Add forgery to the list of high crimes and misdemeanors

From http://www.impeachbush.org (Aug 7, 2008)

Another smoking gun is not needed to proceed with the impeachment of George W. Bush.

But new evidence of criminal wrongdoing provided by Pulitzer-winning journalist Ron Suskind, is so explosive, that if true, impeachment and the criminal indictment of President Bush and other senior officials is required by U.S. and international law.

This story has become big news with major stories in the Washington Post, major television networks and elsewhere.

Suskind, in his new book: The Way of the World, asserts that the Bush White House ordered the CIA to forge a letter from Saddam Hussein’s Chief of Intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush, stating that alleged September 11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had received his training in Iraq.

The Bush White House and the CIA were getting secret, direct reports from Saddam’s Chief of Intelligence in January 2003 that stated that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program since 1991. When the U.S. invasion started in March 2003, the Bush administration “resettled” the Iraqi Intelligence Chief in Jordan and paid him $5 million dollars in what could be considered “hush money.”

After the Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame expose in July 2003, that proved that Bush and Cheney were trying to destroy those who were uncovering their lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and so-called links to the September 11 attacks, a new plot was hatched to cover-up Bush’s bold-faced lies.

Suskind explains the plot:

"In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD — as Habbush had foretold — the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a “small team from the al Qaeda organization.”

"The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists with Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting CIA from conducting disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil."

John W. Dean, who served as Richard Nixon’s White House Counsel, drew the connection on MSNBC between the new allegations and those that brought down Richard Nixon in 1974 just weeks after the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Articles of Impeachment.

John W. Dean being interviewed by Keith Olberman stated:

"I don‘t think people are looking at it too narrowly or Suskind is when I read his book. What happens when you tie that with a criminal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371, which nailed countless people in Watergate for misusing the agencies and departments of government—that‘s where they‘ve got a problem.

"That‘s where Nixon had a problem for telling the CIA to block the FBI for part of the Watergate investigation. Yes, it was obstruction but it was also defrauding the government. This is their real problem with that statute. ... "

High crimes and misdemeanors

Please, EVERYONE, Republicans too- we need to do something about this administration. Write your congressman (even if it's Steve King) and urge them to support impeachment!

House d committee member Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, that, "What this Congress does, or chooses not to do in furthering the investigation of the serious allegations against this administration – and if just cause is found, to hold them accountable – will impact the conduct of future presidents, perhaps for generations."

(The) American people have been forced to sit by while credible allegations of abuse of power mount:

• We have seen this Administration fabricate the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and allege, despite all evidence to the contrary, a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. These lies dragged our country into a preemptive and unjustified war that has taken the lives of more than 4,000 U.S. troops, injured 30,000 more, and will cost our nation more than a trillion dollars.

• We watched as this Administration again undermined national security by manipulating and exaggerating evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities and openly threatened aggression against Iran, despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or capability of attacking the U.S.

• We have looked on in horror as the Administration suspended habeas corpus by claiming the power to declare any person an "enemy combatant" – ignoring the Geneva Convention protections that the U.S. helped create.

• We have seen torture and rendition of prisoners in violation of international law and stated American policy and values, and destruction of the videotaped evidence of such torture, under the tenure of this Administration.

• We have seen this Administration spy on Americans without a court order or oversight in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

• We watched as U.S. Attorneys pursued politically-motivated prosecutions in violation of the law and perhaps at the direction of this White House.

• We watched as Administration officials outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent of the CIA and then intentionally obstructed justice by disseminating false information through the White House press office.

Read John Nichol's entire article in The Nation

About time

a resolution, articles of impeachment of george bush, president of the united states. resolved that president george w. bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanor and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the united states senate. articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states of america in the name of itself and of the people of the united states of america in maintenance and support of its impeachment against george w. bush for high crimes and misdemeanor. it is conduct while president of the united states, george w. bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faith fully execute the office of the office of president of the united states and best of his ability, preserve protect and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be safely executed has committed the following abuses of power. article i, creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against iraq. in his conduct while president of the united states, george w. bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faith fully execute the office of president of the united states and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of its constitutional duty to take care that the laws be safely executed, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the vice president, illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false cause for war against iraq. the department of defense has engaged in a years long secret domestic propaganda campaign...

Left-wing blogger has moral qualms

Former Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book has created a storm of controversy. I’d like to touch briefly on some of the debris being blown around by that storm. But first, let me say a little about the cartoon sitting above this column.

Anytime you employ the NAZIs you're being heavy handed, but then again, cartoons are nothing if they're not hyperbolic. Of course, little Scotty McClellan was never as powerful as Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda. Most people might think Karl Rove was more like Goebbels. From a strictly visual perspective Heinrich Himmler has Roves round face and hairline. Himmler oversaw the SS and the Gestapo, so he was a pretty bad guy too.

I’m obviously a big fat hypocrite because last week I cartooned about how President Bush compared Barrack Obama to Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who tried to appease Hitler and now I’m comparing Bush Administration members to German monsters. My intention is not to label all right wingers as NAZIs, my intention is to make you think- hmmm, what if we had had cable TV news in the 1930s and 40’s AND to focus on that line from the Karl Rove quote “if he had moral qualms he should have spoken up.” THAT needed the dramatic force of NAZIs to get driven home.

If Scott McClellan had been Hitler’s Deputy Press Secretary, how, when and to who could he have spoken up to? I’m not here to defend him. Most Democrats figure he’s an opportunist making a lot of money for his book. But my point is, if you worked among people with the power and gravitas of the President of the United States, Karl Rove, Collin Powell, Dick Cheney, and Condaleeza Rice while they were beating the drums of war- how easy would it be for you to become a whistle blower? I think it might take me five years to say anything too.

Although, Benito Mussolini said that fascism should more properly be called "corporatism" since it was, under Mussolini, a blending of state and corporate power. Minus the cult of racism that Hitler injected into it, this pretty well describes the political and economic philosophies of President Bush and the Neocons. Which is why I’m always begging my more traditional Republican friends to scrutinize our leaders more closely.

McClellan may prove to be to George Bush what former White House Counsel John Dean was to Richard Nixon. The insider who felt that his loyalty was betrayed so he decided to stop lying and start exposing the lies of his superiors.

Congress has been issuing subpoenas for Karl Rove, Harriet Meyers, Scooter Libby and Anthony Gonzales. Congress wants to know why the anyone in the Justice Department who spoke up about their “moral qualms” got fired. They want to know who ordered the leaking of a CIA agent’s name in retribution for her career diplomat husband having “moral qualms” about the build up to the war. And now, they’re going to want to know who organized the “elaborate propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq war.”

But the Bush administration refuses to testify before congress. Congress may have to exercise their power of “inherent contempt” and send their sergeant of arms out to bring people in to talk because the Attorney General has already ordered area district attorneys from enforcing House subpoenas.

This storm may just dissipate like the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 80’s. Or, it may get a whole lot messier than Watergate.

But Neither Bush nor McClellan is really responsible for the storm.

Cable news anchors rarely practice actual journalism. They present stories that viewers watch, that boosts ratings, which means that they can charge more for commercials. They blow whichever way the prevailing political wind blows. Five years ago we wanted revenge for September 11 so we let the networks beat the drums for war against Iraq. Now, with everyone on both Dems and Republicans weary of the war, Bush approval ratings in the twenties, and we want revenge for rising gas and food prices, the media is realigning to make sure that they continue making money.

There is no true journalism on the national level, only “info-tainers” If corporations didn’t control the media, than Phil Donahue wouldn’t have been fired from MSNBC or Aaron Brown from CNN, or Dan Rather from CBS. But if you think I’m wrong, then go ahead and keep watching those radical liberal-journalists Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Rielly.

We get the media we deserve. The Pentagon has tightly controlled coverage of Iraq, the White House has even prevented footage to be taken of soldiers’ coffins being returned to the U.S. If you’re convinced yourself that the media is liberal or unpatriotic, then you haven’t noticed who really controls the media. Worst case scenario, it’s CEOs protecting the interests of their shareholders. Best case, it’s the free market of consumers- which means us.

McClellan’s book may have been like chum in the water, but the sharks who smelled blood weren’t reporters, they’re we the viewers. Either enjoy the feeding frenzy or turn off the TV and read a book.

Judiciary Committee Should Move to Impeach Bush and Cheney

By Elizabeth Holtzman, http://www.impeachbush.org

Since mid-December, members of the House Judiciary Committee Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) have called for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President 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.

Bush and Cheney were involved in detainee abuse, flouting federal criminal statutes (the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the anti-torture Act) and the Geneva Conventions. The president removed Geneva protections from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, setting the abuse in motion, and may have even personally authorized them.

The president and vice president also used deception to drive us into the Iraq war, claiming Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, when they knew better. They invoked the specter of a nuclear attack on the United States, alleging Hussein purchased uranium in Niger and wanted aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, when they had every reason to know these claims were phony or at least seriously questioned within the administration. Withholding and distorting facts usurps Congress' constitutional powers to decide on going to war.

Can a commander-in-chief disobey laws on wiretapping or torture to protect the country in wartime?

No. The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Supreme Court ruled Harry S. Truman could not seize steel mills to prevent a strike, even during the Korean War. Nixon's claim of national security as a justification for illegal wiretaps was also rejected in impeachment proceedings against him.

Insufficient time. In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February 1974. The committee finished voting on articles of impeachment July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the Constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now that the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress might conduct them even faster than in 1974.

Distraction. During Watergate, the impeachment inquiry didn't prevent Congress from getting its work done. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during impeachment, just as the Senate did during its impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton.

Divisiveness. True, President Clinton's impeachment was a highly partisan process that divided the country - because most Americans didn't support it. They believed his conduct was reprehensible, but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment therefore had negative repercussions for the Republicans who instigated it.

Nixon's impeachment united the American people. The process was bipartisan, demonstrating this wasn't just a Democratic ploy to undo an election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the substantial evidence - all gave the public confidence that justice had been done. This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and preservation of democracy are more important than any president or party.

Research Group poll says 70 percent of Americans believe he abused his office slightly less than a majority support impeaching Bush.

Undermining election prospects. When the impeachment process began, Nixon had just been reelected in one of the largest landslides in history. Few, if any, worried about whether impeachment was a political winner for Congress or the Democrats. Public opinion simply forced Congress' hand when Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the Judiciary Committee conducted impartial hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress' approval ratings soared. Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.

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.

For Constitution's sake!

"I predict that before Bush leaves office, the case for his impeachment will and should be given a more careful hearing. It must not be pursued as a partisan remedy to force a transfer of power. Rather it should be used as an institutional remedy. Polling now shows that a large majority of Americans believe that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have committed serious transgressions against the Constitution which would merit consideration of the impeachment process. Impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their attempts to hijack the Constitution would make a clear statement about abuse of power. It would also serve to put reasonable constraints on the conduct of their successors–who are likely to be Democrats. This is a step which genuine Conservatives and Republicans who adhere to their party’s former understanding of a government with an executive of carefully limited and checked powers should welcome and embrace."

Read 'A Case for Impeachment' By Scott Horton in Harper's magazine

A little bit of history repeating

Thursday, August 16, 2007 – Page 3

“A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it.” ~ Sir Winston Churchill

“The word is about, there’s something evolving,whatever may come, the world keeps revolving They say the next big thing is here, that the revolution’s near, but to me it seems quite clear that it’s all just a little bit of history repeating”
~Shirley Bassey and the Propellerheads
Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper — Schleswig Leader,

Maybe I’m more prone to notice these things because I majored in History in college and used to teach it in High School, but I’ve noticed some eerie similarities between our own times and some previous historical eras.

One is what Mark Twain called “the Gilded Age.”

The Gilded age was characterized by an upper class that loved to show off their wealth. The new rich, whether by ruthless business practices, lucky speculation in the markets or by easy credit indulged in leisure and excess like never before in America.

Sort of reminds you of all the HumVees and plasma TVs going around.

But the point Mark Twain was trying to make by calling it a “gilded” age, was that you can paint rot iron with gold leaf so that it looks elegant, but it will still rust and corrode underneath.
Like the turn of the last century, we too are letting our leaders and giant corporations get away with abuse of power, fraud and corruption. And like the last Gilded Age, we’re experiencing a huge and widening gap between super rich and working poor. Meanwhile, the middle-class is shrinking.

According to a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, 1% or Americans have 15% of the money. One one thousandth (0.1 %) of the population has between 6 and 10 % of the wealth. These folks saw a 497% increase in their wealth since 1972.

We can see hints of a new “Progressive Era” on the horizon- Lord knows we could use a guy like Teddy Roosevelt again. But what preceded Teddy Roosevelt was a depression. A lot like the one that preceded his cousin Franklin. Let’s hope we’re not headed down that road again.
Over the last four years, tons of people have tried to compare the war in Vietnam to the War in Iraq. On the contrary, I think it’s worth the time to contrast the differences between the two.
We feared that Vietnam would be the first domino to lead the whole Far East to fall to communism.

We figured if we could make Iraq a Western style capitalist democracy, we’d have enough oil, military bases and influence on the Middle East that neither Al Queda or Iran could threaten our interests anymore.

Democratic Presidents got us into Vietnam and left it to a Republican to. A Republican got us into Iraq and feels no compunction whatsoever about leaving it to the next administration to clean up.

‘Nam had hot steamy jungles, Iraq has hot dry deserts.

Protesters marched and occupied college and government buildings to end the Vietnam War. Bloggers whine about Washington on the internet to try to get us out of Iraq.

Working class Joes and minorities got drafted to Vietnam. Politicians know if there was a draft protesters might march and occupy buildings again, so instead they keep increasing the length of soldier’s tours of duty.

George W. Bush went AWOL from the Florida National Guard but never had to serve in Vietnam. Since there’s no draft, National Guardsmen and women are bearing the brunt of the war in Iraq.

Not only are the Gilded age and Vietnam Era replaying themselves, but so is Watergate. But again, there are major differences between Nixon and Bush.

Psychologists would classify Nixon as a Paranoid with tendencies toward Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. He kept meticulous diaries of his minute-by-minute activities. He agonized over what people thought of him.

Bush is just the opposite. He doesn’t bother reading presidential briefings, and seems to be oblivious to the feelings, opinions, and contributions of others. Webster’s has a word for someone “characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions... and disorganized speech and behavior.”

The word is “Psychotic.

How the Good Guys Finally Won

It was still summer, so after the last book I'd finished I really wanted something I could sink my teeth into before school started up again. I've always been a fan of newspaper columnists like Chicago's Mike Royko, Texas's Molly Ivins, Florida's Dave Berry, and DC's Art Buchwald. So I went scrounging around a hot, cavernous used bookstore in downtown Omaha for the legendary New York columnist, Jimmy Breslin.

I got lucky and found a dusty old hardcover subtitled "notes on an impeachment summer." With so many people calling for Bush, Cheney and Gonzales each or all to be impeached (including prominent Republican Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein) I thought that it might be fun to take a look at what it was like for the lawmakers who finally stepped up and put pressure on Nixon back in 1974.

Wow, what I find! I was quickly absorbed with Breslin's warm, human, and grisly telling of how the Nixon Administration intimidated, harassed and extorted Yankees owner and Democratic campaign contributor George Steinbrenner and the careful, concerned, and constituent-influenced hard work of then House Majority Leader Thomas 'Tip' O'Neill.

So... imagine my chagrin when I discovered (a mile or two too late) that I had left my copy of this important and relevant book on the roof of my minivan, along with a cup of Dr. Pepper when leaving Subway on my way to a family picnic. "Kathunk-slosh, what was that? Hmmm, say, what's that flying around on the road behind us? Aw, shooooot."

Thanks to the miracle of the internet, I was soon able to spend $1.50 and $9.50 in shipping, handling and sales taxes on a paperback copy from a used bookstore partner of www.barnesandnoble.com. Within a week, I was joyously enjoying Tip O'Neill and his Daniel Webster cigars and whatever, probably Cuban stogies that Breslin chewed on while he shadowed the Massachusetts Democrat.

The book features the squeeky-clean Impeachment sub-committee chairman Peter Rodino, Chicago machine politicial Dan Rostentowski, meticulous and driven special prosecutor John Doar, unscrupulous Watergate burglar Jeb Magruder threatening a former New Jersey congressman in federal prison, and the affable and decent Jerry Ford as they all played their part in the first serious impeachment proceedings since Reconstruction.

Sure, you say, but you're a history buff and a political junkie- surely this is a dry, boring bit of sausage-making. Au Contraire Mon Frère! Breslin uses short, easy to read chapters and cocks it full of spicy and saucy details and anecdotes that make you appreciate what was done and get to know who did it as real people who really loved their country.

This is a book that is fun, even if you aren't a constitutional lawyer or a legislative historian- I promise. And, especially at a time when the majority of the American people (both Democrats and more and more Republicans) desperately want something done, but Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid refuse to even consider impeachment, de-funding the war, or preventing illegal wire tapping- this is a book and a time which Americans need to review and consider.

I wish Ballantine would consider republishing this book with some kind of Forward or Afterward added that addresses our current mess. If you don't order a used copy of this book for your own pleasure or edification, I hope you'll consider buying one as a gift to your local congressmen. I'd send one to mine (Steve King) but he's such a fascist, he'd probably burn it.

Impeach George Bush to stop war lies, deaths

This summer, I've been reading this book by the legendary Jimmy Bresnin on the Nixon impeachment called "How the good guys finally won." It follows the congressmen who brought the proceedings against Nixon. You wouldn't think that a book like that could be warm, human, funny, or optimistic, but it's all of those things. I highly recommend it to anyone- of course you have to search the web for used copies because it's circa 1975. Meanwhile, read what the NewsDay columnist has to say about our current criminal-president-

Impeach George Bush to stop war lies, deaths

Jimmy Breslin July 22, 2007

I am walking in Rosedale on this day early in the week while I wait for the funeral of Army soldier Le Ron Wilson, who died at age 18 in Iraq. He was 17 1/2 when he had his mother sign his enlistment papers at the Jamaica recruiting office. If she didn't, he told her, he would just wait for the months to his 18th birthday and go in anyway. He graduated from Thomas Edison High School at noon one day in May. He left right away for basic training. He came home in a box last weekend. He had a fast war.

The war was there to take his life because George Bush started it with bold-faced lies.

He got this lovely kid killed by lying.

If Bush did this in Queens, he would be in court on Queens Boulevard on a murder charge.

He did it in the White House, and it is appropriate, and mandatory for the good of the nation, that impeachment proceedings be started. You can't live with lies. You can't permit them to be passed on as if it is the thing to do.

Read the entire article in it's original context

Americans are finally sick of them too

New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment; ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.
The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
42% disagreed, and 5% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

Treason

“Impeachment should be reserved for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors where the president's actions are great and dangerous offenses or attempts to subvert the Constitution and the most extensive injustice.”

~George Mason,
(Delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention. He is called the "Father of the Bill of Rights".)

So let's see... Former President George H.W. Bush (Sr.) , also a former director of the CIA said that leaking the dentity of a CIA agent was TREASON. Yet his son, just commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby who was convicted of purgery for trying to hide the fact that Vice President Cheney blowing Vallery Plame's cover because her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson exposed that George W. was lying when in his State of the Union Address, he claimed that Iraq trying to get materials for making nukes from Africa. We have evidence that this Bush administration started looking for ways to attack Iraq as soon as they came into office.

What part of that is NOT treasonous? How many more American's have to die in Iraq? How much more "collateral damage?" How much more does our reputation in the world have to be damaged before we bring these traitors to justice? They aren't looking out for American interests or protecting or defending the Constitution.

Congress can't understand why their poll numbers are almost as low as Bush's. Maybe if they would at least stop enabling him and get us out of Iraq, or better yet, get to the bottom of all of this and impeach both he and Cheney, or try Cheney for treason- maybe Americans would think that Congress was doing what we elected them to do!

Hagel drops the I-Bomb!!!

I heard this news driving in to work this morning from "SRN" a conservative religious news service that provides feeds for Christian radio stations- I could hardly believe it. Sure, it's just one Republican Senator and he's probably running for President himself, but now that the dam has been breeched, how much longer until the flood?

"The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes."

The conversation beaches itself for a moment on that word -- impeachment -- spoken by a conservative Republican from a safe Senate seat in a reddish state. It's barely even whispered among the serious set in Washington, and it rings like a gong in the middle of the sentence, even though it flowed quite naturally out of the conversation he was having about how everybody had abandoned their responsibility to the country, and now there was a war going bad because of it.

"Congress abdicated its oversight responsibility," he says. "The press abdicated its responsibility, and the American people abdicated their responsibilities. Terror was on the minds of everyone, and nobody questioned anything, quite frankly."

He is developing, almost on the fly and without perceptible calculation, a vocabulary and a syntax through which to express the catastrophe of what followed after. Rough, and the furthest thing from glib, he's developing a voice that seems to be coming from somewhere else, distant and immediate all at once.

Listen to him calling out his fellow senators in committee.

"If you wanted a safe job," Hagel said memorably, "go sell shoes."

Read the entire article at Esquire.com

‘King George II’ should learn his place

All of my Republican friends like to give me a hard time because they think I never draw cartoons that pick on Democrats. Well, here ya are. But now to make up for it, you need to read the column below, which is more Bush-bashing than I've done in a few months:

Some of the Latin we were taught as History Majors are the phrases “Rex Lex,” and “Lex Rex.”
I’m not entirely certain which means which, but one roughly translates, “The king IS the law,” or at least “the king is above the law.”

This refers to absolutist rulers like the King George III against whom we fought our Revolutionary War, and Kaiser Wilhelm II who loused up the diplomacy and foreign policy left him by Otto von Bismarck and entangled Europe in World War I.

Waaay back during Robin Hood’s time, the English were sick of the absolutist Prince John (who was really just the substitute monarch for his brother Richard the Lion Hearted, who was off fighting the Crusades.) Those clever Brits made John sign a thing called the Magna Carta, which basically said that not even the king was above the law, but instead actually, the LAW is king.
We yanks like that idea so much that we adopted one big über-law called the Constitution. Bottom line is, in the United States, the Constitution is sovereign, over states, and over government officials; both law makers and those charged with executing the laws. They’re sworn to uphold and defend it, not circumvent it or erode it’s basic principles.

According to the Boston Globe, “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.”
He has done this with things called “signing statements,” in which a President explains which part of a law he plans to enforce or not enforce when he signs bills into law that have been passed by Congress.

The American Bar Association has expressed their concern that President George W. Bush’s use of signing statements has been excessive and “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers”

Two glaring examples were when Bush claimed to be able to wiggle out of Congress’s ban on the use of torture and when he claimed the right to tap phone lines without first seeking a judge’s warrant.

A great controversy has been brewing over whether or not the new Congress should prevent President from sending a surge of more troops to Iraq. Many Bush supporters site the Constitutional division of powers. They claim that only the President is the Commander-in-Chief of American military forces.

The Constitutional problem with that line of reasoning is that the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to “declare war,” “raise and support armies” and “make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

Unfortunately for this President, Congress has not declared war. Bush can use the rhetoric of “the War on Terror” all he wants, but Iraq did not attack the United States, or have any part in the attack that was made on us by terrorists. Almost four years after Bush ordered the invasion, we still have not declared war on Iraq.

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” James Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”
Last week, hand written notes from Vice President Dick Cheney were entered into evidence in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of Cheney’s former Chief of staff, Scooter Libby. The notes suggest that the Vice President would rather have Libby go down than Carl Rove, President Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff for blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame in order to silence and/or get even with her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson because he criticized the Bush administration for misrepresenting intelligence in order to convince Congress, the United Nations, and the American public to let them invade Iraq.

Witnesses seem to have implicated Cheney, not Libby in leaking Plame’s identity. This could be to the Bush administration what Alexander Butterworth’s revelation that there were tape recorders in the Oval office was to Richard Nixon.

Republicans like John Warner of Virginia and Chuck Hagel are gradually coming around. They’re now supporting the Senate resolution opposing the President’s buildup of troops. Will it be another Arizona Republican, this time John McCain who will visit the President and talk sense to him, the way that Barry Goldwater did with Nixon in 1974?

This column highlighted just three ways in which George W. Bush likes to think of himself as above and beyond our 230 year old system. I’m not calling for impeachment, just stronger oversight and accountability. Should impeachment come, I hope Congress targets Cheney first. Bush could beat the Democrats to history by appointing Elizabeth Dole his replacement Vice President. Then she’d be the first woman President when Bush resigns or is removed from office. I think it would be fitting, since her husband Bob was Gerald Ford’s running mate.


Ted Mallory lives in Charter Oak and teaches at Boyer Valley Schools in Dunlap. ‘Ted’s Column’ has appeared weekly in the Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper since 2002. If you’d like to see any of Ted’s editorial cartoons bigger and brighter, you can visit http://tmal.multiply.com/photos/album/2

"War is Gods way of teaching Americans Geography" ~Anonymous

Conservative Calls for Bush's Impeachment

Conservative Calls for Bush's Impeachment

Paul Craig Roberts, a Hoover Institution fellow and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan, calls for Bush's impeachment:

The destruction of New Orleans is the responsibility of the most incompetent government in American history and perhaps in all history. Americans are rapidly learning that they were deceived by the superpower hubris. The powerful U.S. military cannot successfully occupy Baghdad or control the road to the airport -- and this against an insurgency based in only 20 percent of the Iraqi population. Bush's pointless war has left Washington so pressed for money that the federal government abandoned New Orleans to catastrophe.

The Bush administration is damned by its gross incompetence. Bush has squandered the lives and health of thousands of people. He has run through hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars. He has lost America's reputation and its allies. With barbaric torture and destruction of our civil liberty, he has stripped America of its inherent goodness and morality. And now Bush has lost America's largest port and 25 percent of its oil supply.

Why? Because Bush started a gratuitous war egged on by a claque of crazy neoconservatives who have sacrificed America's interests to their insane agenda.