Letters to the Editor
-
@RealName
RealName : you're simply mistaken that any significant number of people are this worked up.
That depends on what you mean by "significant" and what you mean by "worked up" but you'd have to define those terms in unusual ways to say THIS isn't a "significant" number of "worked up" people:
Gallup Poll. July 6-8, 2007
"As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?"
There Is Justification: 36%
There Is Not Justification: 62%
Unsure: 3%
-
The "Clinton did it" argument won't work here
An excerpt from the Oversight Committee's letter that Glenn cites (sorry for the maddening internal line breaks):
The letter states that you took this action because these documents contain "þurely internal e-mails between White House personnel."
These are not appropriate reasons for withholding the documents from the Committee.
During the Clinton Administration, the White House provided the Committee with thousands of
pages of internal White House e-mails, including e-mails between the Vice President and his
staff. The White House also provided the Committee with handwritten notes of White House
staff and internal White House memoranda, including memos to or from the White House
Counsel, Deputy White House Counsel, Associate White House Counsel, the Assistant to the
President and Deputy Chief of Staff, and the First Lady, among others.
That's right, during the many investigations of Clinton, he made available internal emails among White House staff, including those of the Vice President.
If the pardoning of Marc Rich justifies the commuting of Scooter Libby's sentence, why does the turning over of thousands of pages of internal documents and emails by Clinton result in the opposite by the Bush White House?
Let's hope the Committee does more than simply point out the inconsistency here and follows it up with real action.
-
Symbiosis
There's been a lot of discussion on this forum about how the press has been acting as a megaphone for the administration and that it does so in order to have continued access and that anybody who doesn't play the game is punished.
I'm wondering if the new-found ability to tell the truth (regarding the identity of Al-Qaeda in Iraq for instance) isn't the result of the realization that they don't need to play that game but only if they act in concert.
The Tillman story also represents a tremenous opportunity for the press to finally find its voice because it has all the elements present in most made-for-TV dramas. Heroes, obvious villians, not-so-obvious villians to add drama to the second hour, dishonest officials and heroic ordinary citizens. It's perfect!
-
@nabalzbbfr
Next time brush your teeth before commenting.
Your words smell like shit.
-
fear, fear itself
I'm embarrassed to ad even my fake name to this, but one of the reasons I really think we need to impeach is because I'm afraid to add my online data to an impeach.Cheney document for fear there will be some sort of retribution. Let's allow this may be paranoia, but people end up on those no-fly lists all the time, and lets not even talk about student loans that might suddenly expand. But under the the current let's spy laws, there is nothing to prevent people from starting to follow your emails, phone calls, right? You don't like Cheney--you must be a terrorist. You are either for us or against us.
-
Oh. So you KNEW.
The most obvious thing about this is the tacit admission by the executive branch that they KNEW about the Tillman lies. I'm not surprised that they knew, of course, since they are all about image, forget the substance. But it's interesting that they admit it so readily. Can't really call this a matter of national security, can we? And if it isn't that, then claiming executive privilege seems a tacit admission of a cover-up.
-
"Inherent" Contempt
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Conyers-Sanchez070711.pdf
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Wshington, DC 20515-6216July 11, 2007
BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. George Manning
Jones Day
1420 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 800
Atlanta, GA 30309-3053Dear Mr. Manning:
[ . . . ] A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives. [ . . . ]
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
ChairmanLinda T. Sánchez
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Lawcc: The Honorable Lamar S. Smith,
The Honorable Chris CannonFred Fielding isn't worried about 2 U.S.C. § 194.
His past experience, 25 years ago, fighting against oversight and defending against a contempt prosecution, was the very reason that White House hired Fred Fielding, six months ago.
But the Senate and House have another option. If and when "criminal contempt" fails, they can use "inherent" contempt authority to arrest, try, and imprison anybody who simply ignores a congressional subpoena.
The word subpoena comes from the Latin phrase "sub poena" which means "under penalty". The authority to issue a writ of subpoena inherently includes the authority to punish for contempt. Without a possibility of penalties, the word "subpoena" would be meaningless.
-
The part I don't understand
The Watergate-era Congress would not, and did not, put up with this kind of defiance. And the courts moved quickly then to strike down better privilege claims than these -- within only a few weeks, IIRC.
I understand why the pre-2006 Congress acquiesced in its own nullification -- party trumped their institutional interest.
But now the Dems control, and yet they are paper tigers, content to be Constitutional cuckolds.
Do they not understand what is happening? Has Stockholm Syndrome so utterly brainwashed them that they cheer their own superfluousness? Or (and this is perhaps the darkest possibility of all) are they biding their time until they get to drive the fascist juggernaut?
-
The question is not whether Bush, Cheney and Gonzales deserver impeachment
Of course they deserve impeachment. They have done more than enough to deserve impeachment.
All of the discussion around impeachment seems to be about 1) whether or not it is worth the effort, given how much it will detract attention and resources away from the real needs of the country and 2) whether or not it is politically expedient in terms of the likely failure to convict and the resulting impact on the 2008 elections.
I don't think it about it like this. I have only one thing on my mind.
Iran.
I believe, in fact I am convinced, that George Bush, Dick Cheney and others have already made up their minds to attack Iran and are completing preparations. I believe that George Bush is fully capable of ordering an attack on Iran without the prior knowledge or consent of Congress. I believe that the US public will not know an attack on Iran has occurred until after the fact -- in other words, until it is too late to stop a war with Iran.
Until last week, everything was in place for a war on Iran except the provocation. Now it can be argued that Lieberman and Biden provided formal consent to a war with Iran by including an amendment to the Senate defense spending bill accusing Iran of funding, training and arming Iraqi militias who "are responsible for the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces”. In other words, accusing Iran of committing an act of war against the US. That vote passed unanimously in the Senate, 97 - 0. This occurred only a few days ago.
There is a certain logic behind a war on Iran.
Iran already has strong oil ties with Europe and Asia. The major oil producers (the Middle East, Russia, and Latin America) are already shifting alliances away from the US and in the direction of Asia and Europe.
With the invasion of Iraq, the US gambled on hegemony in the Middle East and lost. An attack on Iran would be equivalent to a gambler's doubling up on a bet when the gambler is already too far in the hole to pay his (or her) existing losses. It is a desperate act, made by someone who has nothing else to lose.
Last week's Senate vote said everything we need to know about the Democrats likely response to an attack on Iran. They would scream at the tops of their lungs for the sake of the media and then they would fall in line with everyone else because, in times of war, the President is the Commander in Chief and to do anything else would be unpatriotic.
That is why I think it is imperative that we begin impeachment proceedings on Bush and Cheney immediately. The deserve it for the crimes they have committed and they crimes they are determined to commit.
And it could save 65 million innocent people from another criminal war of aggression by the US.