Wiretapping: Impeachment Not Immunity

House "Majority" Leader Steny Hoyer doesn't understand the meaning of NO.

On March 14, we won a huge victory when the House voted 213-197 for a bill to strengthen FISA without providing immunity for Bush and the telcos who illegally spied on millions of Americans without a warrant. Thanks to your lobbying efforts - including over 58,000 petitions! - just six Bush Democrats voted for immunity.

Even Steny Hoyer voted against immunity. But Hoyer kept conspiring with Bush to sneak immunity through Congress when no one was watching. And on Friday, Hoyer quietly announced a new bill to provide retroactive immunity for past warrantless wiretapping and allow new wiretapping for six more years.

So it's time for us to tell Congress once again that we will not tolerate warrantless wiretapping by George Bush or any other President, and we demand full accountability for George Bush through impeachment. Our last wiretapping petition sent over 58,000 emails to Congress - let's see if we can double that number to over 100,000.

Wiretapping: Impeachment Not Immunity - Sign the Petition

http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/141

In between:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004774.php

Oh, for the halcyon days when the Bush administration saw fit to deny that it sought a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. Let's take a look at what senior administration officials said way back when, shall we?

President George W. Bush, April 13, 2004:

"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America."

then-U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, August 14, 2005:

"We do not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Our goal is to help Iraq stand on its own feet, to be able to look after its own security, and to do what we can to help achieve that goal."

Condoleezza Rice, April 4, 2006, quoted by Agence France-Presse (Via Nexis):

Rice would not say when all U.S. forces would return home and did not directly answer Rep. Steven Rothman, a Democrat, when he asked, "Will the bases be permanent or not?"

"I would think that people would tell you, `We're not seeking permanent bases really pretty much anywhere in the world these days.' We are, in fact, in the process of removing base structure from a lot of places," Rice replied.

Tony Snow, June 15, 2006:

Q Would you like to reaffirm what you said earlier today, that the U.S. wants no permanent bases in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think -- let me -- because -- can you define what a permanent base is?

Q No, I can't.

MR. SNOW: Well, then how can I get a question --

Q Except into infinity -- no, no, no, you're dancing around already.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not dancing around. I'm actually trying to get a specific question answered.

Q Okay, say flatly, does the United States want bases in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: It has bases in Iraq, and the United States will have bases -- look, the United States, Secretary Rice has said -- well, number one, it's premature to talk about how long they're going to be there. Number two, Ambassador Khalilzad has said we have no desire for permanent bases. Number three, when it comes to a permanent base, that is not the call of the United States. As you know, Iraq has a sovereign government. So the issue of --

Q It's about as sovereign as the President being able to go into Iraq and not even tell the President.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, obviously, Helen, you're preaching and not asking. Let's go to you.