Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNo one was all that surprised when the Bush administration announced Thursday that it would not cooperate with congressional demands for documents and testimony by prominent former officials that would likely confirm this White House's reckless disregard for the rule of law.
What was surprising, and encouraging, was the decisiveness with which key players in Congress responded.
After the White House asserted executive privilege in rejecting subpoenas issued by the House and Senate Judiciary committees as part of the ongoing probe of abuses within the Department of Justice, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers wasted no time expressing his sense that a Contempt of Congress citation is in order.
"The President's response to our subpoena shows an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government," explained Conyers, a Michigan Democrat who is the only Judiciary Committee to have participated in the fight between Congress and the Nixon White House for Watergate-related documents. "At this point, I see only one choice in moving forward, and that is to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas."
The best way to enforce the rule of law is by issuing a Contempt of Congress citation. The rules of Congress permit standing committees, such as the House and Senate Judiciary panels, to compel witnesses to produce documents and testimony required to complete inquiries. Committee chairs are permitted to issue subpoenas seeking documents and testimony. And, when the targets of those subpoenas refuse to cooperate, a Contempt of Congress citation -- outlining a criminal offense against the legislative branch of the federal government -- can be drawn up.
The issuance of a Contempt of Congress citation would provoke the sort of Constitutional showdown that it now appears will be required if this administration is to be held to account for its abuses of power. In such a showdown between the legislative and executive branches, the third branch of the federal government, the judiciary, would be asked to decide whether the White House has a right to assert, as White House counsel Fred Fielding did in a letter telling the committee chairs that their demands would not be met.
The "fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress" would prevent presidential advisers from communicating "openly and honestly" with the president," wrote Fielding.
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy suggests, there is another sort of fear in play: the fear of having improper and potentially illegal schemes exposed.
Fielding's assertion of executive privilege came in response to subpoenas for documents and testimony relating to the firing of nine federal prosecutors in 2006. Leahy and members of his committee have explored the question of whether those U.S. Attorneys were dismissed for improper political reasons as part of a broad move by the White House to politicize federal investigations and prosecutions.
"This White House cannot have it both ways," says Leahy. "They cannot stonewall Congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred."
The Vermont Democrat described assertion of executive privilege in an investigation of official misconduct as a "further shift by the Bush administration into Nixonian stonewalling."
"Increasingly," says Leahy, "the president and vice president feel they are above the law -- in America no one is above law."
The senator is right, at least in theory.
But, in practice, this administration has operated above, or more precisely outside the law for more than six years. Without proper congressional and judicial oversight, the White House has expanded the reach and authority of the executive branch far beyond the limits imagined by the founders. And it will continue to do so until Congress reasserts itself as a coequal branch of government.
That process begins with the issuance of Contempt of Congress citations.
For the sake of the Republic, those citation cannot be dispatched quickly enough.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols's book The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press) is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. Publisher's Weekly describes it as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney." The London Review of Books says The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney "makes a persuasive case…that the vice-presidency is the real locus of power in the current administration: Cheney runs the show."
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
The "fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress" would prevent presidential advisers from communicating "openly and honestly" with the president," wrote Fielding.
So much for, if you have nothing to hide, there's no need to fear. The contradictions abound. I hope the grandfatherly Leahy and Conyers have the stamina to stick with this. It's a guaranteed victory over BushCo if they can.
Posted by MyParadigm at 06/28/2007 @ 3:54pm
It's a guaranteed victory over BushCo if they can.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 06/28/2007 @ 3:54pm
Sadly, no. Where would such a showdown lead? Yep, the US Supreme Court. Again, Bush has Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.
One more (maybe Kennedy) and that's the ball game.
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 4:01pm
I agree that the response from Congress has been largely encouraging, though. What is important to note is that many Democrats have stopped fearing the Executive branch, convinced their own poll numbers would drop because of their soft response to terrorism. It looks like the Dems are finally beginning to step up and take an aggressive stance against this administration. That, at least, is heartening.
Posted by Nation Intern at 06/28/2007 @ 4:11pm
NICHOLS: Without proper congressional and judicial oversight, the White House has expanded the reach and authority of the executive branch far beyond the limits imagined by the founders.
And the corollaries:
Without proper congressional and executive branch oversight, the Supreme Court has expanded the reach and authority of the judicial branch far beyond the limits imagined by the founders.
Without proper executive branch and judicial oversight, Congress has expanded the reach and authority of the legislative branch far beyond the limits imagined by the founders.
We are heading toward a Unitary Uncle Sam!
Posted by Happy at 06/28/2007 @ 4:25pm
John Dean completely explained what is going on in his book "Worse than Watergate." It is a total grab for power and they put themselves above the law of congress as a matter of principle. They are expending the power of the president. Read the book. It makes what is going on clear.
Posted by allene222 at 06/28/2007 @ 4:29pm
Actually Masky the congress does not have to go to the supremes if it decides to impeach. Contempt maybe, impeachment no.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/28/2007 @ 4:38pm
This rogue administration needs to be brought to its knees once and for all. Executive priviledge my a**. They continue to act as if they are above the law. They continue to expand the power of the president, but the president for whom they are expanding the power proves on a daily basis that he's clueless. He takes his marching orders from the most evil VP in US history. My only fear is that the Dems, for all their chuzpah right now (and who are infamous for caving in at the final moments) will take their eye off the prize and lose control of the moment. America needs accountability now more than ever.
Posted by bobach at 06/28/2007 @ 4:45pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/28/2007 @ 4:25pm
Ha, just wondering if you also paint your face with a big black and white smile, big white eyes, big black eye brows and a red ball on your nose; an old hat, funny clothes, to go along with your comments?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/28/2007 @ 4:45pm
Ha, oh and the big funny shoes?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/28/2007 @ 4:48pm
Actually Masky the congress does not have to go to the supremes if it decides to impeach. Contempt maybe, impeachment no.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/28/2007 @ 4:38pm
True....what has Patrick Leahy (subject of this article) said about impeachment, by the way?
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 4:52pm
You impune the integrity of four SC Justices, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. What makes you think that these men would be so willing to give another coequal branch of government unlimited. They'll be around long after Bush and his republican party are old news. ----Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/28/2007 @ 4:50pm
I must say, FRANK, it's rather surprising to see a "progressive"....DEFENDING the US Supreme Court as NOT being sympathetic to the Bush Administration....the Administration they supposedly "selected, not elected" in 2000?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 4:54pm
The Supremes have already shown themselves to be without shame. Don't expect the spectre of history's condemnation to make any difference to them.
Posted by barnesgene at 06/28/2007 @ 5:03pm
I must say, FRANK, it's rather surprising to see a "progressive"....DEFENDING the US Supreme Court as NOT being sympathetic to the Bush Administration....the Administration they supposedly "selected, not elected" in 2000?!?!??
If for no other reason, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court will compel the White House to answer because they want to hold Hillary to the same standard when she is elected president.
The actions of the Supreme Court are judicial precedents that bind "all" administrations, Repbulican and Democratic.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/28/2007 @ 5:09pm
FrankGrits: Do you actually believe the SC four (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia) have integrity? If they had any they would have allowed the vote count of 2000 to continue. Of course, Roberts and Alito were not there at the time, but if they had been, they would have been in lock step with the rest of the Republicans. They are all Bushies which in my book is synonymous with lack of integrity.
Posted by bobach at 06/28/2007 @ 5:18pm
Don't forget, the Supreme Court slapped the Bushies in Hamdan. They tolerate some of Bush's ever expanding tyranny, but they will eventually quash it if they feel they are being threatened.
Posted by BlueTexan at 06/28/2007 @ 5:20pm
Please visit the Senate Judiciary Committe website and share with them your opinions. Here is my letter:
Thank you for taking bold and decisive action in response to the White House's refusal to cooperate with the subpoenas this committe issued. The public and Congress have a right to know whether this administration has been acting improperly or illegally. The White House has been non responsive and uncooperative to less agressive solicitations and it is WONDERFUL to see a part of our government standing up to this type of pseudo-constitutional bullying. Here is hoping that they choose to do the right thing and respond amicably to the Contempt of Congress citations. Once again, thank you.
Posted by Emiliee at 06/28/2007 @ 5:21pm
I can't believe that Congress, knowing that the subpoenas would be rejected out of hand, couldn't employ the crystal ball to its advantage. I'm thinking that Rove et al should have had their little informal sit down, off-the-record and hidden as always, and THEN been subpoenaed. It's just a continued lack of critical thinking from a Congress dulled by continuous campaigning and supping with an bloated, gluttonous press corps. Who cares what branch Cheney thinks he owns or disavows! It's just a helping of what Juvenal called "panem et circences" - bread and circuses, meant to distract the public from the more serious business at hand. Someday soon he and Rove and Libby, and Wolfowitz, and Perle, and Bennet and Bolton along with the wheelmen and shooters at Justice will be seen for what they are (assassins of our Constitution). And it won't be through the eyes of the Court that spawned them. And there'll be no Boy King or Bushie ringmaster Gonzales to hide behind. Patience! And remember - even a blind hog finds an acorn sometime.
Posted by Blind Hog at 06/28/2007 @ 5:23pm
Uh, RIV; where did that imaginary consensus come from? I haven't quite made up my mind yet as to whether your posts are supreme examples of irony or whether you are just that kind of whacked out? Please advise. Thank you.
Posted by The Goods at 06/28/2007 @ 6:03pm
Nice one Blind Hog! Just can't get enuf of that ol' Roman stuff.
"Panem et circences," indeed.
Posted by lewwelge at 06/28/2007 @ 6:49pm
Don't stop now. Bring King George and Prince Dick to their knees. Hold them in contempt!
Posted by loubranch at 06/28/2007 @ 6:57pm
Right wingers love to wave flags; but in actuality, they are facists in sheep's clothing. The Constitution means nothing to them when they are asked to follow it, ala Bush (I wish HE would disappear); and they want free hate speech, ala Coulter; but note their psychic distemper when those who want freedom and control over their own bodies and sexuality ask for the same freedoms. What a bunch of slimy crooks and hypocrats...from Bush, Cheney and up (you can't get any lower). They obviously have a lot to hide. Of course, they don't want to be called on the carpet...it would leave no choice but impeachment.
Oh well... if we can survive one more year, perhaps intelligent people will bring America back to sanity.
Posted by srs at 06/28/2007 @ 7:08pm
True....what has Patrick Leahy (subject of this article) said about impeachment, by the way?
Posted by MASK 06/28/2007 @ 4:52pm
Are you talking about the senator from the state of Vermont that just voted to impeach hsuB/cHeney recently:
"SR16 Senate resolution urging Vermont's Representative in the United States House of Representatives to introduce, and Vermont's United States Senators to support, a resolution requiring the United States House Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President and the Vice President of the United States."
Senator Leahy gets an earful about impeachment at home
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23505
Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2007-06-10 22:09. Impeachment
By John Lippmann
Last night I was in Barre Vermont at a benefit concert for a great organization called L.A.C.E. www.lacevt.org Anyway, Sen. Leahy was there and when he gave his opening remarks several shouts of impeach bush could be heard. Senator Leahy's only response was that Washington was about to get a lot more interesting...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/28/2007 @ 7:19pm
Or Masky, did you mean this:
In a joint statement issued in Washington, DC, Vermont's Congressional delegation, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch, responded to the state senate resolution by saying that "before we talk about impeachment," current investigations in the Congress need to be "allowed to run their course."
It doesn't sound like "no". Sounds more like lets get there.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/28/2007 @ 7:26pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/28/2007 @ 7:19pm
Okay, Leahy gets an ear-full.....but what has HE SAID? Anything definitive on impeachment?
"investigations in the Congress need to be "allowed to run their course."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/28/2007 @ 7:26pm
And those will be done by October?
Hsub, please. Pelosi, Conyers, Emmanuel, George Miller, Leahy, Sanders. Kucinich got...uh...how many supporters last month?
The US Supreme Court decision on Cheney's "executive privilege" alone could take until Labor Day!
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 7:49pm
Masky anything could happen, you've already admitted that several times, however you seem ever prone (or is it the butt up position) to always advocate against doing anything about constitutional crime, especially sounding rather supportive of new cons, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, the hsuB/cHeney admin. So you only say you'd prefer that they be impeached, but always advocate against it... UUuuuhhmmm, sounds like you're a cHeney undercover dna chimp experiment. Can you tell which way is up or down, right or wrong, where you work?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/28/2007 @ 8:03pm
Does'nt the SCOTUS have the right to say they don't want to hear the case?
Posted by economike at 06/28/2007 @ 8:12pm
I hold the Dems in Congress in contempt. Circus clowns before the election performing as predicted...and accomplishing nothing for the nation....finally a back bone from the WH.
Posted by john maasch at 06/28/2007 @ 10:08pm
Feigned outrage by "leaky Leahy", what a joke. He sang the opposite tune in 1999 when Republicans wanted to try the same thing with Clinton. Just more liberal hypocrisy and the bloggers here just eat it up, being complicit in the hypocrisy.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/92399pl2.htm
Posted by antiliberal at 06/28/2007 @ 10:11pm
The great thing about the US,is that we get the political BS from the ones that have the least to offer for a solution. We waste our time in congress playing politics and not serving the people they say that they are repesenting. The Democrats forget what they have done in the past and after they get in, if that happens they will play the same game. What we need is younger and new blood with new ideas for the future.
Posted by Domenic1 at 06/28/2007 @ 10:31pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/28/2007 @ 8:03pm
HSUB, for the last time, I'm not "advocating against doing something"....I'm saying "nothing will be done". There IS a difference and a difference that REALISTS should expect.
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 10:46pm
i think the country is ready fer an impeachin or threatened impeachment at least to round out the worst presidency ever.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/28/2007 @ 10:53pm
At least this isn't over something important, like travel documents. Then it would be serious.
SCOTUS has shown Chimpy the back of its hand more than a few times lately. Breyer and O'Connor expressed regret over the 2000 fiasco. even though O'Connor is gone, I think Roberts at least holds a more conservative opinion of the constitution. Not the weird new age psycho con bizarro world we are experiencing now. They know some day Hillary might want to hide some travel documents.
Have you been keeping up cons?
Illegally using tax payer money for propaganda
Illegally using the board of the CPB for political purposes
The Geneva conventions no longer apply
Secret prisons in Romania
Make it up as we go along prison next door to Castros no-trial prisons
Handfuls of admin officials going to jail and or paying fines
Don't tell who the VP meets with, then those who met with him lie about it to congress
Illegally use RNC emails for guvt business, then "lose" the emails
Intentionally ruining an ongoing investigation into wmd programs
Kidnapping people and sending them to dictatorships that torture them
That's your AmeriKa, shining city on a hill.
Maybe I will vote for Hillary after all, just to watch you sheep squirm and writhe about in your mind bending contortions to try and make her actions illegal, when you have placed the bar so low that a groove has been ground into the floor so it will fit.
Or maybe RIO's flying horseys will come and carry the good men away to the happy place before 08.
Hey John! Come the Rapture, can I have your Beemer?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2007 @ 11:31pm
Always remember, in the neo-con world, if no one is charged, no crime happened. All of those unsolved murders are not really unsolved, no crime happened.
See how simple?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2007 @ 11:36pm
Unless it's Vince Foster.He was gunned down by a woman in a canary yellow dress in broad day light.
It was a cover up. Falwell knew it, that's why they killed him too.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2007 @ 11:39pm
Don't hold things up. If the stumblebums in the WH are going to reject the subpoenas, fine, file Contempt of Congress charges against the lot and start the Impeachment proceedings in congress while the SCOTUS bumbles around until they come to their 5-4 decision. With any luck, Roberts will recuse himself from the court decision as he would be the presiding Justice of the Impeachment trial. Impeach both the shrub and Darth at the same time in the Contempt charge. Get rid of them both and then we'll have President Nancy Pelosi. As the Nike ads say, "Just do it!"
I'd love to see the two of them walk around for years to come and through all history with the big bright red toe tags that proclaim "IMPEACHED". It couldn't happen to a more deserving two.
"When people ask if the United States can afford to place on trial the president, if the system can stand impeachment, my answer is, "Can we stand anything else?" - George McGovern
icf itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/29/2007 @ 01:04am
Confront, convict. Send these crooks off to their invention, Gitmo, for some waterboarding and other delightful examples of the "non-torture" this country does to "enemy combatants"...if you want to know who the enemy combatants really are, they are these bunch of traitorous, treasonous thugs. Show them no mercy.
Posted by MCE337 at 06/29/2007 @ 01:51am
Unless it's Vince Foster.He was gunned down by a woman in a canary yellow dress in broad day light.
It was a cover up. Falwell knew it, that's why they killed him too.
Posted by CRABWALK
What the hell are you talking about? Get your mind out of the mid 90s, wake up and pay attention to the world today and the ever disappearing democracy we once had.
Posted by MCE337 at 06/29/2007 @ 01:52am
Posted by CRABWALK 06/28/2007 @ 11:31pm
Nice to see that one of the better progressive legal minds in America is not an impractical starry eyed idealist. Perhaps there's some hope, even yet, for your lot. Maybe your constitution needs to be brought into the 21st century?
JUNKET HIT BY TERROR
Australia's legal minds get a dose of US reality
PARTICIPANTS in this year's taxpayer-supported legal soiree, the Australian Bar Association's biennial overseas conference in Chicago, got more than they bargained for in an address from tough-talking and highly respected US judge Richard Posner.
Judge Posner stunned an audience of Australia's best legal brains by advocating that judicial and constitutional conventions be swept aside in the fight against terror. Until then, the most pressing issues on the conference agenda appeared to have been the lack of a decent recreational program and the pending induction of Major Michael Mori, legal counsel for convicted terror trainee David Hicks, as a lifetime member.
As The Australian's New York correspondent David Nason reports today, Judge Posner disrupted what was expected to be a humanitarian talkfest with a call for secret trials for terrorists, more surveillance of Muslim populations across the USA and an end to counter-terrorism efforts being ``hog-tied'' by the US Constitution. Judge Posner said traditional concepts of criminal justice were inadequate to deal with the terrorist threat and the US had ``over-invested'' in them.
Judge Posner, who sits on the US Court of Appeals and has been voted one of the US's top 20 legal thinkers, is regarded as a liberal but his views defy easy characterisation. He has written in defence of the right to abortion and argued that buying and selling babies on the free market would lead to better outcomes than government-regulated adoption. He has supported drug law reform and famously opposed the right to privacy.
In regard to the war on terror, Judge Posner has been sympathetic to Alan Dershowitz's defence of torture under the ticking bomb analogy, writing that if torture was the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used. He said no one who doubted this position should be in a position of responsibility.
The key when considering Judge Posner's views on combating terror is the US's greater respect for open government and free speech. Judge Posner said it was ``quite misplaced'' to suggest national security measures in force or contemplated in the US could endanger liberty and undermine the political system, because governments could no longer conceal what they do. Public interest was guarded by an aggressive media and the willingness of many people in the government to talk to the press.
The Australian remains naturally sceptical of unfettered power being granted to the executive or its security agencies. This certainly is true given the trend here by government towards greater secrecy with laws to punish whistleblowers who speak out. Nonetheless, we feel it is no bad thing that many who have championed the plight of Mr Hicks should be exposed to the candid views of one of the best legal brains in the US on the subject. On balance, this year at least, Australian taxpayers seem to have got value for money.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/29/2007 @ 05:09am
"You impune the integrity of four SC Justices, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/28/2007 @ 4:50pm
How many personalities do you have, Frank?
Posted by drhammer at 06/29/2007 @ 07:01am
Posted by MCE337 06/29/2007 @ 01:52am
I don't have a modicon for sarcasm. That post was for RIOKORESH, sorry you missed the lilt of the post.
Posted by LRJONES4 06/29/2007 @ 05:09am
Ticking time bomb theory has yet to meet reality. None has ever been found, using torture or even effective means of interrogation. To use torture as the regular means of gathering info, in hopes of finding a nuke when none is known to exist is morally depraved. It is the method of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Castro. Now Chimpy goes into that pile.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/29/2007 @ 09:16am
No need to take my word for it, but why you neo apologists take Chimpies and Gonzos word is beyond me. They are proven liars and incompetents.
WAPO, 1/12/2005
Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."
Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."
Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.
An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.
Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works.
these guys must really, really hate AmeriKa.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/29/2007 @ 09:27am
Another hippy, communist AMeriKa hater:
Peter Bauer, is a former U.S. Army military intelligence interrogator who served during the Gulf War with the 3rd Armored Division.
"we found that the standard interrogation techniques found in the US Army Field Manual 34-52 were far more effective than such abusive behavior as stress positions, sensory deprivation, and humiliation. We obtained more information – and more reliable information – with our basic skills than we did with even days of harsh treatment.
On the other hand, it quickly became evident, even in my early days of resistance training, that when subjected to harsh treatment, the tendency is indeed to say whatever the subject believes will make the abuse stop. And that, I learned, is generally not the truth.
– Peter Bauer
I guess Chimpy learned different in his short stint in the Champagne unit in TANG. And cheney learned different while on his five deferments.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/29/2007 @ 09:34am
And LRJONES and RIO learned it from Chimpy. An unimpeachable source.
But wait, there is more, from another evil leftist AmeriKa hater:
November 28, 2005
Why Torture Doesn't Work
By Brigader General David R. Irvine writing in AlterNet -Brigadier General David R. Irvine is a retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School. He currently practices law in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Remarkably, of the nation's major newspapers, only the Wall Street Journal has editorialized in support of torture as a useful tool of American intelligence policy. Regrettably, that position does a huge disservice to the nation and its soldiers. There are really only three issues in this debate, and the Journal carefully turned a blind eye to all three: (1) is torture reliable, (2) is it consistent with America's values and Constitution, and (3) does it best serve our national interests?
No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD. It appears that this confession was the only information upon which, in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all intelligence reports based on his statements.
Exhibit B is the case of Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi deemed a "high-value" target by the CIA. After being beaten to an extent that he had several broken ribs, he was subjected to a form of crucifixion known as "Palestinian hanging." Forty-five minutes later, he was dead, never having revealed whatever vital, ticking-bomb information his American interrogator was seeking.
The Journal assumes that only the worst of the worst will be subjected to torture when it comes to ticking time bombs. Not only is that assumption unfounded, based upon the widespread abuses in Iraq, it was tried and abandoned by the Israelis. Because it is impossible to confirm with advance certainty what any suspect actually knows, ticking bomb torture can be justified in virtually every interrogation. When Israel experimented with "torture lite," supposedly reserved for ticking-bomb circumstances, it was not long before 85 percent of all Palestinian detainees were being given the harshest treatment allowed. The capability to finely calibrate torture has eluded every democratic government which has tried it.
The inescapable fact is that America's standing in the world, and especially in the Middle East, has never been lower. The price we have paid for our misdirected torture policies has been incalculable. The Arab street may not always grasp the finer points of separation of powers or proportional representation; but everyone, everywhere, comprehends hypocrisy, and judges us for ours. If the torture advocates truly believe that the value of violently coerced information has been worth the plummeting drop in America's world stature, or that such information is worth the clear and present endangerment of captured Americans, it's time to justify the claimed value of torture to the nation in whose name it's being done. Not assumptions, not generalizations, not, "I can't explain because it's classified."
So, LR and crew, torturing people may make you feel safe, superior and like a Tough Guy, but is does not work. Alas, that is the history of your theories on bringing about a free and prosperous ME.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/29/2007 @ 09:44am
The "fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress" would prevent presidential advisers from communicating "openly and honestly" with the president," wrote Fielding.
But the lack of such fear allows the executive branch to communicate "secretly and dishonestly." The question is whether Congress has reason to doubt its honesty, and by this time, surely it has.
Posted by Ted Reynolds at 06/29/2007 @ 09:44am
Sorry HSUB.......another one bites the dust---
WASHINGTON (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.
Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.
CAMPAIGN 2008: Barack Obama
"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."
The term for Bush and Cheney ends on Jan. 20, 2009. Bush cannot constitutionally run for a third term, and Cheney has said he will not run to succeed Bush.
"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.
"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 09:56am
Bless you, "Crabwalk," for your enlightening parade of knowledgeable witnesses against torture. The point needs to be made that this is not only a cruel method of interrogation, but a stupid and ineffectual one. I have noticed on occasion that neoconservatives are untroubled by the accusation that they are cruel. But, oh, do they ever get in a fit when you call them stupid!
The evidence for the stupidity of torture is vast. My favorite is the history of the witch trials. For centuries, tens of thousands of people, either under torture or under the threat of torture, confessed to riding on broomsticks, cursing cattle and people with the plague, and having weird sexual orgies with Satan. All of these confessions were, of course, nonsense, and they reflected only the superstitious imaginations of their inquisitors. But the masses of frightened people who believed in the glorious "War on Witchcraft" were convinced that the witch trials were a noble and necessary institution.
Our nation's prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment was written in a time when the witch trials were still fresh in people's memory and the futility of torture as an interrogation method was common knowledge. How far we have sunk since the Age of Enlightenment! I do not enjoy our turn back to seventeenth-century superstition and holy war one bit.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/29/2007 @ 10:13am
Posted by CRABWALK 06/29/2007 @ 09:16am
Crabs baby we are not talking about chimpy but about one of your own. I notice he is regarded by his peers as one of the finest legal minds in your country. If you can match his CV with those of your sources I might give some of the protestations of your intellectual midgets credence but until then please don't try to clutter our minds with that sort of reactionary bullshit.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/29/2007 @ 10:43am
LRJones-You guys need to figure out that 24 is a t.v. show and is a fictional t.v. show.Do you have any quotes from known torture experts?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2007 @ 10:47am
there are still some jerks around here who believe the supreme court has any role in a possible impeachment of the socalled pres and his vice. they do not.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/29/2007 @ 11:23am
Posted by MCE337 06/29/2007 @ 01:52am | ignore this person
hold on to your hat. that was IRONY.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/29/2007 @ 11:26am
yes, good work from Crab.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/29/2007 @ 11:29am
Posted by MASK 06/29/2007 @ 09:56a
Masky, isn't that like your own inoculation attempts-- say you're for something .01% of the time and then advocate the opposite 99.99% of the time?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 12:25pm
HSUB, not sure what you mean.....
All I was pointing out was that Obama, joins the ranks of Pelosi, Conyers, George Miller, Rahm Emmanuel, Bernie Sanders, even PATRICK LEAHY....in opposing impeachment.
Don't see how you excuse Obama on that pretty clear cut statement....Do you still keep a "Gore/Obama in '08" "dream ticket" alive?
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 12:58pm
"Anyone who had doubts that the American Government was hijacked by Cheney and Bush in 2000, now should have no doubts.
The revelations of the past few months have conclusively revealed that we are dealing with a rogue, runaway government. They feel that they own the United States governmental apparatus, that the rule of law does not apply to them, and that the Constitution is irrelevant.
If Congress continues to play it cautious with the White House, they will, in essence, be giving every American carte blanche permission to break the law, because the President and Vice President of the United States are role models for criminal behavior."
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/219
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 1:11pm
Masky, how often do you post those pro-impeachment gov-type people or articles? .01% Yet you say you're pro-impeachment. How many times do you post (with relish with glee I might add) those opposed to impeachment? 99.99%
Thus you are anti-impeachment and a pro-supporter of new cons, servicers of dic'tator philosophy. But don't want to come out of the closet so to speak or are ashamed of your actions but can't help yourself because or ?
Yet you want others to condemn Obama for doing what you do all the time. Inoculate yourself as though it's a desease you have or from a desease.
Which is it for you Masky?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 1:22pm
er, disease
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 1:24pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/29/2007 @ 1:22pm
How often do YOU post those "pro-impeachment ONLINE POLLS"...or some GROUP starting a rally for impeachment...or some po-dunk town in Vermont passing a "pro-impeachment resolution", etc. ?
And how often do you post the words of Democrats IN Congress...IN power...and actually (in the case of Conyers and Pelosi) IN CHARGE of the process by which impeachment would occur?
From the start, I've told you that it wasn't going to happen...move on, try to work on '08 (as you somewhat have, but still fantastically, on your "Gore in '08" scenario)....but you still keep posting your absolutely IRRELEVANT "proofs" that impeachment is only 4 months away.
I'm sorry...but telling you there's no Santa Claus, is not the same thing as "hating Christmas".
And THIS line of posts from you shows how stupidly you wish to cling to this fantasy, since you have YET to "explain" why the guy YOU want as Al Gore's Vice-President is opposing (in pretty clear terms) it...but must go after ME!
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 1:30pm
So Masky, that's your way of you admitting you're a new con supporter, servicer of dic'tator philosophy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 1:40pm
nothing new here ,this is what happens when you have illegitimate government put in office ,it's called cosmic karma i think ,the exploitation of the masses with fake terror and real ones caused by the government to keep that control,but it didn't work for the romans and it didn't work for hitler
Posted by studlyguy at 06/29/2007 @ 1:42pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/29/2007 @ 1:40pm
No, that's my way of admitting I live in the real world...
and not Happy Happy Gumdrop Land with a side stop at I'm-Not-Listening-I'm-Not-Listening Depot where you must cover your eyes and ears when the Bad News Express comes ploughing down the tracks!
BTW...I'd still vote for Barack Obama for Prez or Veep...would you?
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 1:46pm
Masky, you sound as though you're in denial about what you do. Speaking of what's real, you do know all you advocate for is mostly for a pro-new con reality, right. Like saying let the rapist go, it's ok if they continue to rape, let's concentrate on helping their kids... (The rarity is the Iraq war, but that's a no-brainer, except for Coulter look-alikes.) But not knowing what you advocate is kinda like cHeney not knowing where he works or hsuB not wanting anyone to know what they're up to; saying one thing and doing the opposite... Yet, is it conscious, premeditated or subliminal, schizoid?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 2:10pm
Okay, HSUB....let's just say I agree with Barack Obama (potential Al Gore running mate).
Got any problem with that?
In case you forgot what he said, it was...
"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.
"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 2:58pm
"Judge Posner said it was ``quite misplaced'' to suggest national security measures in force or contemplated in the US could endanger liberty and undermine the political system, because governments could no longer conceal what they do. Public interest was guarded by an aggressive media and the willingness of many people in the government to talk to the press."
Posted by LRJONES4 06/29/2007 @ 05:09am
Yea, right. I was thinking how this mans allegedly learned position was nonsensical to me. Then I got to the above quote.
Maybe we should ignore the opinions of those with their heads firmly ensconced in their asses?
Maybe?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 06/29/2007 @ 3:09pm
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/051107Lindorff.shtml
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=2373
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/DocServer/impeachment_petition.pdf?docID =101
http://www.impeachpac.org/
http://impeachbush.meetup.com/
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=872
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 3:22pm
Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a diversion from Democrats' main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the administration's impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement) and the record shows it.
Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point. Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a stand.
Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to act.
Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean making Cheney president--a deliberately scary prospect but one which any politician in Washington knows is garbage. Firstly, if Cheney were to become president because of a Bush impeachment or resignation, it would only be for a few months, and given his stunning lack of support among the public--currently about 9 percent and falling--he would be the lamest of lame ducks, unable to do anything. But more importantly, his own party would be certain to remove him before any removal of Bush, and for exactly that reason--they would not want to be going into the 2008 election with Cheney as party leader. This is exactly what happened to Spiro Agnew, whom a Republican attorney general managed to indict and remove before the collapse of Nixon's presidency. The same thing can be expected to happen to Cheney, who would surely face either a sudden health crisis, or an indictment for corruption.
Finally, excuse five is that the president's crimes and abuses of power need to be proven before any impeachment bill. This is completely backwards. An impeachment bill can be filed by any member of Congress who believes the president has violated the Constitution. At that point, it is up to the House Judiciary Committee to consider the bill's merits and decide whether to ask the full House to authorize impeachment hearings. It is at an impeachment hearing where investigations should proceed. After all, only after the Judiciary Committee votes out an impeachment article can the full House consider whether to actually impeach. Calling for investigations before an impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a grand jury investigation. It's redundant, simply a dodge.
Besides, some of this president's high crimes are self-evident. Take the case of Bush's ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans' communications without a warrant. A federal judge has already labeled this violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no denying this felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a "high crime" warranting impeachment.
The same applies Bush's refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts of laws duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn't deny that he has usurped the power of the Congress, as laid down in Article I of the Constitution. Rather, he asserts--with no basis in the wording of that document--that as commander in chief in the war on terror, he has the "unitary executive" authority to ignore acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an "investigation" to establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is decide whether this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an impeachable abuse of power.
Likewise the president's authorization of kidnap and torture. We know the president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his "unitary executive" claim to refuse to accept a law passed overwhelmingly by the last Congress outlawing torture. Finally, we know the president did not, as required by US and international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the chain of command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture.
There are many impeachable crimes by this president (and vice president), such as obstruction of justice in the Valeria Plame outing case, conspiracy (or treason) in the Niger "yellowcake" document forgery scandal, conspiracy to engage in election fraud, lying to Congress, criminal negligence in responding to the Katrina disaster, bribery and war profiteering, etc., which would require Judiciary Committee investigations.
In the meantime, though, Democrats need to step up to their responsibility.
If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well amend the Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that case, have become as much an anachronism as prohibition.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 3:29pm
Masky, you still have no guts. You hid behind Corn and now you hide behind Obama. But that's make new cons special, know how to hide.
BTW Obama can be wrong and he is. Big time. Had to make one at some point. I'd say just about now he's getting millions of letters of protest. If he thought he'd trade some lefties for some of you righties-- and he thought his poll numbers were already moving down...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 3:35pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/29/2007 @ 3:35pm
Okay, HSUB, I'll take my beratement in stride....
I'll try to suffer through being associated with the views of Barack Obama and David Corn of "The Nation" (as well as Pelosi, Conyers, George Miller, Rahm Emmanuel, Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy) and that ignoble company of folks who don't actually have anything to with impeaching Bush and Cheney (as obviously "www.impeachbush.org" is Constitutionally mandated to do so)....
and watch while the "millions of letters" pour in and Obama plunges to below Dennis Kucinich's numbers by next week.
(BTW, if Hillary or Edwards says they oppose impeachment....I guess it'll be a "Gore/Whoever's-Left-Until-Dennis in '08" ticket???....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 4:01pm
It will, in that case, have become as much an anachronism as prohibition.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/29/2007 @ 3:29pm
Actually more of an "atavism", than an anachronism.
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 4:03pm
Then I got to the above quote.
Maybe we should ignore the opinions of those with their heads firmly ensconced in their asses?
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT 06/29/2007 @ 3:09pm
But sir, to whom would the sheeple look in these dark times for leadership, solace and guidance?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/29/2007 @ 4:15pm
Obama may be wrong, but he has a huge number of donors, something that definitely worries Hillary and Edwards. all the candidates have months of gaffes ahead of them, it won't matter.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/29/2007 @ 4:17pm
Seeing as Faux, CNN, ABC, Rasm, usually tack on an extra 5-10 points to hsuB's approval numbers per weight on repub calls, we can safely say hsuB is now heading to the teens next. Can anyone remember whether Nixon ever got to the teens? Especially before the articles for impeachment were up for a vote?
BTW CNN dropped 6 points since last month and Faux dropped 3 points in two weeks...
Yes unless the congress impeaches hsuB/cHeney, we the people will not consider our elected worth keeping, like now, not in 1 1/2 years from now.
RESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls
Survey__________Dates__Approve__Disapprove__Unsure___Dif
FOX/O D______6/26-27/07__31________60________9_____-29
CNN/O R C____6/22-24/07__32________66________3_____-34
ARG, inc______6/18-21/97__27 _______ 67________6_____-40
Newsweek ____6/18-19/07__26________65________9_____-39
Gallup_______6/11-14/07___32________65________3_____-33
NBC/W S J____ 6/8-11/07 __29________66________5_____-37
Quinnipiac RV__6/5-11/07___28________65________7_____-37
AP-Ipsos______6/4-6/07____32________66________*_____-34
USAToday/Gallup_6/1-3/07__32________62________6_____-30
Pew_______5/30 - 6/3/07___29________61_______10_____-32
CBS/NY Times__5/18-23/07_ 30________63________7_____-33
Diageo/Hotline__5/16-20/07_32 ________64 _______4_____-32
Newsweek_____5/2-3/07 ___28________64________8_____-36
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 4:32pm
JR,
Perhaps the public has learned from Lie berman, per when a politician starts swinging to the right hard, even if they got your money, sometimes it's best to cut your losses...
Yes, Obama has time to make it up, but he better learn how to lead, not obstruct, the will of the people-- soon. He's not above getting trampled on.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 4:40pm
Okay, HSUB....I looked and did find another definitive leader [roseanneworld.com] who is going to support impeachment!
Maybe she could sing the National Anthem before the Senate trial begins in November?!!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 4:47pm
June 18, 2007
Republican, Democratic Presidential Contests Strikingly Similar
Fred Thompson surges into tie with John McCain for second in GOP contest
by Lydia Saad GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- With no incumbent president or vice president running for the 2008 presidential nominations, it is perhaps not surprising that both of the major parties have competitive races, with multiple candidates jockeying for second, if not first, place. Still, the current outlines of voter preferences in the Republican and Democratic nomination battles are remarkably similar.
According to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll of national adults, conducted June 11-14, 2007, each race is characterized by a front-runner attracting about 30% of the potential primary vote nationwide, followed by two candidates garnering about 20% support each in a close contest for second place, and a slew of weaker candidates, each supported by no more than 11%.
Continuing the parallels, the race for second place in both parties features one announced candidate who has earned fairly steady support throughout the year (mostly failing to build momentum) and one unannounced candidate with growing support, just recently pulling into a tie for second.
The Democratic Contest
The current Democratic front-runner is Sen. Hillary Clinton. She is favored by 33% of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic -- about average for her this year.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted earlier this month found Clinton's chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, pulling even with Clinton. However, in the current poll Obama has fallen back to a tie for second place with former Vice President Al Gore. At 21%, current support for Obama is near the low end of the support range seen for him since January, while Gore's 18% ties with an early March poll as his best result.
Former Sen. John Edwards, once tied with Gore for third place, has been stalled in the 11% to 12% range since May. The only other candidate earning the support of at least 5% of Democrats is New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27910
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 4:53pm
Masky I'm sure hsuB will let you continue kissing him as much as you want as long as you keep protecting him in 'you two's' quaint intimate reality...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 4:59pm
The Dems need to grow a pair and roll the dice. Be daring, decisive, take a chance--give people like me something to vote for. Continue with this milquetoast bs and you'll not get us out to the polls. You need each and every vote you can get. Hammer the point in day after day.
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/29/2007 @ 5:09pm
but it didn't work for the romans and it didn't work for hitler
Posted by STUDLYGUY 06/29/2007 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person
this is pretty opaque. Gibbon you're not.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/29/2007 @ 5:22pm
6/27/2007
With the New Hampshire Presidential Primaries less than seven months away, the Democratic Primary has a clear front-runner, while the Republican Primary is still too close to call, according to a 7NEWS-Suffolk University poll.
Of likely Democratic voters, 37 percent said they support or lean to Hillary Clinton, 19 percent picked Barack Obama, while John Edwards and Bill Richardson each received 9 percent. Just 16 percent were undecided.
"Hillary Clinton clears the field and with only 16 percent undecided; it is unlikely that any of her announced opponents will catch her," said Suffolk University Political Research Center Director David Paleologos.
Younger voters favor Obama
Clinton's large lead over Obama is driven by an age gap, not a gender gap. Among younger voters (ages 18-45), Obama led Clinton, 26 percent-to-25 percent, but among older voters (ages 56 and over), Clinton trounced Obama, 47 percent-to-15 percent.
The Gore factor
The only obstacle for Clinton in the Democratic primary is Al Gore. Twenty-nine percent of Clinton voters would switch to Gore if he announced for president, and when all of the switches from other Democratic candidates were recalculated, Gore would defeat Clinton. In total, 32 percent of Democratic voters would support Gore over the candidate they are currently leaning toward.
http://www.suffolk.edu/20780.html
I do beleieve that's Al 32, Hillary 26...
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 6:22pm
"It's A Bird, It's A Plane … No, it's apparently Al Gore. At least in the eyes of the Draft Gore Committee, which has posted a video on YouTube, noted by the Rocky Mountain News, that lifts clips from the most recent "Superman" movie to compare the man who was nearly president to the Man of Steel. (Even if he's more like Superman's father, who warned of Krypton's imminent demise.)
But that's not all. This week in Iowa, the committee also launched a radio ad called "You Who" that contains calls from various people for him to pay attention to them and their desire that he run for president, according to the Des Moines Register. The ad says Gore is "right on Iraq, right on global warming, right for the 21st Century." The commercial is expected to go nationwide soon.
Gore has never completely ruled out a bid, but unlike certain other former senators from Tennessee, the former vice president hasn't personally done anything to suggest he's gearing up for a bid..."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/27/politics/ purehorserace/main2988583.shtml
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 6:44pm
http://www.cafepress.com/shopseekpeace/194872
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 6:53pm
a few books for hsuB impeachment
"The Case for Impeachment : The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" by Dave Lindorff, Barbara Olshansky. Solid arguments for impeachment in a very readable format. Highly recommended.
"United States v. George W. Bush et al." by Elizabeth de la Vega. A grand jury hears the case for fraud. Highly recommended.
"The Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. Insider account of globalization. Recommended
"The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens" (Paperback) By Elizabeth Holtzman, Cynthia L. Cooper (not yet reviewed)
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH by the Center for Constitutional Rights (Melville House).
"Fooled Again" - How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)" by Mark Crispin Miller
BUSHWHACKED by Fred Dungan, "takes a long, hard look at the Enron scandal, the very special relationship between Ken Lay and the Bush family, and how crony capitalism affects the average American."
"The 2007 Bush Cheney Impeachments" by Craig R. Leslie. A look back at impeachment from the perspective of a 10th grade civics exam in the year 2008.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/books/
Dean, John W. (2004). Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-00023-X.
Dean, John W. (2006). Conservatives without Conscience. Viking Adult. ISBN 0-670-03774-5.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 7:12pm
http://www.democrats.com/impeach
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 7:39pm
Associated Press - May 29, 2007 8:44 PM ET
DETROIT (AP) - Detroit Congressman John Conyers says he supports a national effort calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
But he stopped short today of pledging to take action to back it.
The veteran democratic lawmaker chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which would lead any impeachment hearings.
Conyers did say that he encourages nationwide efforts to build support for impeaching Bush.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=6583728&nav=0RbQ
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 7:56pm
"But he stopped short today of pledging to take action to back it."
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/29/2007 @ 7:56pm
Uh, ignore that part, right?
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 8:24pm
No, but you ignore all the rest of it don't you anti-impeachment advocate/hsuB lover/supporter of new cons/servicer of dic'tator philosophy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 8:48pm
Is it spooky how a lot of people are bringing up Nixon and watergate typre behavior...UUuhhmm, now Masky why do you not see the writing on the wall?
June 15, 2007
Leahy: Missing White House Emails Found, But Still Witheld From Congress
Filed under: Impeachment Evidence -- Angela @ 11:21 am Think Progress
In April, the White House claimed that "it had mishandled Republican Party-sponsored e-mail accounts used by nearly two dozen presidential aides, resulting in the loss of an undetermined number of e-mails concerning official White House business." They also acknowledged that some of the "missing" emails may be related to the U.S. attorney scandal.In an impassioned speech, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said at the time that the White House was lying and the emails could be recovered.
…"Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. This sounds like the Administration's version of 'the dog ate my homework.'"
…Today, during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Leahy revealed that the White House does indeed have the emails, but has yet to turn them over to Congress.
Now that their claim of "lost" emails has been proven false, the White House must turn them over to Congress. Claims of executive privilege are not sufficient to deny these emails to congressional investigators as the use of "Republican Party-sponsored" email addresses significantly undermines any claims to such privilege.
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=2185
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/14/leahy-emails
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 8:57pm
Oh and read the BS hsuB is feeding the Naval War College:
"On the benchmarks not related to legislation, they're doing better. Prime Minister Maliki promised to provide three brigades to support the operations in Baghdad -- and he did. Iraqi leaders promised to give military commanders the authority they need to carry out our plans, and for the most part, they have. In addition, Iraqis have helped reduce sectarian violence and established joint security stations. The Iraqi Ministry of Defense is working hard to improve its logistical capabilities. It's going to spend nearly $2 billion of its own funds this year to equip and modernize its forces.The Iraqi government appropriated $2 billion so their force can become more modern, so their force is more ready to take the fight to the enemy."
(Now-- where oh where did Iraq get 2 billion dollars?)
"And the PRT in Ninewah has created more than 1,000 jobs through infrastructure projects that range from renovating a hospital to paving roads to building a new soccer field. This bottom-up approach to reconciliation and reconstruction is not headline-grabbing. You don't read a lot about it. But it is making a difference in the lives of Iraqi citizens, it is ongoing, and we need to make sure it continues.
We are also encouraged by the way Iraqis are responding to atrocities intended to inflame passions and provoke reprisals. In early 2006 -- things were going fine in 2005. You might remember at the end, we had an election where 12 million people showed up, an astonishing moment for the Middle East. And I frankly wasn't surprised, because I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe everybody wants to be free. That's what I believe. (Applause.)"
(12 million voters but only a little over 1000 got jobs... estimates are over 700 times that many have been killed and hsuB wants it publisized!)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/ 20070628-14.html
Impeachment will mercifully put him out of his and our misery.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 9:32pm
hsuB runs around lying about the success in Iraq, how things are looking. And hsuB keeps repeat we're fighting al Geada there! And to hsuB the more of our troops that die-- the more things are looking up!! Thus the biggest reason to impeach hsuB/cHeney admin NOW is to stop the war:
Iraq Ambush Caps Bloodiest Months for US
ROBERT H. REID | June 29, 2007 08:44 PM EST |
BAGHDAD -- A huge bomb explosion followed by a hail of gunfire and grenades killed five U.S. soldiers, the military said Friday. The attack climaxed the deadliest three-month period for the Americans since the war began.
Seven soldiers were wounded in the attack Thursday in the Rasheed district, a mixed Sunni-Shiite area of southern Baghdad where U.S.-led forces recently stepped up pressure on extremists. The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad suggested the ambush could be part of an escalating backlash by Sunni insurgents.
Those deaths brought to 99 the number of U.S. troops killed this month, according to an Associated Press count. The toll for the past three months _ 329 _ made it the deadliest quarter for U.S. troops in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. That surpasses the 316 soldiers killed during November 2004 to January 2005.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070629/iraq/
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 9:42pm
U.N. Ends Iraq Weapons Monitoring
EDITH M. LEDERER | June 29, 2007 05:38 PM EST |
UNITED NATIONS -- More than four years after Saddam Hussein's ouster, the Security Council voted Friday to shut down the U.N. inspection bodies that helped uncover his illegal weapons programs but were then banned from Iraq by the United States.
XXXxxxXXXXxxxXXXXxxxXXXxxxXXxx
Supreme Court to Review Guantanamo Cases
PETE YOST | June 29, 2007 08:28 PM EST |
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can use federal courts to challenge their confinement, reversing an April decision not to hear arguments on the issue.
The unusual turnabout was announced without comment from justices who had twice before issued rulings critical of the way the Bush administration was handling detainees. Arguments are expected in the fall.
There was no indication why the justices changed course from three months ago, but lawyers for the prisoners pointed to intervening events as having changed the complexion of the long-running controversy.
"The processes the government put in place are a sham," Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said after the Supreme Court's decision to take the detainees' cases. Ratner's group has been seeking court access for the detainees since 2002.
The cases are Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/29/2007 @ 9:56pm
"Maybe we should ignore the opinions of those with their heads firmly ensconced in their asses?"
Posted by MALCONTENT 06/29/2007 @ 3:09pm
Good question Eric. In fact I do. After reading them of course
In more genteel terms I was thinking that that repository was probably what you basket weavers were using in an attempt to keep your brains warm.
For those who don't choose that sort of therapy it is obvious that Posner was not addressing the effectiveness of torture as a means of obtaining intelligence but rather the broader question of whether or not the US Constitution was a hindrance in legally dealing with contemporary terrorism.
I accept that it is always hard for the obsessed to distinguish between things that differ but as our most famous bushranger, Ned Kelly, reportedly said just before his executioner pulled the lever "That's life". He was Irish.
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/29/2007 @ 10:18pm
Yes, the next logical action should be contempt of Congress, but that is not going to stop the arrogant Bushluburton administration. Congress needs to take the ultimate course of action, impeachment.
http://indefatigable-indolence.org/blog1/?p=142
Posted by waynefrost at 06/29/2007 @ 10:22pm
don't you anti-impeachment advocate/hsuB lover/supporter of new cons/servicer of dic'tator philosophy.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/29/2007 @ 8:48pm
Yeah, HSUB....just like Barack Obama, David Corn, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, George Miller, Rahm Emmanuel, Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy.
But hey...YOU've got books and online polls and websites and Bush's bad poll numbers to bring about impeachment!
All those guys (less Corn) are just the leadership of Congress...pfffft! Like THEY matter in an impeachment!
Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 10:42pm
Posner is an ass, as is our resident Oz. the constitution held up fine during countless wars. terrorism is a minor issue compared to tens if not hundred thousand perished in one day in real wars. what have the terrorists accomplished? very little. don't believe the hype.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/29/2007 @ 11:02pm
Last time I checked there are also a number of repubs in the congress. the low appro ratings of congress do not apply only to the dems. I realize that this is an inconvenient fact for apparatchiks such as Rio et al.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/30/2007 @ 08:04am
I would say that if congress did it's job and went after the felon in the WH, approval ratings would skyrocket.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2007 @ 08:55am
Posted by MASK 06/29/2007 @ 10:42pm
And who will you hide behind when they put it 'back on the table'-- as they will 'have to' to prove they actually are co-equal and relevant? As they once again make themselves relevant-- how will you?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/30/2007 @ 10:00am
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. June 22-24, 2007. N=1,029 adults nationwide.
"Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic Party is in control of Congress?" Half sample, MoE ± 4.5
Date________Good____Bad___Neither___Unsure
6/22-24/07____57 _____31______7_______5
5/4-6/07______51 _____37______9_______3
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/30/2007 @ 10:32am
...what have the terrorists accomplished? very little. don't believe the hype....
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/29/2007 @ 11:02pm
You REALLY NEED TO GET OUT MORE and see the effects of these `lowly' terrorists! Other than the obvious countermeasures, like x-ray scanners at airports (started long ago to thwart plane hijackers that younger folks today aren't used; except 9/11), most major buildings, not just Gov't buildings, today have incurred major expenses to `prevent' possible terrorist strikes. That is hundreds of billions `invested' plus the ongoing manpower to monitor/operate, etc...
You'd say it's all over-reactions and to some extent, since I do travel, I can't disagree entirely. However, I just know what the Lefts' reaction will be if something happened and many of the existing and costly measures were withdrawn. YOU WILL BE BLAMING AMERICA AND NOT THOSE `INCONSEQUENTIAL' TERRORISTS!
Posted by Happy at 06/30/2007 @ 4:42pm
Bush Republicans - Contempt of Congress, Contempt of Americans, Contempt of the Truth, Contempt of Integrity, Contempt of Decency, Contempt of Democracy, Contempt of the Republic Itself. They hate us because we are free. They had their chance, they did not tell the truth, we will.
Posted by conshame at 07/01/2007 @ 5:00pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/30/2007 @ 4:42pm | ignore this person
these are things we are doing. what I meant, what strategically have the terrorists, a tiny group, accomplished?
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/01/2007 @ 7:01pm
...what strategically have the terrorists, a tiny group, accomplished?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/01/2007 @ 7:01pm
For a tiny group, they have "strategically" made us, actually throughout the West and much of the globe, spend an enormous amount of money in a reactionary/preventive way....in addition to some unavoidable but likely wrongful `spying' of innocent Americans.
Not the least of this "tiny group"s strategic win, is the divide that exists between you, the "tiny group" side, and us, the "Big Problem" side. I'd much rather take all that defensive or screen-out money and go after them much harder by all means necessary while modifying current laws to reflect the extra-national nature of modern terrorism. I think the Islamic radicals themselves, call it the Global Jihad or something funky like that!
Posted by Happy at 07/01/2007 @ 8:59pm