Bush's High Crimes ......

The Nation (Jan 9-16, 06) leads with an editorial on the spy scandal:

"Choosing his words carefully, George W. Bush all but accused critics of his extralegal warrentless wiretaps of giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda: 'It was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.' If so, the ranks of the treasonousnow includes leaders of the President's own party, and the New York Times's revelations of illegal wiretaps foretell an earthquake. Senator Lindsey Graham, last seen carrying gallons of water for the White House on the status of Guantanamo prisoners, will have nothing to do with Bush's end run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: 'Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process,' he said flatly. An infuriated Arlen Specter .... declared the President's domestic spying 'inexcusable ... clearly and categorically wrong' and plans hearings.

"For the generations who came of age after the mid-1970s, it is worth recalling why warrentless domestic surveillance so shocks the political system. It needs to be repeated that the same arguments cited by Bush -- inherent presidential power and national security -- sustained the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr., unleashed illegal CIA domestic spying and generated FBI files on thousands of American dissidents. It needs to be repeated that in 1974, the articles of impeachment against Richard nixon included abuse of presidential power based on warrentless wiretaps and illegal surveillance. It needs to be repeated that a few months later, presidential aides named Cheney and Rumsfeld labored mightily to secure President Ford's veto of the Freedom of Information Act, in an unsuccessful attempt to turn back post-Watergate restrictions on homegrown spying and government secrecy. ....

"...And given the palpable outrage among Republicans as well as Democrats at the President's contempt for basic constitutional law, is it possible to imagine illegal wiretaps leading to the final undoing of the Bush presidency?" (page 3)

From TruthOut:


Representatives Johns Conyers and John Lewis and Senator Barbara Boxer are talking, in public, about impeachment now...

As more constitutional scholars, members of Congress, pundits, and American citizens talk about the grounds for impeachment, and examine the record, the drumbeat can only get louder...

There is even a PAC, called ImpeachPAC, which has raised $40,000 to support any member of Congress willing to support impeachment. The group points to a Zogby poll that shows 53 percent of Americans support impeachment if it can be proved that Bush lied about Iraq.

more at http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122705Q.shtml

this is the best part...

"which has raised $40,000 to support any member of Congress willing to support impeachment"

Democrat, Republican, Independent; they all should be supported now for this dangerous challenge if they are willing to step up.

I think we will get US a 'real' impeachment sometime this year, not a dog and pony show like the last one.

From James Bamford's "A Pretext for War" (pages 358-361):

"In addition to looking for WMD, NSA also played a large role in the Bush administration's efforts to spy on the United Nation's weapons inspectors and pressure undecided members of the UN Security Council to vote in favor of its go-to-war resolution. .... Among those high on the NSA's list was Hans Blix, the chief of the Iraqi weapons inspectors. He had previously served at the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Discovering the bugging operation in the run-up to the war, he labeled it 'disgusting.' Blix said: 'You are cooperating with people who sit across the desk one day if the next they are listening to you, itis an unpleasant feeling.' .... Blix suspected that the NSA was monitoring his secure fax and had deciphered his encryption algorithm. ..."

There is much more. I recommend DUers buy or borrow Bamford's books, "A Pretext for War," and "The Puzzle Palace," which the NSA tried to suppress.

of US Citizens in America illegal....what about doing that to non-citizens who are diplomats at the UN? I'm finding hard to believe that with all the diplomatic rules and rights given (ie. diplomatic immunity) and other agreements that this is legal. And if its not outright banned or illegal, it seems that its atleast a "gentlemen's agreement" that one doesn't do this....but I guess we all know Georgie is no Gentlemen, now do we? :eyes:

The implications and ramifications of illegal wiretapping affect, not only Americans' civil liberties, but prosecutions of suspected terrorists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=8778e8e441c81c90&hp&ex=1135746000&partner=homepage

That's amazing, IMO.

Peace.

The right wing constantly demonizes the left, and yet when bush does something egregious, the first thing they do is point to something they believe Carter or especially Clinton did which parallels the actions of bush, as justification for bush doing it.

Now that the "Carter and Clinton did it" argument has proven worthless, the right wing has reverted to supporting bush committing clearly impeachable acts on his own authority because they "trust" him to do the right thing for America. Why don't they all just stand up and say, "If it was good enough for Nixon and Hoover, it's good enough for bush"? Because that's all bush is, a composite of Nixon and Hoover and McCarthy and everything that was ever rotten and shameful about America.

The right wing needs to admit that they do not believe in the rule of law, as long as it's someone else's ox getting gored.

who just pulled you over for speeding that it's
okay because the other cars were doing it.

A classic excuse that only a crook or an idiot would use.
I wouldn't expect any more from Bush - just more
childish argument from a dimwit "evil-doer".

... the other cars weren't speeding.

But you're right, it's a classic excuse, and one which is very frequently used by children who don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I especially loved this part:

"If it was good enough for Nixon and Hoover, it's good enough for bush"? Because that's all bush is, a composite of Nixon and Hoover and McCarthy and everything that was ever rotten and shameful about America.

Well said.

Smart people are starting to notice.



Maybe good ol' Bob Byrd will get some in Congress to notice.



Think! We live in a time when a newspaper in Chile has to remind America of the dangers of a CIA-induced dictatorship!

This isn't ironic. It's tragic.

You've known that a long time, H20 Man.

Thank you for giving a damn, seeking the Truth, making sense of the chaos and then telling it like it is.

:kick:

to Be Uphill Battle" --NY Times 12-26-05 page A6

"It was a reminder that Ms. Hughes's job -- to improve the image of the United States and expand support for its policies abroad -- is an uphill battle. A poll by the Pew Research Center this year found that the United States remained 'broadly disliked' not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe and Asia."

Congressional vacation continues. I can't wait for them to get back to business. I fear the passage of time. The media has already seemed to move on.

but I wonder how much of the senatorial outrage is due to the fact that they realize that they may have been spied on and that surveillance was on them? There was a lot of water carrying done, by more than just Graham, when it was other people who were being affected. Now they're finally looking up and seeing their power eroded with their, up to now, compliance and that being republicans didn't necessarily protect them from "dirty tricks". I wonder what the WH file on McCain looks like? Maybe they too will now be happy to see Rove frogmarched.

fascinating about recent discussions on DU regarding the possibility of "impeachment" is the debates about would it be possible to even consider a House investigation of the executive office? Some say that it would require a significant change in the make-up .... in terms of democrats versus republicans; others point out that there were plenty of republicans in the early '70s that turned on Nixon; and still others say that the elected leaders then were of a superior quality than those of today. Baloney. They were -- just as today -- a collection of mainly snakes, weasals, racists, and petty criminals who prostituted themselves with glee. Were they "superior," one would find it hard to explain the difficulty in getting civil rights legislation passed; or explaining why RFK was despised for telling the truth about LBJ; or explaining the funding of the destruction of brown-skinned people in southeast Asia, red-skinned people in the Black Hills, and black-skinned people in Watts. This country was out of control, and those who offered a sane form of leadership were executed publicly, in Dallas, Harlem, Memphis, and LA.

I like Senator Byrd. I often quote from his wonderful book, "Losing America." But, as many of us know, he used to be a bad human being. One need only look at the speech he gave on the Senate floor on Friday, March 29, 1968 -- in which he gave a racist hate speech, aimed at Martin Luther King, Jr, and advocating denying King and his followers their basic Constitutional rights as American citizens. My point being that while there were a few honest Congressmen and Senators in the late '60s and early '70s, they were a tiny minority, marginalized by the majority.

What happened?

Nixon simply went too far. He began to violate everyone's Constitutional rights. He didn't limit it to some Black Panthers in Chicago, or AIM members occupying Paha Sapa, or socialists in NYC. He started spying on everyone, including his political enemies, as history shows. And a combination of things, from the average citizen turning against the war in Vietnam, to the dirty tricks against democrats, created a situation where these guys rose collectively to a higher level. They realized that it was their duty to protect something more important than their bank accounts and retirement funds. And that is the good potential that people have .... and one that the public needs to appeal to. The congressional leaders of today have the ability to rise to a higher station, and do the right thing.

and they deserve attention. I agree the outrage has got to grow and it can't be just we progressives devastated by how much license and corrosion has taken place. Graham, for example, has surprised me of late, and I can only suspect that the WH and the corruption of what his fellows have done is starting to eat away at him. I considered what happen about Anwar, a miracle. I thought it was a goner for sure this time. So totally depressing. And then, it was saved. It can be done and you're right, we don't need a dem majority. In fact it might be better for the health of the nation if the pugs took the lead in beginning to set things straight.

I spoke to a non political friend today and she said something about the government seriously unraveling. Perhaps they are seeing it too, and that if they are to survive they have to clean house.

I'm amazed that they continue to proclaim that they only illegally eavesdropped on "terrorists." HOW WOULD WE KNOW? That is the ENTIRE point. Unless we have checks and balances, i.e., court oversight, we simply have to take their word for it? I truly wonder if we will ever, or if any court will ever, get a look at the list of who was spied on. Can Congress demand that they turn it over?

I think that some of the information that has come out in the past week shows without any doubt that the administration went far beyond having the NSA spy on suspected terrorists. It appears that the NSA used methods that involved accessing information from several large communications "providers." More, it will be hard to separate this from the related expansions made by other intelligence agencies, which have monitored "anti-war" groups, etc, that hardly seem likely to be nests of Usama bin Laden supporters.

You may recall that our good friend Octafish and myself have had a few discussions over the summer about something known in the early 1970s as the "Huston Plan." The actual name was the "Domestic Intelligence Gathering Plan: Analysis and Strategy." A good source of information on this is James Bamford's "The Puzzle Palace," at the last 12-15 pages of chapter 6. It is worth finding out about, because the sad fact is that the Bush-Cheney administration has actually revived the Huston plan. It was illegal then, and it is illegal now.

Perhaps the most important question you raise regards if the White House has to turn over information on these things to anyone investigating possible crimes. That is a question that, I suspect, we will find our nation confronting again, just as it did in the Nixon years. Constitutional lawyers will make arguments supporting the president's right to claim "Executive Privilege." It is a complicated subject, but for the best source of information, read Arthur Schlesinger's "The Imperial Presidency." Other good sources are writings by Raoul Berger, from the Watergate era, including his book "Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems"; and even an earlier essay "Executive Privilege v Congressional Inquiry" from the UCLA Law Review, XII, p. 1077, from 1965.

I think the most accurate thing I can say is that if the House begins a serious investigation, stating from the giddy-up that they are examining potentially impeachable offenses, the administration has to both turn over requested documentation, and make officials available to testify. Any investigation that identifies a goal short of examining potentially impeachable offenses runs the risk of being met with far more "executive privilege" issues that the federal courts could rule in favor of Bush/Cheney on.

When he first entered the WH, the stinkin' rat did several things. He sealed all of his and his father's papers. And then proceeded to undo much of what Clinton had done. Can the next president do unto him? Can the papers be unsealed by executive order?

'It was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war.'

I watched about 20 seconds of the BS and turned it off, like I've been doing for 5 F-ing years.

Come on! How can anybody possibly buy any of this? Is the entire country so apathetic that they think this is okay? And what is the deal with Republicans? All I have to do is look at the dim-wit pResident and I want to vomit. How can they stomach him? Are they equally stupid? Has the entire right wing turned into a lot of vine-swinging monkeys who have no sense at all?

When? When? When?

will the majority of the American People get tired enough of this codswallop to impeach that lying little imp?

I'll be done ranting and raving in a couple weeks. It was evidently more shameful for someone to leak W's illegal wiretapping than it was to leak the identity of a covert CIA agent. The whole world is completely insane if we put up with this crap for another five minutes.

That's all I have to say about that.

:nuke:

keep on truckin' with them. Happy New Year LionHeart.

This is not a man who should be running the country -- he isn't fit to be mayor of a small town, never mind President of the United States. His moral compass is spinning wildly. We will never get honest government or honest answers from him. And most people seem oblivious to this.

Leaks are only wrong when they expose his shady machinations. When they endanger the safety of our covert agents that is perfectly okay, as long as it was Rove's idea to do the leaking.

Happy New Year to you, Me.
:hi:

Please visit these threads more frequently in 2006 than you did in 2005. We miss you, and promise not to even mention that you are a short-tempered, red-haired Irish-American. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I've even forgotten that Martha Mitchell used to get you ranting by putting up a bow-wow picture.

She said she and all of her lady friends "hate bush". This is quite remarkable coming from that group. I encouraged her to rant about him publicly, loudly and to never be afraid to speak out about his atrocities. I told her now is the time to impeach his ass and she agreed. :)

are losing the support of a growing number of republicans. That is, of course, why the White House is sending George on tour -- not because they care in the least what democrats think, but because republican support is slipping away.

we had dinner with friends and their elderly formerly republican parents. This gentleman in failing health and on oxygen was ranting about how he hated bush! He was arguing vehemently with his repuke ( think freeper here) son in law and he even said the "f" word he was so very worked up.

You are right, the repuke base is melting away and We are witnessing it! Now is the perfect time to impeach them all! They are extremely vulnerable.

.....And before the next "terra event".

that I know think that this administration has betrayed their party. That's a short step away from recognizing that they have betrayed the country. I think the NSA scandal, which will soon be recognized as involving other intelligence agencies, is reminding many republicans of an administration they withdrew their support from about 33 years ago.

The fact of the matter is, I love dogs. Just not weird ladies who gossip too much. But honestly, I kinda miss Martha -- I've got no one to pick on. No wonder you haven't seen me much this year. I say, bring Martha back and I'll be all over DU. We'll put Me. on it -- she will find Martha and lure her back.

So here is more ranting:

You know what really got to me, was that little snippet that was used for a sound bite all over the news on TV -- 'It was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war.'

I just see red whenever I picture that pathetic excuse for a pResident talking about how a leak is shameful -- when his staff routinely "leaks" information to the press that is damaging to people's careers and even to national security.

Everybody lies. But these folks lie and thousands of people are killed. Catch them lying and they will ruin you, even if it means risking the national security they are sworn to protect.

I've seen lots of comments on DU over the past couple years about how up is down, black is white, right is wrong, in the * administration. They've got it all backward. It is like Alice in Wonderland, with guns and bombs.

Maybe it will turn out like Alice in Wonderland did in the end -- it was all just a bad dream. We'll wake up and some perfectly normal human being will be in the White House and there won't have been wars in the Middle East over nothing and the government spying on boring people while they ignore important national security memos. The victims of Katrina will have gotten compassionate and timely aid, and the President of the United States will speak in complete, coherent sentences without smirking. The Vice President will not look like the Devil when he tries to smile and we will still be friends with our allies in Europe.

( O8)

I know. Not gonna happen.
;(
edited for spelling

More please in 2006. It's going to be a bumpy ride and we'll need some good, cogent rants. Right now, B***co thinks it's dodged another bullet. They've changed the storyline from what he did to who leaked. They're thinking he's going to get back to spending that political capital and 2006 is going to be hunky dory for him. They can't see the tornado heading their way. What they don't know is that you usu sally don't. It just gathers itself up and then all of a sudden flattens your house of cards while you're busy looking to see whose country you can destroy.

John Lennon said that, and your mini-rant reminded me of it. They are sometimes so busy scheming that they forget to cover their tracks and screw up. It will keep happening, and it will be too much for even the most apathetic American to put up with. The Democrats have been talking impeachment for awhile now -- let's see them act on it.

I'm watching Conyers to see if he puts his money where his mouth is.

Talk bubbling up about Syria and Iran being attacked at the first quarter of the new year. Will Americans stand up and say enough is enough or will they still buy the terra thing? Also keep in mind that there is talk the debt ceiling is going to have to be raised because all the greenbacks filling crony pockets is emptying the till.

Was mine a rant? Mini or otherwise? Ha, didn't even realize it. Guess I'll join you in a rant cocktail for the new year.

Maybe it will wake up the Repubs. If I were a betting person, I would bet *not* in a million years. They have justified everything from stolen elections to thousands being killed in the name of . . . oil, was it?

I don't know about you, but I'm "terra"fied.

Every time I think it can't possibly get worse, it does, Me. The Katrina debacle proved to us that * is so absorbed in his quest for oil and money that he cares nothing at all about the consequences of his actions. The only hope we have is that he will go so far that the American people will start screaming for impeachment. I know this. His place in history will not be that of a hero, defending his country against "evil doers" but that of a lying, bungling, selfish, callous, obtuse, war-mongering man who drove the country to ruin.

The situation in this beautiful country in the words of Lewis Carroll, is growing "Curiouser and curiouser!" And "The Incurious President" does not seem to notice. Neither do the majority of Americans.

Something has to break. It will, it is just a matter of time. I don't think we can count on the Republicans to boot this guy out of office, it will be the outrage of regular Americans like you and me. And our Democratic legislators will have to get off their ass and demand impeachment. If the Repubs can do it over a blow job, the Dems can do it over the growing list of atrocities in the * White House.

Keep praying for Dems like Conyers to be successful against *.

A DU thread with a petition to sign for Conyers.

Go for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5718723

Richard A. Clarke's new book, "The Scorpion's Gate" does the deed in fiction. Sometimes you can tell more truth through fiction.

Back to the WaterMan's post.

The question of how this Administration threatens the workings of a free press, a cornerstone of democracy, remains a central one. Every week brings new evidence of White House attempts to delegitimize the press's role as a watchdog of government abuse, an effective counter to virtually unchecked executive power.

Last month, for example, the Washington Post published Dana Priest's extraordinary report about the CIA's network of prisons in Eastern Europe for suspected terrorists. Priest's reporting helped push passage of a ban on the metastasizing use of torture. But, as with the New York Times, the Post acknowledged that it had acceded to government requests to withhold the names of the countries in which the black site prisons exist.
How many other cases are there of news outlets choosing to honor government requests for secrecy over the journalistic duty of informing the public about government abuse and wrongdoing?
Never has the need for an independent press been greater. Never has the need to know what is being done in our name been greater. As Bill Moyers said in an important speech delivered on the 20th anniversary of the National Security Archive, a dedicated band of truth-tellers, "...There has been nothing in our time like the Bush Administration's obsession with secrecy." Moyers added. "It's an old story: the greater the secrecy, the deeper the corruption."

Federation of American Scientists secrecy specialist Steven Aftergood bluntly says, "an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone unenumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, websites and official databases." This practice, Aftergood adds, "also accords neatly with the Bush Administration's preference for unchecked executive authority."

"Information is the oxygen of democracy," Aftergood rightly insists. This Administration is trying to cut off the supply. Journalists and media organizations must find a way to restore their role as effective watchdogs, as checks on an executive run amok.

It would be nice to see Bill Moyers and Phil Donahue leading the way on a cable network, to bring these points home to the sleepy heads.

:kick:

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

was battling in court and why he won .

The government broke the law with warrentless
date gathering.