BOOKS OF NOTE; Ron Suskind's The Way of the World

John Dean Confirms Suskind’s Book Focuses On Impeachable
Crimes

By: Nicole Belle on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008 at 2:00 PM - PDT

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Heather)

I don’t know that the revelations from Ron Suskind’s new book The Way of The World are truly bombshells, so much as confirmation of what we in the liberal blogosphere have always said: the Bush administration wanted to go to war in Iraq and were willing to do whatever they had to to sell it to the American people.

But what is key to me is that there is very little left to which people like Nancy Pelosi can hold on to claim that there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the White House. John Dean–no stranger to impeachment proceedings–has been saying that this administration is worse than Watergate for years. On Tuesday’s Countdown, he confirms that Suskind’s findings absolutely signal impeachable offenses on the part of the administration and why it is critical that Congress find their spines and pursue it:

OLBERMANN: The big picture question. As I‘ve been saying, you saw enough in Bush in malfeasance by the end of 2003 to have titled that book “Worse than Watergate.” Suskind says in his that just the Iraq part is worse than Watergate. Do you concur with his assessment?

DEAN: Well, I do and I base mine largely on the excessive secrecy which he has only added more detail and information about and the consequences of that secrecy. And, of course, in Watergate, nobody died as a result of Nixon‘s so-called abuses of power nor was anybody tortured. So, we‘re playing in a whole different field and on a different level. So, I think he is right, it is worse.

OLBERMANN: The devil‘s advocate question in this one, John, is-the Bush administration ends in six months, presumably-why is simply, you know, getting the shovel, the historical shovel out and covering this up with as much clean and sanctified dirt as we can not enough? Why is forgetting this man and his presidency not enough?

DEAN: Keith, I think it‘s more than a devil‘s advocate question. It really is the central question in the 2008 campaign. If we have another Republican administration, we‘re going to see more of the same that this sort of material that‘s revealed by Suskind.

Full transcripts below the fold, including Olbermann’s exclusive interview with author Suskind

In our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN: The book‘s assertions would obviously destroy deniability for the president and would constitute criminal wrongdoing worse than Watergate.

As noted by Mr. Suskind in his book, “Under a 1991 amendment to statutes that created CIA and that govern its actions. There is a passage that reads no covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

Suskind adding, “The operation created by the White House and passed to the CIA pertains to the White House‘s knowingly misusing an arm of the government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings.”

Let‘s turn now to Nixon White House counsel John Dean, author, of course, of “Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush” and a columnist for FindLaw.com.

John, always a pleasure. Thanks for your time tonight.

JOHN W. DEAN, FMR. NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Thank you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Before we broaden out, that CIA statute that he cited, is Suskind right, is the violation of that, (A), did it happen; (B), is that by itself an impeachable offense?

DEAN: Well, I think, if indeed it did happen, there are some real problems. I don‘t think people are looking at it too narrowly or Suskind is when I read his book. What happens when you tie that with a criminal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371, which nailed countless people in Watergate for misusing the agencies and departments of government-that‘s where they‘ve got a problem.

That‘s where Nixon had a problem for telling the CIA to block the FBI for part of the Watergate investigation. Yes, it was obstruction but it was also defrauding the government. This is their real problem with that statute. This may be why some of these people are having second thoughts about being on the record with Ron.

OLBERMANN: Well, once again, as we know, history repeats itself. Suskind has tapes. And the tie between Watergate and this is-is deniability, plausible deniability or the lack thereof. In your opinion, if this book is accurate, if the allegations are correct here, are the links clear enough about the president on the specific issue of knowing criminality?

DEAN: Well, what I‘ve read so far, no. It looks like Cheney has been very effective in setting up his deniability and always being the failsafe for Bush. And as they start waterboarding the vice president, which isn‘t too likely, he is the man that the trail ends right there, as it did with Scooter Libby, for example.

OLBERMANN: The big picture question. As I‘ve been saying, you saw enough in Bush in malfeasance by the end of 2003 to have titled that book “Worse than Watergate.” Suskind says in his that just the Iraq part is worse than Watergate. Do you concur with his assessment?

DEAN: Well, I do and I base mine largely on the excessive secrecy which he has only added more detail and information about and the consequences of that secrecy. And, of course, in Watergate, nobody died as a result of Nixon‘s so-called abuses of power nor was anybody tortured. So, we‘re playing in a whole different field and on a different level. So, I think he is right, it is worse.

OLBERMANN: The devil‘s advocate question in this one, John, is-the Bush administration ends in six months, presumably-why is simply, you know, getting the shovel, the historical shovel out and covering this up with as much clean and sanctified dirt as we can not enough? Why is forgetting this man and his presidency not enough?

DEAN: Keith, I think it‘s more than a devil‘s advocate question. It really is the central question in the 2008 campaign. If we have another Republican administration, we‘re going to see more of the same that this sort of material that‘s revealed by Suskind.

Those people have been well-implanted-as we learned from the testimony on the record and the inspector general‘s report of what‘s happening in the Department of Justice-this is really true throughout the government. These people are there, that mentality is there. And if there isn‘t a serious change of parties controlling the top of the government, we‘re going to see much more of this.

OLBERMANN: John Dean, the author of “Worse than Watergate” and “Broken Government,” giving his assessment of Ron Suskind‘s reporting tonight, an extraordinary thing as it is. Great thanks, as always, John.

DEAN: Thank you, Keith.

Koch proposes NY third party

Steven Malanga

Ed Koch’s Quixotic Quest

The former mayor proposes a third party in New York.

7 July 2008

Throughout his political career, whenever anyone called him a liberal, Ed Koch would always respond: “Yes, I’m a liberal, but with sanity.” The eventual mayor of New York City first demonstrated that sanity in the Democratic Party reform movement of the early 1960s, when a group of prestigious New Yorkers led by former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Senator Herbert Lehman booted the party regulars—the so-called “machine politicians” who had dominated the Democratic Party for decades—from power. As a young soldier in that movement, Koch ousted the head of Tammany Hall, Carmine DeSapio, from his position as Democratic district leader in Greenwich Village in a party primary.

Now, some 45 years later, Koch is calling for another reform movement, another injection of sanity into New York politics. In a recent radio commentary, Koch declared what most New Yorkers already know: their state government has become a laughingstock. In the last year and a half, the state’s two top elected officials, Governor Eliot Spitzer and Comptroller Alan Hevesi, were forced to resign. Meanwhile, the highest-ranking Republican in Albany, Joe Bruno, is retiring under the pressure of a federal investigation, while his Democratic counterpart, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, remains in thrall to special interests ranging from the trial bar to public-sector unions.

Facing this dismal scene, and in an attempt to dislodge the party regulars, Koch is calling for a new third party to run against both the Democratic and Republican machines that dominate Albany. He envisions such a party led by a small group of reform-minded New Yorkers of sufficient reputation to match the status of Roosevelt and Lehman in their day. Only such a noteworthy, nonpartisan group, bent on restoring democracy to the Empire State, could hope to garner enough attention to overcome the two major parties’ enormous and entrenched electoral advantage. It’s a quixotic idea, for sure. But to anyone who has watched the Democrats and Republicans thwart previous reform efforts—even as polls show that New Yorkers scorn their own government—it may be no more unrealistic than trying to change the two parties from within.

Koch knows that the entrenched interests that currently rule the state grew, ironically, out of the reform movement that he helped spark decades ago. One of that movement’s leaders, New York City mayor Robert Wagner, had turned to government employees as allies in his battle against the political machine. In return for their support, Wagner began granting them the right to organize into unions that could collectively bargain for benefits. Most political leaders had opposed public-sector unions in the past, reasoning that unlike the private sector—where unions might show some restraint, since demanding too much would price themselves and their companies out of business—government was a monopoly not subject to marketplace pressures.

Now granted the power of political organizations, the public-sector unions soon undermined the very reform movement that they helped spawn, becoming the 800-pound gorillas of state and local government. They used their organization to drive spending on pensions, salaries, and benefits and to punish politicians who dared defy them.

When the reform movement defeated the political machine, it left a power vacuum at the neighborhood level, where previously the clubs and district offices of groups like Tammany Hall had controlled politics—and had often delivered local services to residents. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted in a Commentary article at the time, “liberals are not neighborhood people.” The reformers didn’t replace the old clubs with new ones that served local interests. Into that void stepped a new kind of power, unanticipated at the time, but unleashed by the Johnson administration’s federal War on Poverty: the government-funded neighborhood activist or community organizer. The social-service groups formed by the activists became the voice of the people in many neighborhoods—and their leaders became politically powerful because they could deliver votes the way that a Tammany Hall district leader once did.

Soon, cadres of politicians in the state legislature and city councils owed their elections to the foot soldiers and organizational savvy of public-sector unions and government-funded social-service activists. It’s no surprise that the government these politicians have given us has been spendthrift and ineffective—constantly expanding salaries and pay for government workers, heavily funding social programs of dubious value that rarely seem to solve the problems they’re designed to address, and ensuring that other social programs, like Medicaid, are far more expansive and costly in New York than elsewhere. The consequence has been bad and expensive government, a double whammy for New Yorkers.

When you understand the roots of today’s dysfunction, you appreciate why it’s been so difficult to reform state politics, and why Koch’s idealistic vision of a new party born of reform-minded pols is appealing. To be successful, though, such a party would have to steer clear of issues that inevitably divide bipartisan coalitions, including social issues like abortion, and focus instead on reforming the mechanics of government to make it more democratic. That would mean ending the legislature’s control of redistricting and putting the power to draw political boundaries in the hands of nonpartisan panels, as other states have done. It would mean passing property-tax reform that offered some formula to control state spending, as well as reforms that prohibited politicians from making end runs around voters in order to put the state more heavily into debt. It would also mean limiting politicians’ ability to use the budgets of state authorities and agencies to pile up earmarks and award noncompetitive contracts to favored groups.

Who would join Koch in such a coalition? Among active politicians, there aren’t many who have fought the state’s new political machines and have the credibility or name recognition to form a party. On the Democratic side, one thinks of Nassau County executive Tom Suozzi, who unsuccessfully challenged Spitzer in the Democratic gubernatorial primary and recently headed up the commission studying property-tax reform. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has also shown a streak of independence early in his tenure as the state’s top lawyer. On the Republican side, there is, of course, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who battled often (and occasionally successfully) with the special interests that not only rule Albany but also hold enormous power in New York City. John Faso, who ran unsuccessfully against both Hevesi in 2002 and Spitzer in 2006, has always been a voice of sanity in Albany. Among independents, current New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s technocratic, businesslike approach to government would also fit well.

Of course, Giuliani and Koch have warred nastily in the past. Cuomo and Suozzi probably see Spitzer’s resignation as an opportunity for each of them to run for governor, which would hardly motivate them to undermine the Democratic Party. And there aren’t a lot of other choices in the state. It’s hard to imagine, for instance, that New York’s U.S. senators, who hold such power in Washington by virtue of their party position, would be eager to give up their Democratic affiliation and bolt to a new party.

In other words, Koch’s idea is impractical, unrealistic, and unworkable. And given the mess that is New York politics, it may still be the state’s best hope.

Steven Malanga is senior editor of City Journal and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is the author of The New New Left, a collection of his City Journal essays.

Hey! I like it !!

The Bilderberger QUEEN BEE, HiLIARy is being forced into retirement at long bloody last ..

It's Obama, stupid: Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid

On the slide: Hillary Clinton at a committee hearing on Capitol Hill. Political oblivion beckons if she fails to win big in Pennsylvania. Photograph: Getty

« Previous

« Previous

Next »

Next »

View Gallery

By Chris Stephen

in New York

DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.

Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.

Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.

"They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."

An appeal by both men for Democrats to unite behind Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, would have a powerful effect, and insiders say it is a question of when, rather than if, they act.

Obama has an almost unassailable lead in the battle for nomination delegates, and is closing the gap with Clinton in her last stronghold, Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22.

Clinton remains publicly defiant, insisting she will continue the battle with Obama all the way to the Democratic convention in August – when superdelegates, or party top brass, will have the chance to add their weight to primary votes.

But the party's top brass have concluded her further participation in the race can only harm the party as Republican nominee John McCain strives to take advantage of her increasingly bitter battle with Obama.

Both Carter and Gore occupy the rarefied position of elder statesmen – in addition to their White House past, both are winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, giving them additional gravitas to carry the party with them.

Neither of them is likely to object to the role of bringing down the curtain on Clinton. While neither man has formally endorsed either her or Obama, both have clashed in the past with the Clintons.

Gore blames his loss to George Bush in the 2000 presidential election on the impeachment of Clinton triggered by his White House affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Carter, who has carved out a successful career as an international mediator, is believed to detest the flashy style of the Clintons. He recently told an interviewer that his entire family are committed Obama supporters.

A number of options are being considered by the higher echelons of the Democrats, but they fall roughly into two categories. One is for Carter and Gore to go to Clinton privately and ask her to step down. The other is for both men to appear in public and endorse Obama – a move which would see a majority of superdelegates go with them.

The campaign to force Clinton to make an early exit is being masterminded in Congress, home to the most influential of the superdelegates. Senate Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called on superdelegates to hold an unofficial congress in early June to anoint a winner, rather than waiting for the convention in Denver.

Pelosi has drawn withering fire from the Clinton camp for saying that these superdelegates must follow the national vote, with Clinton insisting that they should "vote with their conscience".

Yet some in the Democratic elite are wary of moving too soon. Polls show that 30% of Clinton's supporters would vote for McCain if she fails to become the nominee. To close off Clinton's bid before millions have had the chance to vote risks causing the very split that officials are desperate to avoid.

But a loss to Obama, or even a single-digit victory, in Pennsylvania will seal Clinton's fate. Pennsylvania is the last big state left in the race, and the last chance for Clinton to claw back Obama's delegate lead. "If he (Obama] wins (Pennsylvania] flat out, I think the big foot will come down," a source said.

Anything less than a resounding victory by her will probably see the race choked off ahead of the final primaries on June 3.

In the 10 remaining primaries, only a catastrophic loss of support by Obama will see Clinton overcome his lead of 160 delegates.

She admits she has little chance of winning the public vote, and is basing her strategy on convincing party-appointed superdelegates that she is, in her own words, the more "electable" of the two candidates.

Clinton enjoys strong support among superdelegates, many from a party elite who worked for her husband Bill during his years in the White House. There are more than 350 superdelegates who have yet to show a preference, potentially enough to rub out Obama's lead and give the presidency to Clinton.

But historically, superdelegates have never gone against the public vote, and party insiders say they would face a revolt, or even riots, if they were to do so now.

Obama's campaign has been a phenomenon in American politics, bringing in record numbers of new voters and record funding, and few think the superdelegates would dare deny him victory if he wins the popular vote.

It would also invite the unedifying spectacle of a mostly white elite denying an African American candidate a chance for the presidency. "It would cause a scandal to do that," says one party official. "To turn around to the black community and say, 'You got the most votes, but no'? Unlikely."

Clinton insists she will see her campaign through to the final primaries in June, and then on to the national convention, where her supporters have powerful lobbies in the organising committees.

But a chain of events in the past two weeks has worked to undermine this strategy, pulling the rug from under her claim to be more experienced and better organised than Obama.

It began with her extraordinary suggestion that she braved sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, a statement contradicted by TV footage showing the event was peaceful.

There are suggestions that the long list of wealthy benefactors may be expecting favours to be returned once Hillary is in the White House, suggestions sharpened by the Clinton's refusal to release the list of donors to the William J. Clinton Presidential Library.

Such conflict-of-interest issues came into the open last week when it emerged that Clinton's chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, was lobbying for the Colombian government to secure a free trade agreement with America, despite Clinton's public opposition to such a deal. Penn stepped down, the second high-profile sacking of a campaign manager this year.

Together with reports that Clinton's money troubles have left her unable to pay event organisers and even the health insurance of her staff, the impression is of a campaign in trouble.

These issues have undermined Clinton's claim to be more "electable", with her own stormy campaign contrasting with the disciplined control of Obama's organisation.

Obama himself has refrained from criticism on these issues, his staff keen to portray their candidate as "presidential" and above the fray.

Conspiracy theorists among her opponents claim Clinton is prolonging the race not because she hopes to win, but to inflict such damage on the party that a weakened Obama loses to John McCain in November, allowing Clinton to have a second tilt at the nomination in four years' time.

For Clinton, defeat in the nomination process would mean consignment to the political wilderness.

Losing nominees rarely get a second chance to run, and although Clinton's seat as a New York senator seems safe, failure in the nomination process leaves her politically neutered.

Talk of a possible consolation prize, in awarding her the job of Senate Majority leader, has petered out with several more senior senators also coveting the job.

Meanwhile, Clinton's poll numbers continue to slide. Obama now leads her nationally by about 10 points, and a CNN poll in Pennsylvania showed him closing the once-yawning gap to just three points.

Should Clinton lose Pennsylvania, the defection of growing numbers of superdelegates from her to Obama could become a flood.

After Pennsylvania

Possible outcomes of the crucial Democrat primary of April 22.

1. Clinton wins big

A win of 20 points or more over Obama in Pennsylvania would keep Clinton's campaign alive. She would also have to replicate this result in the nine states still to vote, narrowing the gap with her rival and convincing the all-important party superdelegates to choose her as nominee.

2. Clinton wins small

A victory in single digits, in a state where Clinton was once 20 points ahead, would make little difference to Obama's lead. Yet a win is a win, and she would be likely to try to stay in the race until June, unless superdelegates stepped in.

3. Obama wins small

A single figure victory on Clinton's 'home turf' would cement Obama's claim to the nomination. Superdelegates would be likely to declare him the nominee before June.

4. Convincing win for Obama

A double-digit Obama victory would be the shock of the primary contest. It would be followed by a stampede of superdelegates rushing to be front of the queue to embrace him.

Obama forced to backtrack

DEMOCRAT Barack Obama last night conceded that comments he made about bitter working-class voters who "cling to guns or religion" were ill chosen, as he tried to stem a burst of complaints that could hurt his chances in upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania and Indiana.

"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he

said, at a campaign rally in Indiana.

As he tried to quell the furore, presidential rival Hillary Clinton hit him with one of her lengthiest and most pointed criticisms, saying: "Obama's remarks were elitist and out of touch."

At issue are comments Obama made privately at a fundraiser last Sunday. He explained his troubles winning over white, working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment to explain their frustrations."

The comments, posted on the Huffington Post political website, set off a storm of criticism and threatened to highlight an Obama Achilles' heel – the image that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant, aloof and carries himself with an air of superiority.

The full article contains 1711 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.

Last Updated: 12 April 2008 11:09 PM

Comments: ALL OF THEM KNEW ABOUT THE HOUSING BUBBLE - it was MSM worthy in May 2006 in Harper's magazine, front cover.

They allowed Hankie Poo into the US Treasury. '

The effects of military KeynesianISM are well known in DC circles.

Al Gore sucks.

John Dean is having Gore and Clinton do the dirty work for him and it was hinted that such would be the case in OpEd News . . . They do not want a repeat of the 1968 convention; they learned their lesson

Dick Morris already said that HiLIARy was OUT nearly three weeks ago.

The news of the Clinton scandals coming out would TANK the democRATic party forever.

She is a boob high on drugs - possibly afraid of WAR CRIMES prosecution herself as she was "SUCH A HELP" in Kosova, eh?

There is not ONE PROGRESSIVE Running in any democRATic race. NADA.

The circus continues. I often wonder how well orchestrated all this really is.

Hey! Bushikins admitted to TORTURE . why is impeachment still off the table?

Is Nancy Pelosi up for a cabinet job if she stays QUIET, or WHAT?

Yes, I cannot help but being delighted to see the end of HiLIARy's face as a candidate ..

NOw how do we dillute Zbig and his evil, evil influence?

Think Zbig wants a special prosecutor on TORTURE?

Does America start with a CLEAN SLATE? Who will be up for Attorney General? Who will break Cheney's hold on the department of energy?

What happens with the EPA with OBAMALAND?

Does native sovereignty get respected? LEONARD FREED AT LAST?

Stay tuned ...

Can I go home now? I don't fit in here ..
(and I am pretty damaged and won't fit in there either .. sad to say)
Why do I feel like crying still . with all this good news?

I read that OBAMA is pushing away his progressive California contingent - which is where the progressives LIVE; they deserted DC quite a long time ago.

Impeachment TOOLKIT: Why Impeachment

Why Impeachment?
http://impeachforpeacemarshall.org/mustimpeach.htm

Can't We Just Depend (or wait? after all, it's only 2 more years) On the Political Process?

Consider the following statements by the Democratic leadership:

"I know half your audience wants us to impeach the president…but it's not going to happen."

Howard Dean, November 8, 2006

"…Impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it,"

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) spokesman Brendan Daly
at weekly caucus meeting - Wednesday May 10, 2006

“I have said, and I say again, that impeachment is off the table.”

House Majority Leader In-Waiting Nancy Pelosi
Wednesday November 8, 2006

“So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.”

Rep. John Conyers Jr., Thursday, May 18, 2006;
The Washington Post Company

"I think there is an orderly and dignified way to find out what happened… And, if there was a legal violation there needs to be accountability... you can't put the cart before the horse, but I would not rule out any form of accountability.” That would include impeachment, Feingold told reporters.

Rep. Russ Feingold, January 8, 2006; Vermont Guardian

"I'm concerned about the abuses of executive power in the areas of torture and the areas of spying - and about how we're treating individuals in terms of the court systems."

"I don't think that's [impeachment] called for now."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, ABC’s “This Week”, Jan. 2006

Impeachment? "No. While we will vigorously exercise our oversight responsibilities, Democrats are interested in working to improve the lives of middle-class families, not tying up the House in endless investigations."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Chairman DCCC), Oct. 6, 2006, Chicago Sun Times

“?”

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.NY)

“?”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D.NY)

Then Consider The Following:

The Vice-President:: "I think it [a democratic mid-term election victory] will have some effect, perhaps…but the President has made clear… his objective is…victory in Iraq. And full speed ahead on that basis, and that's exactly what we're going to do. It may not be popular with the public. It doesn't matter, …we have to…do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office…’”

Q: If you're subpoenaed by the Democrats, would you go?

The Vice-President: “…probably not…constitutional officers…don't appear before the Congress.

Vice-President Richard Cheney, ABC News November 5, 2006

"the American people clearly were voting for change” …they "were not voting for anything less than a success in Iraq."

President George W. Bush, quoted by Condoleeza Rice

“Prepare(ing) to bomb Iran should be a top priority for the movement in the next two years…

Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office… We need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."

Joshua Muravchik; American Enterprise Institute Fellow
Wednesday, November 1, 2006

Comment:

It is neither my intention, nor my place, to tell you what to think but I believe that all the above information and representative statements demonstrate several things.

First, I think they show the Democrats are unwilling to ‘rock the boat’ to any extent beyond that necessary to achieve electoral victories and push a limited ‘bipartisan’ progressive agenda. To this end, and despite what I perceive as a veritable mountain of evidence of Bush’s & Cheney’s direct responsibility in crimes against the American people and Iraq - the nature and magnitude of which exceed the abuses of any prior administration - they are willing to ‘let bygones be bygones’, wipe their hands of the campaign grime, and get on with the ‘hard job of running the country’. Essentially, giving the Bush Administration’s a free ride for their crimes against the American and Iraqi peoples as they become lost in the ‘day to day’ of running the country. I may be wrong, perhaps their outrage is as deep as mine and is only concealed behind a political mask and their statements of moderation are only ‘politics’ to gain the necessary foothold from which to effect real change…but I doubt it. The recent midterm elections will be proven to not have been a “change in direction” only a change in drivers.

Second, unless Congress moves to impeach Bush and remove his Administration (unlikely at best despite the new Democratic majority - as I noted above), he will have more than two years in which to accomplish his agenda. He has been sufficiently forthcoming about the nature of that agenda that, based on his statements, his prior performance, and reasonable extrapolation one may reasonably believe that, before he leaves office, he intends to:

• Attack Iran, effect “Regime Change” there, and consolidate U.S. hegemony over the oil- & natural gas-rich regions of western-central Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, and Tajikistan which, despite many questionable governments and human rights violations, our government supports and overlooks its stated commitment to ‘spreading Democracy’) and the Mideast (Iraq and Iran). Our huge network of military bases throughout the region (including the Balkans) and the maintenance of our armed forces at ’Cold War’ levels serves no other useful purpose. Would the “new” House & Senate stop him? I don’t know. It is clear, however, that the Democrats do not have a single, unified, view on the issue capable of stopping him if necessary.
• Effect “Regime Change” in North Korea by continuing to deal in bad faith with the dysfunctional government of Kim Jung Il creating (as he did to Iraq and is currently doing with Iran) a ‘case’ for overthrowing that government by military force and against the wishes of the other nations in the region. Again, recent changes in Congress might not be sufficient to prevent him.
• Continue the repressive & regressive agenda of ultra-conservative right-wing Christianity (so-called “Christian Reconstructionism”) in the functions of our government with the further disenfranchisement of women, the denial of their reproductive freedom, and the destruction of the 1^st Amendment “wall” between Church & State begun before the November 2006 elections and which, despite having a simple majority, the Democrats could probably not push corrective legislation past a Presidential veto.
• Defend his attack on the fundamental liberties & rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from repeal or corrective legislation by use of the Presidential veto.

Of Concern in this respect:

The “Military Commission Act of 2006” (MCA 2006) which:

• Grants unprecedented and unchecked authority to the Executive Branch to label as "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain an overly broad range of people, including U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents inside the United States.
• Denies any right to independent judicial review of these detentions (loss of ‘Habeas Corpus‘).
• Eliminates accountability for past violations of the law & the Geneva Conventions.
• Authorizes the President, without accountability, to re-define the protections of the Geneva Conventions and to define what does, and does not, constitute torture.
• Permits the use of evidence obtained through coercion & torture and prevents the accused from knowing that evidence and challenging it…even in death penalty trials.
• Gives the Secretary of Defense authority to deviate from time-tested military justice standards for fair trials…at his whim, and without accountability.
• Creates crimes of “conspiracy” and “providing material support for terrorism”, the definitions of which are deliberately vague and may even include giving or reading this website!

The 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill which:

• On June 22, 2006, modified the Insurrection Act. As part of the 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order.
• The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws."
• The new law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."

“It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law.“

Sen. Patrick Leahy, Conference Report, Congressional Record, September 29, 2006

He will continue to ignore, and obstruct responding to, the only current threat to the ongoing survival of human society as we’ve known it - Global Warming - while continuing to reward fossil fuel energy mega-corporations with more ‘corporate welfare’ and an undeserved, excessive, voice in the energy affairs management of our nation and the world.

Continue to violate Federal law and our Constitutional rights through illegal surveillance by obstructing corrective legislation by use of the Presidential veto.

While the new Democratic majority may provide a new direction on some issues (Alternative Energy, Congressional Oversight, Global Warming, and Corporate Welfare as examples) there is no reason to believe they - as a Party - understand the inherent criminality of the American invasion of Iraq and the need to reverse it as quickly as humanly possible, that they understand that America is not the center of the Earth and that our national priorities must take a place in line the those of other nations - particularly where another nation’s natural resources are of interest, that our nationalistic foreign policy is - in large part - the root cause of the world’s antipathy toward us, or that they are any more willing to address the fundamental realignment of our national resources needed to meet the only true existential threat to mankind’s current civilization - Global Warming.

Third I believe that the Bush Administration is guilty of crimes that disqualify them from continuing to serve in office, disqualify them from representing our country to the world, and that failing to address those crimes makes those who ignore them complicit in them. I believe the allies were right to remove the Nazis from public office and punish them after WWII, that leaders of the Khmer Rouge were brought to trial in Cambodia for the mass murder of their own countrymen in furtherance of justice, that the International Criminal Court was right to try Slobodan Miloševic and other Serbian & Croatian human rights abusers for the genocidal murder of ethnic Albanians & Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, that Spain’s indictment of the past leaders of Guatemala’s government for the attempted genocide of the Mayan people is just, that South Africa’s ‘Truth & Reconciliation Commissions’ addressing the facts of the Apartheid were a good and healing thing, that the prosecution of leaders of the Hutu extremists who committed the Rwandan Genocide who have been tried and convicted in ICC-led courts was just, and that Chile’s revocation of Augusto Pinochet’s immunity for the crimes he committed as their leader 25 years ago is also just and that Saddam Hussain deserves to be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. I believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the remainder of the Bush Administration may be guilty of similar crimes against Iraq and, if so, they should not be allowed to lead or represent our nation - the issue of their prosecution and punishment for their crimes aside.

In order secure justice for those harmed, to prevent ongoing violations, and who knows what else more there seems, to me, only one immediate recourse: Impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

To delay is to invite disaster and delays justice and accountability.

IMPEACH! ...because they lied.

Click here to download a copy of my "Impeachment Handbill"

Please feel free to print it and copy it to hand out to your friends & other contacts. It is conveniently formatted for two-sided copying to get two handbills from each page.

Tee Shirt Detail (click on image to order one):

To View the "It's Worse Than You Think" teach-in conducted by
"The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime" on Oct. 30, 2006 Click here.

Enjoy the Dixie Chicks' "I'm Not Ready To Make Nice"
...neither am I!