in 2008 than it is now.

In mid-February, we're down to four main candidates, plus the Greens-two Republicans who promise to win the war, whatever the cost, even if it takes decades, and two Democrats who promise to end it, with less than desirable timelines and qualifications.

Large numbers of Americans critical of the war have decided to enter this arena in one way or another-but they are not necessarily part of the one million or so who have taken to the streets to date. Most have not. The most obvious is the insurgent wave of youth taking up Barack Obama's cause, seeing him as their favored instrument to end the war and advance other
progressive causes. They may make other choices later, but they have chosen to enter the fray this way, whether anyone else thinks it's the best way or not.

Yet we, the more seasoned core of the antiwar movement, are not as engaged as we could be. Tom Hayden has elsewhere argued forcefully-'After Super Tuesday, Time for Peace Movement to Get Off the Sidelines'--on why the peace and justice movements need to deploy more of its forces. At the risk on repeating some of his points, I'll focus on some of the key ways it can actually be done, although just about any way would be better than doing nothing.

Political Intervention. With all the various 'plans' regarding Iraq being floated, it's important that the peace movement stake out its position, and the one shared by the antiwar majority among the people themselves, of immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq and their return home.

Every candidate of every party needs to be directly confronted with this at every public forum. While there are important differences among them, not one of those remaining completely shares this perspective. They are either lagging behind the electorate or opposing it. Those who claim to want to end the war, at whatever level they are contending, need to be openly informed that they only gain support by taking a stronger stand.

Ballot Intervention. We can also directly put issues on the ballot, as well as into the discussion. Near West Citizens for Peace & Justice, for example, put a cutoff of funding for the war on the ballot at its township level in a working-class suburb of Chicago in the recent primary, where it won by 77 percent. Since electoral law varies, this may not be practical in some areas, but wherever it can be done, it's a great nonpartisan, non-endorsing tool to bring antiwar votes to the polls.

Expanding the Electorate. This is already shaping up to be an historic election with a record-breaking turnout, if for no other reason than the likelihood of the 'White Guys Only' sign being taken from the Oval Office.

Growing numbers want to be part of that history, and not just watch it. Still, the sharper the differences are drawn with the unabashed defenders of prolonging the war, the greater the potential turnout.

But it has to be organized. Some new voters register themselves, but many do not until they are encouraged, especially among young people. The antiwar movement has everything to gain from registering voters in a nonpartisan fashion, so that the contact list with the new voters belong to it, rather than any party.

Most states make it easy for volunteer organizations to get new registrations on their own and turn them in. There's nothing standing in our way but our own lack of initiative.

Shaping and Informing the Electorate. A few years back the average voter was a 60-year-old retired economically liberal but socially conservative blue collar woman in a 'white' working-class suburb. But everything changes, especially in times of crisis, and there's no law of the universe or even demographics that says it has to remain that way.

Expanding the electorate comes in many flavors-the promoting more war and injustice crowd certainly works on expanding it in their direction, and there's no reason we can't do it our way. Moreover, an electorate more educated on the war-disabused of notions that Iraq caused 9/11 and other such lies and illusions-is more likely to vote rationally on the war, and to make educated selections among the candidates on their own, with an assist from wide distribution of candidate position survey and score cards, candidate night debates, and so on.

Identifying the Antiwar Electorate. Knowing that a majority of the electorate is critical of the war is one thing. It's quite another to know all the names and addresses of voters in your precinct who are opposed to the war, support the war, or waver in between. The additional information is empowering to those who hold it, and there's no reason it shouldn't be in the hands of our neighborhood-based peace and justice groups.

But you have to do old-fashioned, door-to-door organizing to get it. Fortunately, a voter registration drive in an election cycle is an excellent way to do it. And it's an additional plus that the same information is more than useful for mass mobilizations and other project beyond Election Day.

Mobilizing the Electorate. Potential voters who are registered and antiwar but don't make it to the polls don't help much. There's no reason we can't organize nonpartisan GOTV-Get Out The Vote-events, not only ourselves, but with all our allies among churches, schools and unions. This way the relationships and ties belong to you after the election, not to any party.

No one's campaign reaches far enough into every corner; there's always work to be done in areas where it's not crowded but important to us nonetheless.

Again, you can get your antiwar voters to the polls without endorsing anyone. They'll figure out what to do.

Protecting and Securing the Vote. Perhaps I'm biased by my years in Chicago, but, yes, this is crucial to know how to do. Getting all sorts of voters to the polls doesn't help much if you can't get a fair and reliable count.

There's lots of justified concern about electronic machines these days, but in the 1980s, I went through an excellent three-hour training on '100 things to watch for' to prevent stealing the vote when all the ballots were paper.

(One was to look for long, sharpened fingernails on those handing out ballots. A wink from the precinct captain would get an unfavorable person's ballot 'nicked' for later removal). It's definitely worthwhile getting a number of people trained and positioned as poll watchers and election judges, for the future as well as the present.

Staking Claim to the Vote. It's not very convincing to politicians or anyone else for us to claim a positive gain from an election we had nothing to do with, save for cheerleading on the sidelines. But to the degree we can reasonably claim responsibility for favorable results and turnouts in one battle, it enhances our independent 'clout' in future battles, inside and outside the electoral arena. It enhanced our ability to 'counter-spin' the outcomes and post-election battles from those who would marginalize us.

Most important, no matter who is elected, the need for an ongoing, independent and election-savvy is going to be more needed than ever in the dangerous 'end game' to Bush's disaster in Iraq.

There are different sets of rules for doing all the above, depending on whether your local group or coalition is a 501C3, a 501C4, a straightforward public interest group with a bank account and no tax exempt status, or just an ad-hoc group of volunteers. If you are in doubt as to what can or can't be done, and have a status that needs defending, consult a lawyer with some experience on the topic. But don't fall for the claim that you can't do anything.

There's a lot that can be done, preferably completely independent of any party or campaign. If your imagination fails, you can always get to the organizations of the candidates or party of your choice, but do it now. You don't want to tell your grandchildren that you sat on the sidelines in the Election of 2008.

[Carl Davidson is author, together with Marilyn Katz, of 'Stopping War, Seeking Justice,' available at He was founder and director of Peace and Justice Voters 2004 in Chicago, a national committee member of CCDS, and a member of the steering committee of United for Peace and Justice. See for more information.]

Keep On Keepin' On!

Carl Davidson

Death penalty for 6 Guantánamo inmates sought - because of Geneva Convention

The US has repeatedly argued the inmates in Guantanamo are not covered by the protections of the Geneva Convention as they are no military fighters in the classic sense. The US denotes them as “enemy combatants.”

But now there is this:

Military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty for six Guantánamo detainees who are to be charged with central roles in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, government officials who have been briefed on the charges said Sunday.

The officials said the charges would be announced at the Pentagon as soon as Monday and were likely to include numerous war-crime charges against the six men, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former Qaeda operations chief who has described himself as the mastermind of the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. (…) NY Times

Interesting. So what exactly is a war crime then? Let’s turn to the US Code on that one:

§ 2441. War crimes

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party of,

US Code, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 118, §2441, War crimes

To sum it up: They are there because the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. Now they must die, because they broke the Geneva Convention.

But The Geneva Conventions Clearly Apply To Bush And Cheney!

Chairman Conyers: Start Impeachment Hearings for Vice President Cheney
By Bob Fertik
We want you to hold impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney, not George Bush. Bush is the most unpopular President in the history of polling, and Cheney is much more unpopular than Bush. If the "corporate power structure" wants to fight ...

Senate Votes for Expansion of Spy Powers

February 13, 2008 at 7:36 am

Published: February 13, 2008

The Vote……

WASHINGTON — After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government’s spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush’s program of eavesdropping without warrants.

One by one, the Senate rejected amendments that would have imposed greater civil liberties checks on the government’s surveillance powers. Finally, the Senate voted 68 to 29 to approve legislation that the White House had been pushing for months. Mr. Bush hailed the vote and urged the House to move quickly in following the Senate’s lead.

The outcome in the Senate amounted, in effect, to a broader proxy vote in support of Mr. Bush’s wiretapping program. The wide-ranging debate before the final vote presaged discussion that will play out this year in the presidential and Congressional elections on other issues testing the president’s wartime authority, including secret detentions, torture and Iraq war financing.

Republicans hailed the reworking of the surveillance law as essential to protecting national security, but some Democrats and many liberal advocacy groups saw the outcome as another example of the Democrats’ fears of being branded weak on terrorism.

“Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee and who had unsuccessfully pushed a much more restrictive set of surveillance measures.

Among the presidential contenders, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, voted in favor of the final measure, while the two Democrats, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, did not vote. Mr. Obama did oppose immunity on a key earlier motion to end debate. Mrs. Clinton, campaigning in Texas, issued a statement saying she would have voted to oppose the final measure.

The measure extends, for at least six years, many of the broad new surveillance powers that Congress hastily approved last August just before its summer recess. Intelligence officials said court rulings had left dangerous gaps in their ability to intercept terrorist communications.

The bill, which had the strong backing of the White House, allows the government to eavesdrop on large bundles of foreign-based communications on its own authority so long as Americans are not the targets. A secret intelligence court, which traditionally has issued individual warrants before wiretapping began, would review the procedures set up by the executive branch only after the fact to determine whether there were abuses involving Americans.

“This is a dramatic restructuring” of surveillance law, said Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department intelligence lawyer who represents several telecommunication companies. “And the thing that’s so dramatic about this is that you’ve removed the court review. There may be some checks after the fact, but the administration is picking the targets.”

The Senate plan also adds one provision considered critical by the White House: shielding phone companies from any legal liability for their roles in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. The program allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.

AT&T and other major phone companies are facing some 40 lawsuits from customers who claim their actions were illegal. The Bush administration maintains that if the suits are allowed to continue in court, they could bankrupt the companies and discourage them from cooperating in future intelligence operations.

The House approved a surveillance bill in November that intentionally left out immunity for the phone companies, and leaders from the two chambers will now have to find a way to work out significant differences between their two bills.

Democratic opponents, led by Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, argued that the plan effectively rewarded phone companies by providing them with legal insulation for actions that violated longstanding law and their own privacy obligations to their customers. But immunity supporters said the phone carriers acted out of patriotism after the Sept. 11 attacks in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president.

“This, I believe, is the right way to go for the security of the nation,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the intelligence committee. His support for the plan, after intense negotiations with the White House and his Republican colleagues, was considered critical to its passage but drew criticism from civil liberties groups because of $42,000 in contributions that Mr. Rockefeller received last year from AT&T and Verizon executives.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican on the intelligence panel, said the bill struck the right balance between protecting the rights of Americans and protecting the country “from terrorism and other foreign threats.”

Democratic opponents, who six months ago vowed to undo the results of the August surveillance vote, said they were deeply disappointed by the defection of 19 Democrats who backed the bill.

Mr. Dodd, who spoke on the floor for more than 20 hours in recent weeks in an effort to stall the bill, said future generations would view the vote as a test of whether the country heeds “the rule of law or the rule of men.”

But with Democrats splintered, Mr. Dodd acknowledged that the national security argument had won the day. “Unfortunately, those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties to be more secure are apparently prevailing,” he said. “They’re convincing people that we’re at risk either politically, or at risk as a nation.”

There was a measure of frustration in the voice of Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, as he told reporters during a break in the daylong debate, “Holding all the Democrats together on this, we’ve learned a long time ago, is not something that’s doable.”

Senate Republicans predict that they will be able to persuade the House to include immunity in the final bill, especially now that the White House has agreed to give House lawmakers access to internal documents on the wiretapping program. But House Democrats vowed Tuesday to continue opposing immunity.

Congress faces a Saturday deadline for extending the current law, but Democrats want to extend the deadline for two weeks to allow more time for talks. The White House has said it opposes a further extension.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats hope to put some pressure on Republicans on Wednesday over another security-related issue by bringing up an intelligence measure that would apply Army field manual prohibitions against torture to civilian agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency.

Republicans plan to try to eliminate that provision, a vote that Democrats say will force Republicans to declare whether they condone torture. Democrats also say it could show the gap between Mr. McCain, who has opposed torture, and the administration on the issue.

“We know how we would feel if a member of the armed services captured by the enemy were, for example, waterboarded,” Mr. Reid said. “So I think that we’re headed in the right direction, and I hope that we’ll get Republican support on this.”

St. Petersburg Times (Florida) Gets It Right

Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2008-02-12 14:33.

President undercuts checks, balances

A Times Editorial

Hidden behind the lofty language of President Bush's most recent signing statement is something that should concern us all: an attempt to undermine America's system of checks and balances.

Presidents have the choice of either signing a bill into law or vetoing it. That's it. But Bush has determined that what was good enough for the 42 presidents before him is too limiting for his oversized sense of presidential authority. So in hundreds of cases Bush has signed bills into law and appended caveats to them, explaining what portions he will ignore.

The signing statement accompanying the defense authorization bill Bush signed last month says he reserves the right to refuse to implement four sections because they "purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations." These sections include:

- The creation of a commission to look into contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, including how much waste, fraud and abuse has occurred and who, if anyone, has been held accountable.

- Protections for whistle-blowers from reprisals when they expose what they believe to be misconduct in war-related contracts.

- Requirements for intelligence agencies to provide the armed services committees in Congress any requested documents within 45 days, unless the administration asserts executive privilege.

-Requirements that ban money authorized for military purposes from going to establish permanent bases or installations in Iraq and prohibit the use of federal funds for use in exercising control over Iraq's oil resources.

It seems the president doesn't want the private wartime contracts that have enriched so many of his party's campaign contributors examined too closely. Nor does it appear that he wants Congress looking too closely at the way he has used the intelligence agencies to act in illegal and unconstitutional ways.

Since Bush signed those provisions into law, he must abide by them under our nation's established separation of powers. His claims that the president has constitutional powers allowing him to disregard certain U.S. statutes are dead wrong.

Bush's legacy is the end of law

Michael Abraham

Abraham is a businessman who lives in Blacksburg.

Virginia Tech Professor Theodore Fuller made a compelling case regarding the negative way history is likely to judge the presidency of George W. Bush ("History will judge Bush harshly," Jan. 30). Consensus is building that the Bush tenure will rank among the worst ever.

Counting the failures has become its own cottage industry. On my desk is a "George W. Bush Countdown Calendar," with each day until his term is over graced with another blunder, misstep, gaffe, inanity or lie -- the abuse du jour.

Fuller's list includes the failure to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion, failure to reform Social Security, to maintain the strength of the dollar, to protect the prestige of America in the world.

To these I add: Failure to adequately regulate the financial industry to prevent the subprime crisis that seems destined to hurl our nation into recession. Failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

Failure to provide a health care system that works for all Americans. Failure to reverse the widening gap between rich and poor. Failure to stem the influence of corporate wealth and power over our nation, its government and its citizens. Failure to adequately fund and provide a secure future for entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.

Failure to reduce our burgeoning trade deficit. Failure to improve the fuel economy of our nation's transportation network. Failure to maintain and rebuild our national infrastructure.

Repairing the carnage will prove a daunting task for the next administration.

Fuller concludes the greatest failure has been the inability to address the threat of global warming. While this will certainly prove significant, Bush's transcendental failure is more pernicious.

At its essence, our nation is but two things: a pair of borders and an idea. And that idea is that laws are inviolable and nobody is above them. The apogee of this test was the impeachment and expulsion of Richard Nixon. This foundational tenet has all but been destroyed in wanton, unapologetic and systematic ways through the acts and words of George W. Bush and his administration.

It's not that they lied about justifications for war, but in their failure to allow oversight into the processes that produced those lies. It's not in the firing of federal attorneys and the refusal to substantiate the firings, but in the pure partisanship of their actions. It's not their countless refusals to comply with subpoenas from Congress or Freedom of Information Act from the people, but in their arrogated stance, setting themselves above the requirements themselves.

Once when challenged for his unwillingness to submit to the rule of law in an obvious snub of the Constitution, Bush screamed, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

And thus our Constitution has now become what Bush has made it. This annihilation of the foundational document of our republic was orchestrated by a president who swore an oath of honor to protect it, a devout Christian who promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office.

Congress, in its acquiescence and subservience, is equally culpable. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced, "impeachment is off the table," she not only absolved Bush of all previous transgressions but paved a figurative superhighway for any to come. There's a reason Congress's approval ratings are even lower than the administration's.

That the administration is unapologetic in this power grab is exemplified by this statement by Vice President Dick Cheney, who told Cokie Roberts in January 2002, "[Since Watergate] I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. ... One of the things that I feel an obligation [to do] ... is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors." This means placing the president above the laws of the land. Cheney has driven the idea now termed the "unitary executive," which holds that the president is above regulation, oversight or supervision of the courts, the Congress and ultimately the people. All hail King George the W!

It emerges a question of utmost intrigue and expectation as to whether Cheney, Bush and their minions will stand idly by should a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama assume this omnipotence, were they to fulfill the will of the people in an election victory.

The decimation of the rule of law and evisceration of the Constitution have been the most insidious of the Bush atrocities.

Literally a Black and White View…

Articles - eddickau - Zimbio
Campaign Lead Link http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot. com/2007/12/impeach-bush-and-cheney-calling-all.html Work With Wexler ...

To All State, Regional, Organizational Coordinators and Friends Of The “It’s The Judiciary Committee Stupid!” Campaign:

KEEP TRACK HERE 227,117 And Counting!

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

Impeaching Bush and Cheney Is The Legal Responsibility Of This Congress and It Is Our Duty To See To It That That Congress Upholds The Laws Of This Nation And That They Fulfill Their Sworn Duty Inherent In Their Oath Of Office. If They Do Not; Each And Every Member Of The House Who Does Support The Constitution By Their Inaction Or Refusal To Honor Their Sworn Oath Must Be Defeated In Their Re-Election Bid In 2008.

Support Kucinich Ohio Re-Election

After Down Street Home Page

After Downing Street Contact Congress Page

After Downing Street Contact The Judiciary Committee Page

After Downing Street Media Activist Page

After Downing Street Articles Of Impeachment Page

Alexandria Advocates Alliance Resolution Of Impeachment of Bush and Cheney

Click Here For Petition Summary

Summary Of Cause (Outline Form)

Jefferson Manual Memorial Petition Notes (Plus

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

Reach The Press/Media

Petition To Replace Nancy Pelosi As Speaker Of The House Of Representatives For The Purposes Of Pursuing Impeachment

The Pelosi Page

An Open Letter To Nancy Pelosi

The Steny Hoyer Page

An Open Letter To Steny Hoyer

The John Conyers Page

An Open Letter To John Conyers

Harry Reid : A Petition Requesting Resignation

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) is organizing his colleagues to ask House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to begin Cheney impeachment hearings, and he needs our help.

We're asking other Judiciary Committee Members to co-sign Wexler's letter to Conyers, and we're asking the rest of Congress to send their own letters to Conyers. Please email your Congress member here:

Please call your Congress member through the Capitol Hill Switchboard (202) 224-3121, toll-free at 1-800-828-0498, or directly

( Tell your Congress member to urge Chairman Conyers to begin impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney. Then tell your friends and call and email the media.

Please Operate From This Page Link And Follow To The Other Linked Pages As Necessary. Again I emphasize; use the tools you are most comfortable with, but emphasize that during The Christmas Recess it is critical that personal appearance campaign audiences of Committee members, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Chairman Conyers be filled with our people delivering the message that:

(1) if they do not move; they will be opposed,

(2) Impeachment comes before Party, and

(3) Our Presidential Candidates are on their own…support us; we support you; don’t and we oppose and defeat you!

You are no good to us the way you acting, and you are no good for this nation the way you are performing!


Additional Linkage, Tools, Updates And News!

Reposted for those who have expressed the desire to build their own personal desktop tool kit. is a site that allows one person to target an entire congressional committee over the phone.

The web application utilizes the open source Asterisk PBX system to connect you to every senator or house member on a particular committee.

No more digging around the 'net entering zip-codes to retrieve phone numbers of representatives -- automates the tedium of repetitively dialing your favorite politicians.

Select a committee, enter in your phone number and click "Put me in touch with democracy!" and you'll be called by our system and sequentially patched through to the front office of each member on that committee.

You can even rate how each call went -- information that will enable us to rank representatives on how accountable and responsive they are to their constituents. For more information about how Committee Caller works, click here.To begin, follow these steps:

1. Select the committee you wish to target on the left. (Selecting a fictional committee will redirect all calls to Fandango, but will demonstrate the system's functionality.)

2. Enter your phone number below.

3. Press 'Put me in touch with democracy!'

4. Wait for Committee Caller's automated voice application to call you.

5. Pick up the phone and stay on the line while Committee Caller starts connecting you to the members on the committee you selected.

Once connected Committee Caller will tell you which representative your calling, who their legislative director or chief of staff is, and what district they represent.

At any point you can use the * to hang up the call and move on to the next one. After each call you will have the opportunity to rate how your call went.


On 12/14, was excited to announce Rep. Robert Wexler's campaign to demand impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney. Wexler's goal was 50,000 signatures but with your support, Wexler's petition is near 228,000!

Wexler has the support of two Judiciary Committee Democrats, Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) and Tammy Baldwin (WI-02). Four others are co-sponsors of H.Res. 333/H.Res. 799, Rep. Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Cheney: Steve Cohen (TN-09), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Hank Johnson (GA-04), and Maxine Waters (CA-35).

But that leaves 14 Judiciary Committee Democrats who have NOT called for impeachment hearings. These 7 voted to send Kucinich's bill to Judiciary on 11/6, so they should publicly support Wexler's efforts: John Conyers (MI-14), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Bobby Scott (VA-03), Brad Sherman (CA-27), Betty Sutton (OH-13), Mel Watt (NC-12), and Anthony Weiner (NY-09).

These 7 voted to kill Kucinich's bill on 11/6, so they need to CHANGE their positions and fulfill their oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic: Howard Berman (CA-28), Artur Davis (AL-07), William Delahunt (MA-10), Zoe Lofgren (CA-16), Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Linda Sanchez (CA-39), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20).


Please email all House Judiciary Democrats through this petition:

If you are represented by any of the 14 Democrats listed above, please join your local Congressional District Impeachment Committee (CDIC) and plan local actions like letters to the editor, district office visits, bird dogging, honkathons, and collecting petitions and personal letters on the streets:

If you don't see a CDIC, and you want to go this route please create one:


( Impeachment Petition Make It A Million) 994624

Failure to impeach will haunt Democrats and the country

Impeach Dick Cheney, if you will

Virginians created and may end the right of impeachment

Date published: 2/8/2008


A recent national poll on impeachment, conducted by the American Research Group last November, found that 52 percent of Americans believed Vice President Dick Cheney had committed impeachable offenses.

The numbers for President George W. Bush were only slightly lower.

The governor of Virginia has spoken up for impeachment, saying "Guilt wherever found ought to be punished."

Sadly, that was Gov. Edmund Randolph in 1787, arguing for making impeachment central to the system of checks and balances in the new U.S. Constitution. Our current governor has not said a word about impeaching our current president.

Two other Virginians, George Mason and James Madison, worked out the language for what would constitute an impeachable offense: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

"No point is of more importance," Mason said of the Constitution, "than that the right of impeachment should be continued."

Jefferson's fear was of "elected despotism." Leaving an impeachable president in place for months or years because eventually there would be another election (the plan openly advocated by some members of Congress today) would have seemed to Jefferson to mean the end of the republic.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has published a book on Bush and Cheney's alleged impeachable offenses, but refuses to hold impeachment hearings.

The Richmond City Democratic Committee, the Virginia Antiwar Network, and activist groups all over the state have been holding rallies for impeachment for years now. Planes have flown impeachment banners back and forth over Virginia Beach. Larry Wilkerson, a William & Mary professor and former chief of staff to Colin Powell, has spoken up for impeachment at events in Virginia. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul spoke in support of impeaching Bush up until he became a candidate, and many of his supporters believe he would support impeachment if Democrats led the way.

Paul's campaign advisor and former Justice Department official under President Reagan, Bruce Fein, has been a leading advocate for impeachment. Dennis Kucinich, at the time a Democratic presidential candidate, packed a large hall in Charlottesville in December to speak on the need for impeachment. And candidates for Congress across the commonwealth this year are using the failure of the Congress to impeach as a talking point in their campaigns, including Andrea Miller in the 4th District, Sam Rasoul (6th), and Matthew Famiglietti and Ron Fisher (both in the 8th).

The movement to impeach Cheney and Bush has almost no support from Virginians now in Congress. Since Rep. Kucinich, D-Ohio, introduced a resolution to impeach Cheney in April 2007, 24 members of Congress have signed on, only one from Virginia: Jim Moran, D-8th.

Since Judiciary Committee member Robert Wexler, D-Fla., drafted a letter to Conyers last month urging him to begin impeachment hearings; 14 members of Congress have signed on, with only Moran from Virginia. Of the 35 members of Congress either co-sponsoring articles of impeachment or expressing support for impeachment hearings, Moran is the only one from Virginia.

Within the House Judiciary Committee, nine members led by Wexler are urging the initiation of hearings on the possible impeachment of Cheney. Among the alleged offenses mentioned are: misleading the public and Congress about Iraq and Iran, outing a CIA agent, torture, spying programs that violate the Fourth Amendment, refusing to comply with subpoenas, and promoting the use of signing statements to unconstitutionally claim the right to violate laws.

Virginia's four members of the Judiciary Committee, including two Democrats, all oppose impeachment hearings. The two Democrats, Bobby Scott (3rd) and Rick Boucher (9th), support non-impeachment hearings into some of the same abuses.

One drawback to that approach is that witnesses now routinely refuse to comply with subpoenas. Another is that several of these hearings have been conducted over the past 12 months, with no consequences. If Scott, Boucher, and one more were to join their nine colleagues, there would then be a majority of Democrats on the committee in favor of impeachment hearings.

Hours before delivering his State of the Union address, the president published a "signing statement" announcing his right to violate measures in the new Defense Authorization Act, including: the establishment of a commission to investigate U.S. contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, the expansion of whistle-blower protections, a requirement that U.S. intelligence agencies respond to congressional requests for documents, a ban on funding permanent bases in Iraq, and a ban on funding any actions that exercise U.S. control over Iraq's oil money.

Sen. Jim Webb responded by defending the merits of a fraud investigation. No elected officials from Virginia reacted as our Founding Fathers would have, or even as our schoolchildren would have. They are still taught that Congress makes laws, which the president can sign and enforce, or veto, but not rewrite.

Is it too late for impeachment? The movements to impeach Truman and Hoover came later than the current one and served to restore our Constitution even without achieving impeachment. If we do not use the impeachment process this year, it may be too late to preserve the system of government Virginians gave to the world.

David Swanson is a writer and creator of

Congressman Wexler urges support for Cheney Impeachment Hearings

The following members of Congress have joined as signatories to my letter to Chairman Conyers in support of Cheney Impeachment Hearings:

(*= member of the Judiciary Committee)

Baldwin, Tammy, WI, 2nd *

Capuano, Michael E., MA, 8th

Clarke, Yvette D., NY, 11th

Clay, Wm. Lacy, MO, 1st

Cohen, Steve, TN, 9th *

Farr, Sam, CA, 17th

Grijalva, Raúl M., AZ, 7th

Gutierrez, Luis V., IL, 4th *

Kucinich, Dennis J., OH, 10th

Lee, Barbara, CA, 9th

Moore, Gwen, WI, 4th

Moran, James P., VA, 8th

Thompson, Mike, CA, 1st

Towns, Edolphus, NY, 10th

Woosley, Lynn, CA, 6th

Wexler, Robert, FL, 19th *

Wynn, Albert Russell, MD, 4th

12 co-sponsors have not signed

Submitted by B20071222 on Fri, 2008-02-08 02:23.

So 17 have signed Wexler's letter to Conyers.

Kucinich and half his 24 co-sponsors of HRes 333 have signed giving 13, leaving 12 who actually signed his Cheney impeachment resolution but for some reason don't seem to want hearings at this time.

Then there are those 2 of the original Wexler group of 3 who hadn't co-sponsored the resolution but signed the OpEd.

And 2 others who didn't co-sponsor the resolution or sign the OpEd but want hearings.

No Wonder The Beltway Media Love Him
By Susie
... (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. ...

Impeachment is not punishment, it is protecting the US ...
By William(William)
Article in Harpers Magazine as to why the impeachment of Bush/Cheney is vital for securing the integrity and future of our Constitution. Impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their attempts to hijack the Constitution ...

Conyers Says He's on Edge of Starting Impeachment

Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2008-02-08 04:34. Impeachment

By David Swanson

On Thursday, Chairman John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee held a hearing at which Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that he would not investigate torture (video) or warrantless spying (video), he would not enforce contempt citations (video), and he would treat Justice Department opinions as providing immunity for crimes (report).

None of this was new, but perhaps it touched something in Conyers that had not been touched before. Following the hearing, he and two staffers met for an hour and 15 minutes with two members of Code Pink to discuss impeachment.

Conyers expressed fear of what might happen following an impeachment, fear of installing a Bush replacement or losing an election. The "corporate power structure", he said, would not allow impeachment without unleashing "blowback." Conyers told Ellen Taylor and Manijeh Saba: "You need to be more than brave and courageous. You need to be smart."

Their response? They are asking people who care about justice to help them let Conyers know that the smart thing right now would be bravery and courage.

On Rosa Parks' birthday last week, Leslie Angeline began a fast for impeachment. Taylor and over 20 other activists have joined the fast. Conyers has agreed to meet with Angeline to discuss impeachment on Tuesday.

The Chairman told Taylor and Saba that he is listening to several advocates for impeachment, including Liz Holtzman and this author, and asked "So how would it look if I allowed two women to push me over the edge?" Conyers leaned out of his chair for dramatic effect.

A number of organizations will be sending their members this alert Monday morning:

Let's push Conyers over the edge by flooding his office with phone calls, faxes, and Emails on Monday and Tuesday. Let him know that only impeachment hearings:

1-will make it on TV,

2-will force compliance with subpoenas by eliminating "executive privilege",

3-will hold brazen criminals accountable, and

4-will convince voters that Democrats care about the Constitution.

Call 202-225-5126

Fax 202-225-0072


Angeline, whose father was on the original Freedom Riders bus that was firebombed in Anniston, Ala., in 1961 began her fast and a sit-in in Conyers' office on Rosa Parks' birthday, and within a few minutes had been granted an appointment with Conyers for Thursday. He postponed it until Tuesday because of the duration of the Mukasey hearing. Taylor, Saba, and others attended the hearing and were told by Conyers' staffer Therise West that they would be removed by force if they did not cover up shirts and pins with messages including "No Torture," "Arrest Bush," "Not One More," and even the text of Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Rather than comply, Taylor and Saba wore shirts displaying that section of the Constitution, were not removed, and were granted the meeting with Conyers to discuss it.

The meeting took place in the rooms attached to the committee room. After an hour delay, Conyers came in with three beers, a bag of nuts, and two staffers. Nobody drank the beers. Conyers ate the nuts. The staffers were Perry Appelbaum, who left early, and George Slover.

As Taylor recounted it to me, she and Saba pushed Conyers on the importance of the Constitution, on the crisis it faces, and on Congress's lack of action. Of course, Conyers wrote a book two years ago called "The Constitution in Crisis," which details many of Bush and Cheney's impeachable offenses.

Conyers' initial reply was along the lines of "Didn't you see the hearing we just had? Do you know how many people saw that?" To their credit, the two Code Pink women replied "Not very many, since most people don't get C-Span." Conyers said he would keep following up with Mukasey, but Taylor and Saba asked to what end he would do so and advised him to shift his focus to the executive.

Conyers, Taylor said, then began giving reasons why he was afraid of impeachment. That wasn't the word he used, but Taylor understood his concerns to all be expressions of an inchoate fear. Conyers spoke of "potential ramifications that haven't been examined." Interestingly, among his concerns was not the one he has used a lot recently, namely that impeachment would not pass the House. Instead he was concerned about what might happen after a successful impeachment and removal from office. Of course, the inconsistency in the excuses Conyers uses could simply be a reflection of the lack of importance he places on the choice of excuse.

The two women argued for the wisdom, bravery, and courage of Congressman Robert Wexler's proposal to simply begin impeachment hearings on Dick Cheney and see where they go. The impeachment movement is urging people not only to contact Conyers but also to ask their own representatives to sign onto a letter Wexler has written to Conyers, and to themselves sign Wexler's petition at

Conyers said that he knew all about Wexler's idea and that he was listening to various impeachment advocates. The two names Taylor remembered him mentioning were mine and Holtzman's. He's certainly not listening closely to me, and I would love to meet with him at his convenience. Holtzman, I know, has wanted to meet with Conyers on this topic for quite some time, but to my knowledge has never been able to do so.

I think the people Conyers is really listening to are too smart for their own good but lacking a bit in the bravery and courage area. Their wise strategy places the outcome of elections ahead of preserving the democracy in which those elections are held or even the verifiability of those elections. And, on their own terms, they are probably wrong. Nothing (except perhaps hand-counted paper ballots) would benefit the Democrats in the next election more than a real fight to stand up for justice. If Congress chooses to cede all power to the White House and move to the back of the bus, Conyers' legacy will not be what it might have been.

For Review…

February 5th Lobbying for Impeachment Investigations at the Washington State Capitol

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 02/06/2008 - 6:16pm.

Yesterday, Tuesday the fifth of February, was the Washington for Impeachment Lobby Day. Fifteen or twenty citizens gathered at the Capitol Campus and spent a good portion of the day lobbying and talking to legislators and legislative aids about the importance of impeachment.

It started raining as soon as I left my house. It was windy. It was cold. I almost turned around and returned home. By the time I got to the Capitol Campus, I was considerably wet (though definitely not soaking, which was good.) I went into the cafeteria where I found my fellow impeachment advocates.

We split up into different groups and proceeded to the offices of the various legislators who have the power to make or break this effort in the Washington State legislature to call for impeachment investigations in the US Congress. There are two bills, sister bills, one each in the State Senate and House. In the House, HJM 4027 was co-sponsored by Representatives Chase, Hasegawa, Moeller and Dickerson. It is currently in the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee. Representative Sam Hunt chairs that committee. He is not interested in bringing the memorial to a vote. Word has it that Senator Patty Murray's office has been in contact with Representative Hunt and has lobbied to stifle the state level impeachment initiative. Apparently, Senator Murray has also sent word to the office of Representative Frank Chopp, who has also been influenced by the US Senator's position on impeachment.

In the Senate, SJM 8016 was passed out of its committee (Government Operations and Elections) of origin in the first week of the legislative session. It was co-sponsored by Senators Oemig, Regala, Kohl-Welles, Kline, Spanel, Fairley, Kauffman, Fraser, and Prentice. This bill is waiting to be "pulled" in the Senate Rules Committee. When a bill is "pulled," it means that it will be brought to the floor for reading before the full Senate.

Okay, so if none of this makes sense to you, and you don't know what is going on with impeachment as it relates to members of the Bush Administration, or the current environment in the US Congress, there is a very good summary article by former Representative (and House Judiciary Committee member during the Nixon impeachment proceedings) Elizabeth Holtzman. Here's an excerpt:

Judiciary Committee should move to impeach Bush and Cheney.

There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution." As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power.

Have Bush and Cheney done that?

Yes. With the vice president's participation, President Bush repeatedly

violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by future presidents.

Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.

go to original

Reactions from legislators, and their aids, were mixed. Some legislators were very supportive; they encouraged me and were agreeable. Most legislators (or their assistants) were polite and listened carefully (or seemed to) to my messages. Some of the legislators (or their assistants) however, were discourteous - even to the point of rudeness. For example, Representative Mark Miloscia, who sits on the House State Government and Tribal Affairs committee, was gracious enough to talk with me and my lobbying partner, Gail Johnson.

However, once we entered his office, it was apparent that he was in a rush and seemed to be agitated as he organized papers on his desks. He apologized for not giving us his undivided attention. And it wouldn't have bothered me, except that he repeatedly cut us off and interrupted us in our conversation.

He explained why he was personally opposed to impeachment. But he wouldn't listen to our rebuttals, or to the basic reasoning about why it is important that he lend his support and solidarity to a bi-partisan push for impeachment (in part simply because it is the right thing, and the necessary thing, to do). Representative Miloscia doesn't support HJM 4027 for two main reasons (as I understood them): 1) the memorial doesn't have the necessary support to pass (hm...maybe partly because of people like him?), and 2) he is concerned about the political viability and that it might bring harm to his re-electability, or to the electability of Democrats in general. Rep. Miloscia was worried that impeachment proceedings would have a cooling effect on the Democratic party.

Maybe he is right. In an article by Robert Parry, I noticed this passage:

On Dec. 20, 2007, Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told Amy Goodman on “Democracy Now” that impeachment hearings could end up like Watergate in reverse, with today’s careerist press corps treating the notion of accountability for Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney like some kind of nutty idea.

“There is a very stark reality that with the corporatization of the media, we could end up with turning people, who should be documented in history as making many profound errors and violating the Constitution, from villains into victims,” the Michigan Democrat said.

go to original

If that's true, then our nation has been hi-jacked by a "hostile Washington News Media." Scary!

If that is true then it gives reason for clarity, consistency, unity and solidarity on impeachment.

Rep. Miloscia compared a Bush/Cheney impeachment to the Clinton episodes. It is faulty to compare the impeachment of Clinton, which had a negative impact on the Republican Party, with a would-be impeachment of Bush/Cheney. First off, the Clinton impeachment was based on perjury over an extramarital affair. The Bush/Cheney impeachment, in stark contrast, would be about "high crimes and misdemeanors" (going to war based on false pretenses, etc.). As we were leaving Rep. Miloscia's office, he refused to accept literature in support of the Washington State Impeachment Investigation Memorials, shoving papers back into my hands.

He said something to the effect of, I'll throw these in the trash so you might as well take them back with you. At which point we were brusquely swept from his office. I appreciated the Representative taking the time to meet with us. This is an ultimately grave issue. It certainly deserves more than a casual display of attentiveness. After all, the President and Vice President, et al. drove this nation to war based on false pretenses! Thousands of American Service Personnel have suffered casualties. Millions of Iraqi people are suffering. The invasion was an act of aggression.

The Clinton impeachment was partisan politics. It was purely political. Holding investigations into impeachable offenses by members of the Bush Administration is not a partisan issue. It is not "political" in the partisan sense. Investigating members of the Bush Administration for criminal activity is a matter of holding our officials accountable to the rule of law. It is not okay for a President, his staff, or associated interests to break the law.

At one point, the legislative aid for Senate Rules Committee Member Senator Tracy Eide refused to receive literature and notes relating to support for impeachment investigations. I witnessed the legislative assistant treating a group of supporters in a hostile manner.

I also heard a story from some of the other lobbyists, who said that they met Senator Lisa Brown in a hallway. She said she wouldn't support SJM 8016 because there weren't enough votes. I assume she meant both in the State and in D.C. - but I'm not sure. Word of mouth has it that she also said she would not support SJM 8016 even if there were enough votes for it to pass. go figure (the Murray effect again?) I tried to meet with Senator Brown or her legislative aid, but I was not allowed to get near her office. Instead, three staffers kept me an my fellow lobbyists outside in the main hallway, where we were given notepads to write messages.

One response to my efforts was, This isn't the first time a President has broken the rules like this and gotten away with it. Why do you want do something about it now? To which I respond, I want something done about this so that a President won't break the rules like this again.

At one point a group of about a dozen of us were huddled up and re-grouping in the hallway in a legislative building. Senator Eric Oemig happened to walk by, so we stopped him for a few minutes to thank him for his courageous leadership on this issue. He had some good advice and information.

He said that the best things we can do to support impeachment are to: 1) keep applying positive pressure and offering gratitude to those legislators who are already in support of the memorials, and 2) to regularly attend the Senate Rules Committee meetings in order to encourage "pulling" the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. He said that if we can pack the Rules Committee Meetings, and communicate our cause (by wearing all black clothing, or orange t-shirts, for example), that that would be powerful.

You can also call or email legislators on the Rules Committee to formally request "pulling." Positive encouragement seems like the right thing to do. If we offer support to our state legislators, perhaps they will take action to support this memorial for impeachment investigations, and in turn offer their support to our national officials.

It is up to us to hold our elected officials accountable to the rule of law. In the face of overwhelming, substantial, specific and credible evidence of wrongdoing, there is good reason to immediately commence upon impartial and unbiased investigations.

We need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Please visit Washington for Impeachment for more information.

We are approaching a very dangerous point in our nation’s existence as we open the door to 2008. There is no more time, no more reason, to engage in polite discussions, debates, and philosophical small talk. The facts are clear, and those who persist in denying them no longer deserve the niceties of polite conversation and the waste of our time in patient listening. They are either stone cold stupid or blind flock following advocates of an administration that has disgraced everything that this nation has stood for and everything that we strive to do to make it live up the highest ideals and hopes inherent in our great democratic experiment.

They are shallow. They are not the true brothers and sisters of the dream. They are living examples of the worst, the most base, dark elements of our humanity. They are liars, hypocrites and the bearers of the corrosion, contagion and corruption that will ring the death knell of this nation.

In their collusion, denial and surrender, in their avowed patriotism to this nation; they cloak hatred, racial bigotry, a profound belief in their own privileged place in our society, instinctually place themselves, their desires before the concern for or welfare of any and all other residents of this nation. They do not believe in equality or equity; they believe in: domination, the imposition of their will alone, power position and wealth and the right to manipulate a system of government to their own ends.

“It’s Still The Judiciary Committee Stupid!”, Plus Pelsoi, Hoyer and Conyer…Time To Pull Out All The Stops! Inundate All House Communications Channels; Stop In Every Office You Can And Deliver The Message…No Impeachment; No Election, No Re-Election!

No comments: