New Facts Call Into Question DOJ Investigations Past and Present

By Andrew Kreig posted by Michael Collins

Four days before Connecticut’s Nora Dannehy was appointed to investigate the Bush administration’s U.S. attorney firing scandal, a team of lawyers she led was found to have illegally suppressed evidence in a major political corruption case.

This previously unreported fact from Dannehy’s past calls into question her entire national investigation. The revelation similarly compromises the pending investigation by her Connecticut colleague, John Durham, who since 2008 has been the nation’s special prosecutor for DOJ and CIA decision-making involving torture.

Here’s the story, which the Justice Integrity Project I lead just broke in Nieman Watchdog:

In September 2008, the Bush Justice Department appointed Connecticut career federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy to investigate allegations that Bush officials in 2006 illegally fired nine U.S. attorneys who wouldn’t politicize official corruption investigations.

But just four days before her appointment, a federal appeals court had ruled that a team of prosecutors led by Dannehy illegally suppressed evidence in a major political corruption case in Connecticut. The prosecutors’ misconduct was so serious that the court vacated seven of the eight convictions in the case.

WikiLeaks Video – The Greater Horror

Michael Collins

There they are, the people who brought you every bit of the action in the WikiLeaks video and all of the other horrors flowing from invasion of Iraq. Madeleine Albright (far right, above), former Clinton Secretary of State, is a good place to start. From 60 Minutes:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it. —60 Minutes (5/12/96)

An exhaustive study found that 227,000 children under five (table 13) died during the George H.W. Bush – Bill Clinton regime of total sanctions against Iraq from 1990 through 2000.

Reminder

Link

* Bush Accused of Tyranny and Murder at Impeachment Hearing  July 25, 2008
* The People, the Press, and the Case for Impeachment  July 29, 2008
* The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder:  An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi – Part 1  Aug. 8, 2008
* Bush, Manson, and the Media Blackout:  An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi – Part 2  Aug. 12, 2008
* White Paper Justifying Iraq War Written Three Months Before Intel Report Arrived  Aug. 25, 2008
* The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi.  A Review by Michael Collins *  Murder Trumps Torture Says Bugliosi   Apr. 9, 2009

Unfinished Business: Tasks Ignored During the Bush Reign of Horror

Unfinished Business

What’s so funny?   It must be an inside joke.   Image cc

Tasks Ignored During the Bush Reign of Horror

Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News

The last eight years can best be described as the illegitimate rule of deviant forces bent on enriching the few at the expense of the many.  Poverty is up, real income is flat for the majority of citizens while the elite have “super sized” their holdings with a callous disregard for the nation and economic realities.

The phantom “Yellow Brick Road” has come to an abrupt end through an expression of will by the people.  President-elect Obama won by a wide margin in the popular vote and an even wider margin in the Electoral College.  He is their choice.

What Obama promised matters.  What the people expect matters more.  What matters most is the crucial statement of the people.  This election was a resounding no vote on executive lying, misdirection, deception, fabrication, and non stop failures.  It was also a clear no vote on the unrestrained exercise of power used to attack individual rights promised in the Constitution and the willful neglect of the collective needs of citizens made manifest by their daily struggles.

This election was a clear statement by many who expressed their revulsion at the pervasive, mind numbing propaganda from the masters of deception (a problem that predates Bush by decades).  Citizens knew that we’d never find Bin Laden in Iraq.  But the propagandists managed to turn the majority opposition in both parties into an invasion with marginal support by using the “n” word – nuclear weapons of mass destruction.  When no weapons of mass destruction were found, opposition to the war returned to a solid majority and remained there.

The propagandists tried to tell us that the economy was doing just fine, growing by leaps and bounds.  Citizens noticed that there were few new jobs created, except by federal expansion to meet “security” needs.  They also noticed that the real levels of unemployment and inflation were crushing.

The propagandists told us that Wall Street provided a never ending stream of benefits that we’d all enjoy.  Citizens were wary and then outraged when the financial system collapsed into a free fall of corporate ruin infecting the entire economy.

When these fatally flawed entities begged for a bailout, citizens spoke in numbers and with intensity rarely if ever seen by Congress.  Prior to the first bailout bill, congressional offices received a torrent of calls and emails showing overwhelming opposition to corporate welfare.

On just this one occasion, Congress responded to the will of the people.  The bailout was narrowly defeated in the U.S. House of Representatives.  While it was passed a few days later, this statement left its mark.  The people were finally fed up.  They were willing to risk their own well being to see that the authors of the disaster were not rewarded.

There has been nothing but lies from start to finish during the eight year reign of horror with only a few brave politicians speaking truth to corrupt power.  They were ridiculed and marginalized as a reward for their bravery.

Now it’s over and there’s unfinished business that requires our attention.  This business includes the following and much more:

End the Iraq occupation.  Assign responsibility and consequences.  Put a stop the fantasies of empire and actions that will lead to more ruinous overseas adventures.

Care for the wounded.  Admit the losses and provide for healing.

Admit that the planet is in peril.  Acknowledge our role in causing the problem.   Accept leadership in solving it and get to work.

Revive the economy based on real products and services and make sure everyone does well.  End the looting by banks and other dubious enterprises and punish those responsible.

Rebuild the United States of America wherever needed.

Provide health care services to citizens and disregard the nonsense about not being able to afford it.  It’s only fair to ask  those who say it can’t be done to sacrifice their own health care until they find a solution.

A Solid Dose of Reality to Start:  The Political “Numbers Racket”

Image

We’ve seen the rapacious looting of the U. S. Treasury by banks and other corporations that have failed miserably.  In a state of panic, their Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, took the money we paid in taxes and gave it to these corporate failures.  There are few strings attached and little to no accountability for Paulson’s actions, a former Wall Street executive who has rewarded his old company, Goldman Sachs, with billions.

Since the bailout bill passed, he’s already given away $350 billion without any oversight and the bag man, the Federal Reserve, refuses to tell Congress any details about where the money went.

This is nothing new.  They’ve just “kicked it up” to a much higher level of theft.  It’s the latest in a series of betrayals by the “masters of the universe” who clam to produce the wonders of our economic system.

It’s been largely smoke and mirrors.  Citizens are right when they complain about exported jobs, free trade that punishes U.S. workers and businesses, and the difficulties of simply getting by in a rough economy.  At the same time, we are confounded and confused by the propagandists and their Matrix version of the economy which claims “it’s all good.”  It isn’t.  In fact, the economy is much worse than we’ve been told for decades.

Political adjustments to measures of unemployment began in the 1960’s followed by distortions of inflation shortly thereafter.  When a downturn occurred, the numbers were adjusted and distorted further as an obvious “opiate for the masses.”  It worked to keep interest rates low, spur housing booms, and even wilder schemes, while denying Social Security beneficiaries’ real adjustments in their payments.

This “numbers racket” also clouded common sense judgments by the public.  How bad can it be?  Look at those unemployment figures!  Maybe it’s just me?

If the numbers don’t fit, just adjust the assumptions, change the rules of the game, and create a parallel reality.  The first targets in the unreal representation of the economy were unemployment and inflation rates. The blue line represents the rate of inflation by the pre 1980’s standards.  No wonder times are tough.

The blue line represents a realistic rate of inflation.  
Shadow Government Statistics (Full size)

When Alan Greenspan, an architect of this change, said that we had conquered inflation, he was about as accurate and truthful as he was when he said that home equity lines and adjustable rate mortgages were a great way to take equity out of your home so you could put it in the stock market.

The blue line represents all of the unemployed.
Shadow Government Statistics (Full size)

Unemployment statistics were conveniently adjusted since the 1960’s when those seeking a job for more than a year were simply removed from the jobless figures.  There were still unemployed but their inconvenience to the propagandists was eliminated by “disappearing” them into the background of a shadow economy.

Kevin Phillips summed it up succinctly when he said:

“If Washington’s harping on weapons of mass destruction was essential to buoy public support for the invasion of Iraq, the use of deceptive statistics has played its own vital role in convincing many Americans that the U.S. economy is stronger, fairer, more productive, more dominant, and richer with opportunity than it actually is.”  Numbers Racket: Why the economy is worse than we know.  Harpers, May 2008.

How can we make rational judgments without a real picture of the world around us?

How can we judge leaders if they don’t have to answer for the reality that they create?

It’s time to take care of unfinished business.  As that process goes forward, whatever your priorities might be, it is important to see the pervasiveness and absolute necessity of the “official” lies for the liars and those they serve.

We need to seize the opportunity that we have as citizens to push through these fictions and create our own reality as we address the business left unfinished by those who promised us so much and delivered nothing but degradation and hardship.

END

Permission granted to reproduce this material in whole or part with acknowledgment of authorship, a link to this article, and acknowledgment of images as indicated.

White Paper Justifying Iraq War Written Three Months before Intel Report Arrived

White Paper Justifying Iraq War Written
Three Months before Intel Report Arrived

A war based on deception and fraud Worldpassion cc

National Security Archive Stunner

Michael Collins
Originally published in
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC

The National Security Archive released a report Friday Aug. 22, 2008 that sheds even more light on the premeditated lying and deception that took the United States to war in Iraq.   The findings are based on new evidence compiled by Dr. John Prados and published by the National Security Archive.  See “White Paper” Drafted before NIE even Requested , “Scoop” Independent News, Aug. 24, 2008.

Most notably, Prados shows the depth of the deception perpetrated against citizens and Congress regarding the alleged threat to U.S. security posed by Iraq. It had appeared that the White House rewrote the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and then issued that doctored report to Congress on Oct. 4, 2002.  Prados reveals convincing evidence that the Oct. 4 White Paper had already been written by July 2002.  He shows that it was only slightly altered after the final NIE arrived. This White Paper served as the basis for the war.

The unavoidable conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney White paper “justifying” the invasion was developed a full three months in advance of the intelligence data and analysis that should have served as the basis for that justification.  The National Security Archive summed it up succinctly:

“The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq,

“The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the “White Paper” ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.”  National Security Archive in “Scoop’ Independent News, August 24, 2008.

The seemingly endless war in Iraq has become a total disaster on multiple levels for all involved.  The awful toll in human deaths and casualties is largely ignored but real nevertheless.  Over 4,000 U.S. soldiers have been lost in battle and tens of thousands injured.  In excess of one million Iraqi civilians are dead due to civil strife unleashed by the invasion.  The U.S. Treasury is drained and the steep decline in respect for the United States around the world is just beginning to manifest.

The United States political establishment responds with collective denial on a scale that’s incomprehensible.  In the presidential campaign, the only sustained public commentary on the war comes from the Republican presidential candidate John McCain who makes the bizarre claim that U.S. is “surrendering” with victory in clear sight.  McCain touts the surge without noting that 4.0 million Iraqis are “displaced from their homes.”  Nearly ten percent of Iraq’s population is either dead or injured and there are 5.0 million Iraqi orphans.

This pathological view of victory claims the “surge’ is a success in the context of a devastated population in an obliterated nation lacking in the most essential supplies and services; a nation where death continues on a shopping spree

The report by Dr. Prados makes it clear that the executive branch was responsible for creating whatever information they found necessary to justify war and they did it by posing security threats from Iraq and demanding that intelligence briefers fill in the details

Summary of Findings by Prados, National Security Archive

“A recently declassified draft of the CIA’s October 2002 white paper on Iraqi WMD programs demonstrates that that (the White) paper long pre-dated the compilation of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi capabilities.

“Bush administration and the Tony Blair government began acting in concert to build support for an invasion of Iraq two to three months earlier than previously understood.

“A comparison of the CIA draft white paper with its publicly released edition shows that all the changes made were in the nature of strengthening its charges against Iraq by inserting additional alarming claims, in the manner of an advocacy, or public relations document.

“The draft and final papers show no evidence of intelligence analysis applied to the information contained.”  August 22, 2004

One Final Hope to Avoid a Tragic War

Ultimately, the White House had what it wanted by July 2002.  When the National Intelligence Estimate arrived from an intimidated intelligence community, there was still one hope of a rational outcome on the rush to war.  The NIE delivered to the White House on Oct. 1, 2002 noted that the one scenario in which Iraq would attack the United States involved a U.S. attack on Iraq that threatened Saddam Hussein’s survival.

The following is brutally simple.  The one way to cause the hypothesized (and erroneous) claims of Hussein’s intent to attack the United States is to go to war and threaten his regime.  Therefore, refraining from war was the best way to protect the United States.

“Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge.”  Key Judgments, National Intelligence Estimate, Oct. 2002

That was deleted entirely.  The July White Paper was “complete” and sent to Congress as the evidence justifying the invasion of Iraq.

In the most supreme of ironies, many members of Congress failed to even review the distorted White Paper before voting overwhelmingly to approve the invasion.

Is there any hope that this same legislative body can remedy the great wrong they helped create?  Is there anyone who believes that this or any future White House will move with the urgency necessary to end this war?  Will anyone ever be held to account for this series of premeditated deceptions?

END

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship, a link to the article and acknowledgment of any images or other material user.

See full report with links to primary evidence at Scoop Independent News

Michael Collins: The People, the Press and the Case for Impeachment

The People, the Press, and the Case for Impeachment

“When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence they were not worried about political will, how much time there was, or about any parties’ political future, they were just worried they were going to be hanged by the neck. But they did what was right. Now it is your time.”  Elliott Adams, President, Veterans for Peace, testimony July 25, 2008

House Justice Committee Hears Kucinich Resolution – Part 2

Michael Collins
Washington, DC

The July 25, 2008 House Committee on the Judiciary hearings focused on the Kucinich resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush. In his resolution, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) argues that Bush knew that the Iraqis had no weapons of mass destruction, yet claimed that they did in order to justify the March 2003 invasion. The “fraudulent misrepresentations,” as they’re referred to in the resolution, cost lives, compromised national security, and represented a clear abuse of constitutional power. The evidence supporting these claims is highly persuasive.

Congressional witnesses review their critique of the president. Representatives Kucinich (D-OH), Hinchey (D-NY), Miller (D-NC), and Jones (R-NC) Image: M. Collins cc

For the most part, the witness statements from House members and the panel of invited witnesses contain specific justifications for impeachment. The Kucinich resolution for impeachment, H. Res 1345, offers a concentrated body of evidence substantiating the charges and demonstrates the main charge in the resolution: the president knew that he was misrepresenting the facts about Iraq at the time he was doing it.

In the resolution, Rep. Kucinich lists corrections for each of the false assertions made by the president to justify the Iraq invasion. In addition, the resolution provides excerpted evidence and sources to support each correction of the president’s fabricated rationale.

The statements in single quotes in the Kucinich resolution text below are from the president’s justifications for war. From the resolution:

1. Iraq was not ‘continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability.’
2. Iraq was not ‘actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability.’
3. Iraq was not ‘continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States.’
4. Iraq did not have the ‘willingness to attack, the United States.’
5. Iraq had no connection with the attacks of 9/11 or with al-Qaida’s role in 9/11.
6. Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer to anyone.
7. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and therefore had no capability of launching a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or to provide them to international terrorists who would do so.
8. There was not a real risk of an ‘extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack’ because Iraq had no capability of attacking the United States.
9. The aforementioned evidence did not ‘justify the use of force by the United States to defend itself’ because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, or have the intention or capability of using the nonexistent WMDs against the United States.
10. Since there was no threat posed by Iraq to the United States, the enactment clause of the Senate Joint Resolution 45 was predicated on misstatements to Congress. H. Res. 1345 (alternate link)

The facts from that time don’t come close to justifying the use of force. As demonstrated in the resolution, the president’s case for war was based on “fraudulent representations made to Congress,” the military, and the citizens of the United States.

See the draft of H. Res. 1345 at AfterDowingStreet.Org for direct links to the primary sources used in the resolution. The Library of Congress (THOMAS) and this alternate site have the official versions of the resolution, modified somewhat from the draft.

This information and more has been known for years to many citizens, particularly those who actively work for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Hundreds of them waited hours to get a seat in the public hearing which accommodated less than twenty of those who had waited in line.

Citizens Share Their Wisdom – 5:00 am Early Responders on Capitol Hill

As it turned out, the earliest arrivals for the hearings were from the key states responsible for the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution, Virginia and Massachusetts, and the city in which they were developed, debated, and adopted, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Bill Perry and Sam Adams, two of the several representatives from Philadelphia’s Delaware Valley Veterans for America, were on also present just before 5:00 am, as well. Perry and Adams, Viet Nam veterans had just worked on “A Sea of Tombstones: The Cost of War” mourning the Iraq war dead. When asked about claims that impeachment might hurt national security, Perry said clearly, “We are national security” and pointed out that the war makes us more rather than less vulnerable as a nation. Adams was clear on the necessity for impeachment: “We have to do it so the next guy down the road won’t do the same thing.”

Image: Jack Semper Fi Kline
Philadelphia‘s Delaware Valley Veterans for America “A Sea of Tombstones” memorial to U.S. soldiers lost in Iraq. Independence Hall is in the background. It was the nation’s capitol for a time during the revolution and the building in which both the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were debated. The Liberty Bell is located nearby.

Rain Burroughs, Mary Genther-Carter, and Chris Dorsey of RVA4Peace got up very early and drove from Richmond, Virginia to Washington, DC for the impeachment hearings. They arrived before 5:00 am. When asked why impeach Bush this late in his term, Dorsey responded, “It’s never too late for accountability.” Burroughs had a special point to make by attending the hearings. Along with her seven year old daughter, she’d been removed from a 2007 Fourth of July celebration by Richmond police for displaying a sign containing the word “Impeach.” Genther-Carter was just glad to be there even though she needed to be back in Richmond for work in mid afternoon.

David Swanson, another Virginian, also arrived very early. Swanson has been a constant advocate for White House accountability, impeachment, and an end to the occupation of Iraq. As the head of AfterDowningStreet.Org, he provides and hosts much of the key information on the hearings, including videos of the July 25 hearings.

When asked what he’d say to those who said this is too late and a waste of time, Swanson was quick to respond stating that there are “many reasons why that’s absolute nonsense.” He pointed to the overwhelming proof that the reasons for the Iraq invasion were fabricated, the undeniable admissions concerning FISA violations, and asked, “What’s this second to?” Swanson also pointed out that there’s no need for a prolonged impeachment process since the proof is already in place and widely available.

Robert Feuer from Stockbridge, Massachusetts, made a point of arriving early to the impeachment hearing line. He’s campaigning hard against incumbent Rep. John Oliver (D-MA) in the Democratic primary for the Massachusetts 1st congressional district. A small town lawyer, Feuer is outraged that his representative has ignored the will of the people expressed at town hall meetings across the district. Oliver, he reports, admits that he’s fully aware that many towns have voted in favor of impeachment by huge margins but refuses to support the effort. Feuer hopes to replace Oliver and solve at least that problem.

It would have been impossible to keep Stuart Hutchison out of the capitol on the day of the hearings. He founded New Jersey Impeach Groups, one of the most active impeachment organizations in the country. He outlined his motivation for impeachment in no uncertain terms:

“The biggest threat to the security of the United States is not Osama bin Laden. The most severe threat’s not Iran or Musharraf or the Taliban in Afghanistan, and it’s not al-Qaeda. None of these has the power to defeat the United States, not one can undo American democracy. The USA does suffer a grave threat to its security, a clear and present danger to the future of every person in our country, and it’s led by Dick Cheney, George Bush, and the gang they put together who overthrew the government of the United States in November 2000.”

Press Coverage – General Indifference and Tepid Denial by the Dwindling Elite

The mainstream media continued to lag far behind everyday citizens by ignoring the big issues while ridiculing those who take the lead in addressing vital concerns.

Class Clown Dana Milbank of the Washington Post

Dana Milbank successfully defended his title as class clown of the Washington press corps in a column that was so divorced from reality one wonders if he even attended or watched the hearings. He began with this:

“It seems that we are hosting an anger management class,” Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas told his colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee yesterday morning.

“He had a point.” Washington Post, July 26, 2008

He continued by endorsing Republican committee member wise cracks and disparaging Chairman John Conyers (D-OH) handling of the event.

Milbank wrote a 2005 hit piece on Conyers in which he mocked the hearings held by the Michigan Democrat on the Downing Street Memo. Labeled “Secret and Personal – for UK Eyes,” the July, 2002 secret report by a British foreign policy aid described meetings with Bush-Cheney representatives which included plans for war based on political not security reasons.

“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

“It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin.

Matthew Rycroft, July 23, 2002, reported in the London TimesOnline, May 1, 2005

Milbank failed to note the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries suffered by U.S. soldiers. He missed the 1.0 million plus dead Iraqi civilians resulting from the civil strife caused by the invasion. And one wonders if he even knew about the 5.0 million Iraqi children orphaned by the war.

These highly relevant facts were an inconvenience to Milbank who brushed them aside for his humorous approach to the national tragedy enabled by gross violations of the Constitution and a total lack of common decency. The facts are also more than inconvenient for the paper that supports his tasteless humor, the Washington Post, which has so faithfully supported the aggressive and violent foreign policy.

Maybe Milbank and his editor should read their own poll on the public assessment of their man: “Nearly 6 in 10 — 58 percent — said they have doubts about Bush’s honesty, the first time in his presidency that more than half the country has questioned his personal integrity.” Washington Post, Nov. 4, 2004

The Paper that thought Judith Miller fit to print – New York Times

The New York Times didn’t think that the hearing was worth covering. A July 27 search of their news database, “newest first,” resulted in nothing for “John Conyers, Jr.” A similar search produced nothing since January 25, 2008 for “Kucinich.” It’s not hard to understand why The Times wants to avoid a hearing about “fraudulent representations” by the Bush, Cheney, etc. leading to death, destruction and national bankruptcy. They were full participants in the national disaster through their relentless barrage of propaganda offered up by their once star reporter, Judith Miller.

At least the Times had the decency to avoid the wildly inappropriate humor and flippant mockery that the Post endorsed from columnist Milbank.

Associated Press – Los Angeles Times

The AP article showed a degree of rationality until the reporter tipped his hand. After sparse coverage of the panel of distinguished witnesses, their choice for mockery by proxy emerged:

“One witness, law professor Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University, said he was “astonished at the mood in this room.”

“The tone of these deliberations is slightly demented,” Rabkin said.

“You should all remind yourselves that the rest of the country is not necessarily in this same bubble in which people think it is reasonable to describe the president as if he were Caligula.” Associated Press, July 26, 2008

Did the Associated Press know that law professor and climate change skeptic Rabkin wrote an article called “Gitmo detainees are not ordinary felons” in which he minimizes abuse there and fails to mention extreme punishments and torture? We have to wonder if Rabkin ever read this or this about Guantanamo or looked at the photographs from Abu Ghraib.

The AP reporter chose to end the article with academic Rabkin’s implication that supporting impeachment is the equivalent of seeing Bush “as if he were Caligula.” Most members of a high school debate team would easily note that this statement involves at least two logical fallacies – “poisoning the well” and a “false dilemma.” In addition, it’s simply wrong. So much for AP sourcing.

From this review of the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Associated Press, it’s clear that motivated citizens are more informed and generate much better analysis than the press.

The People Know

A clear majority of citizens knew that the war in Iraq was a bad idea from the start. In mid December 2002, a majority of Republicans and Democrats opposed an invasion prior to the completion of thorough weapons inspections. Citizens are clear that Bush is one of the very worst presidents in our history. They never did and never will abide by the viscous torture administered at the order of the Bush-Cheney zealots. And they’re not likely to “close this chapter and move on” without a full investigation the events leading to war and those responsible.

In fact, it’s reasonable to predict that the majority of citizens will be adamant in their demands for answers to the following questions.

How were the White House and many in the top tier of the media able to spread “fraudulent misrepresentations” about Iraq?

Given the deliberate misrepresentations that justified the war, isn’t the president directly responsible for the tens of thousands lost and injured U.S. soldiers and the over 1.0 million Iraqi citizens killed in civil strife? What responsibility do his subordinates and the enablers in the media bear for the deaths and injuries?

How can they justify a $3.0 trillion dollars for a war based on lies and who benefited?

How could the president and his supporters conduct a war against people who supposedly “hate our freedoms” by taking away those freedoms as quickly as possible? What motivation was there to remove fundamental constitutional guarantees?

How do citizens make sure that open hearings take place and that justice follows?

The July 25, 2008 congressional hearing was just the beginning.

“The decision before us is whether to demand accountability for one of the gravest injustices imaginable.

“The decision before us is whether Congress will stand up to tell future Presidents that America has seen the last of these injustices, not the first.

“I believe the choice is clear.

“I ask this committee to think, and then to act, in order to enable this Congress to right a very great wrong and to hold accountable those who have misled this Nation.”

The Honorable Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), July 25th, 2008

The citizens of the United States face the same challenge. Now it’s our turn.

END

Note: Mr. Bugliosi used the figure of 100,000 dead U.S. soldiers and Iraqis. I use a much higher figure. Mr. Bugliosi is, no doubt, referring to official death count of the military plus the specific death reporting process operated by Iraq Body Count. This formalized process is the type of evidence better suited for a court of law. The 1.0 million plus dead Iraqi civilians comes from two surveys, one by Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the other, a several times updated survey research project by the Opinion Research Business (ORB), a polling firm in Great Britain. These well executed survey research efforts are best used to understand the actual impact of the war. The two figures are not contradictory. They represent different levels of data gathering.

See AfterDowningStreet.Org for general impeachment resources and the House Committee on the Judiciary web site for this hearing. See the House database for the current copy of H. Res. 1345, the impeachment resolution and track it at GovTrack.us. See the hearings on video at AfterDowingStreet.Org.

Permission granted to reproduce in part of whole with attribution of authorship, a link to this article, and acknowledgment of images.

Bush – Clinton 2008

Ambition Gone Wild or the New “New World Order”
Poised in the Wings?

Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, D.C.

The 2008 presidential primary has been a close race. It should be over by now except for the shouting. There is “virtually no chance” that Hillary Clinton can claim the delegates needed for nomination. We should be witnessing Barack Obama’s triumphal march to the Democratic convention in August.

But much like Michael Myers in Haloween, Hillary Clinton has picked herself up off the canvas every time she seemed down for the count. She lost Iowa, reanimated her campaign by winning New Hampshire, but then failed in 9 of the next 23 official state contests. At the same time, spectacular turnout increases showed that the Obama movement was pulling Democrats to the primaries in record numbers.

Clinton’s Ohio win was negated losing the delegate race in Texas while splitting the popular vote. Before these two contests, Hillary needed to win 60% to 75% of remaining delegates. She failed to meet that goal in both Texas and Ohio. The word went out – there is no way you can win. Only a scorched earth campaign offered any hope for Hillary.

Yet Hillary will not stop despite the virtually insurmountable odds, the recent high profile endorsements for Obama, and her overwhelming rejection by 61% of the voters in both Mississippi and Wyoming just after the Ohio win.

The vulgarity of her campaign created rare agreement by some in the mainstream and alternate media. Clinton’s tactics are particularly vicious and her charges and sound bites appear to be an “intelligent design” for the Committee to Elect John McCain President.

Two Vipers at Obama’s Throat

The nastiness started when the Clinton campaign chair in New Hampshire wondered why the media wasn’t focusing on alleged drug use by Obama in his youth. Clinton was forced to fire the operative and then suffer through the humiliation of a public apology to Obama.

There were other cheap shots by Clinton’s campaign, all of which seemed within the realm of the typical nasty campaign. Then these weapons of mass distraction were launched.

“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House and Senator Obama has a speech that he gave in 2002.” Sen. Hillary Clinton Mar. 3. Is she endorsing McCain? Better yet, is it possible to interpret this statement as anything other than as a McCain endorsement?

“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves, who’s right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.” Bill Clinton, Mar. 21 North Carolina

The former president riffed on the Rev. Wright controversy. What was the former president’s reference for “all this other stuff”? Obama? Clinton’s cheap shot had a clear target; Obama’s patriotism. The reference to “our politics” is interesting. How many fingers would it take to count the members of that club?

At the moment he became a viable contender, Obama had two vipers at his throat. Their message was simple: he’s less qualified to lead than McCain and he doesn’t love his country.

Why is Hillary doing this if she can’t win the nomination? What’s husband Bill up to?

There are two theories that capture the imagination.

Entitlement

The first is a conventional explanation that claims Clinton knows that she’s lost the nomination. By continuing to tear down Obama, Hillary helps assure a McCain victory and all that implies (the “100 years war” policy). She’s then positioned to take the nomination and the White House in 2012.

This casts Hillary as totally indifferent to the struggles and suffering that a McCain presidency would bring to citizens. His sole purpose so far has been to advocate for an imperial United States occupying strategic oil depots in the Middle East in perpetuity.

When asked about the economy, he said, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” That’s hardly the level of skill required if the chief executive is to successfully navigate the economic storms faced by 300,000,000 citizens.

If this theory is correct, Hillary Clinton would have us endure four more years of Bush policies just to serve her ego driven ambition.

Rule by Proxy

The alternate theory is that Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush have formed some sort of political alliance or clan. In this scenario, Hillary is at the service of these two schemers, a critical functionary in their post-presidential quest for power and influence.

Is this possible? How could these two have the unmitigated ambition and skills necessary to pull off a master plan that invokes nearly every conspiracy theory over the past few decades? Where’s the evidence?

There’s no need for a conspiracy theory. In fact, if true, this can’t be the type of shadow conspiracy associated with behind the scenes manipulation because it is all so very public.

Husband Bill was adopted, as it were, by the elder Bush given the status of his two political heirs? This combination would serve the purpose of perpetual power for the backers of both ex presidents. United, the two would be a living symbol of continuity by the “center” and an assurance to the incumbent ruling class that policies in dire need of change will stay the same.

The raw ambition theory is easier to believe. After all the time she’s done, Hillary may have thought, “Screw him! It’s my turn.” It’s the rawest form of entitlement mixed with the unrealistic persistence of an embittered loser.

If the Clinton campaign were a brute force scheme combining the Bush and Clinton political factions to preserve established wealth, why would they be this obvious?

Clinton proposes Greenspan lead foreclosures group

Reuters
Monday, March 24, 2008; 9:30 AM

WHITE PLAINS, New York (Reuters) – Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economic experts should determine whether the U.S. government needs to buy up homes to stem the country’s housing crisis, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose on Monday.

END

Also see: The Money Party (5): “Us versus Them”

Permission granted to reproduce this article in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Super Tuesday for Bush in New England – UPDATE- Bush/Cheney Indicted

Brattleboro, Vermont, site of Tuesday’s vote to indict George W. Bush.
Image CC

UPDATE: Brattleboro Vermont Votes to Indict Bush and Cheney

Measure Passes 2012 to 1795 in Heavy Voting

7:45 pm EDT. Brattleboro becomes one of the first cities, perhaps the first, in the United States to indict President Bush and Vice President Cheney for “crimes against the constitution.” The measure listed below, was voted on today in Brattleboro Vermond. Turnout was heavy, nearing 50% and activists were out in strength to help get people to the polls.

The measure is symbolic since neither Bush nor Cheney have nay plans to visit Vermont soon. However, candidate Dobson from Maine introduced a similar measure in Kennebunkport, Maine (see below) which may come up for a vote in the summer.

This was reported to Michael Collins by Maine U.S. Senate Candidate Laurie Dobson who was supporting the election by taking exit polls today in Brattleboro.

Original Article Continues

Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC

The second American Revolution may begin in Brattleboro, Vermont should it becomes the first city in the United States to formally indict George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for “crimes against the Constitution.” The town votes on the following resolution Tuesday, March 4, 2008:

“Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictment for consideration by other municipalities? And shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them.”

Barry Aleshnick is a Brattleboro resident and one of a small group of activists campaigning for passage of the initiative. In an interview on the evening of March 2nd, he said the failure of Congress to act on impeachment inspired the Vermont effort. Aleshnick described how Kurt Daims started the process by developing the resolution. At the outset, “Daims stood alone on streets gathering signatures,” according to Aleshnick. Others joined the effort and they’re now working together to gain passage in Tuesday’s vote.

Aleshnick observed that Bush acts “like he’s above the law” when he invades nations for no reason” and engages in torture around the world. The local initiative is one readily available alternative available to citizens to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for “criminal behavior” in the absence of congressional action, he said. Aleshnick is “optimistic about passage of the resolution.”

U.S. Senate Candidate Submits Charges against Bush in Kennebunkport, Maine

U.S. Senate candidate Laurie Dobson, (Ind.), charged Bush and Cheney with “crimes against the Constitution” in Kennebunkport, Maine, summer home to the Bush family. Dobson recently attracted national attention by proposing a moratorium on foreclosures, an approach later adopted in a restricted form by Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

In her February 26, 2008 submission, Dobson specified the crimes to the Board of Selectmen:” I, Laurie Dobson, am convinced that these individuals have committed war crimes.” The action will be considered for a vote at the next town meeting a few months out.

Other State and Local Efforts to Indict and Impeach Bush

On Feb. 19, 2008, a resolution was presented to New Hampshire’s House of Representatives calling for impeachment. While the committee voted against recommending it to the full house, 11-5, the bill will be voted on in March. Reports from the hearing indicated a large crowd supportive of the amendment to the surprise of legislators.

The Vermont Senate passed a resolution calling for impeachment that passed 16 to 9 in the state senate in April 2007. This was the culmination of 40 Vermont town governments passing pro impeachment proposals starting in April 2006 when Newfane, Vermont Selectboard member Dan DeWalt introduced and helped pass a resolution calling for impeachment based on the war in Iraq and resulting deaths.

In early 2007, a formal resolution of impeachment was introduced in the Illinois State Assembly. This was based on the rules for the House of Representatives written by Thomas Jefferson. These rules allow state legislatures and grand juries to issue a formal referral for impeachment, one the U.S. House ore Representatives must consider. The rules, Section 603 state that:

“Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House: … there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury…” House Rules Manual, Thomas Jefferson

Illinois representative Karen Yarborough offered the resolution which focused on violating civil liberties and torture. It called for the immediate removal of Bush and Cheney. It was referred to committee and killed by the Assembly leadership.

Of the various efforts to start impeachment proceedings, the Illinois resolution had the best chance by invoking the Rules of the House or Representatives. These rules contain an injunction which makes clear that a “proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.” (House Rules Manual, Thomas Jefferson)

Current Action Stems from anti Patriot Act Effort – 400 Cities Say No Tyranny

Grassroots efforts initiated in cities to impeach Bush are an extension of efforts begun by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) against the Patriot Act. More than 400 cities have passed resolutions calling for a refocus on civil liberties and repeal of all or part of the Patriot Act, passed by Congress. In 2002, Ann Arbor, Michigan and Denver, Colorado became the first two cities to pass resolutions objecting to the act. Davis, California and Wichita Falls, Texas were the most recent in 2007.

While these resolutions don’t focus on impeachment or indictment, they accuse the president and Congress of passing legislation counter to the intent and words of the Constitution, a charge specified by Brattleboro resolution.

With the president’s disapproval rating at 78% and approval down to 19%, the effort in Brattleboro may be just an affirmative vote away from sparking city and town based effort throughout the country to do what Congress won’t do, end the reign of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

END

Permission to reprint this article in whole or part granted with attribution of authorship and a link to this article in “Scoop” Independent News.