Impending Impeachment: Redux
As ABC's Nightline just pointed out, Bush didn't just violate Federal law by domestic wire tapping without a warrant, it violates basic Constitutional law.
With bipartisan support against Bush (Does Sen. (R) Linsey Graham spearhead the impeachment? McCain?) it could mean G.W will be out by February.
Call/email your Reps and Senators (I know Null P. probably won't, but anyone else...;)
"Let's make America great again." -Newt
Not holding my breath either, but this has to be the clearist violation of American law by a sitting President, other than Nixon.
"Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year."<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html">(src)</a>
I emailed Kennedy, Kerry, Capuano, and the Globe.
this point is relevant because: ___________?
Further down:
"'That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum,' Tice said."
Scary, unconstitutional (the American-to-American wiretap), and _most importantly_ it hurts our chances of prosecuting terrorists!
But hey, with the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/28/opinion/main1168855.shtml">"I-word" gaining ground</a> in conservative media, it shouldn't be long now... Not that Cheney will be any better, but it gets the point across.
Can anyone find a law expert (who doesn't work for Bush's Dept. of Justice) who thinks the American-to-American wire taps were legal? I'm still looking for this angle. Could it be there isn't one?
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman">Cover story.</a> It's a long piece, but substantial.
And why does Bush lie about being buddies with Casino Jack?
Now there's a big shit sandwich, Mr. President.
After Clarke, Wilkerson, et al. have come out against, is there anyone who worked at the CIA or State Department who thinks we were justified to invade Iraq? Seriously, can anyone find anybody? And where's Powell? I think he waits till Bush is out of office before he launches into him.
Oh, and <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1158908,00.html">here</a> are the photos of Abramoff and Bush, the man he "doesn't remember meeting".
"The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment."
Your first mistake is to think that Cheney would do anything different than Bush. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld speak with one mind on the matter of Iraq. The US finds itself in it's current morass because the President blindly followed the advice of R and C, without heeding the cooler considerations from the likes of Colin Powell and even Condoleezza Rice.
Your second mistake is thinking that Cheney is a member of the "Conservative" party. Alas, there is no such animal in American politics. The party that carries the conservative banner is the Republican Party. However, these days they are only capable of professing socially conservative values which have very little to do with what is wrong in this country. For the most part, the GOP is concerned with using the rhetoric of fear and jingoism in order to gain and hold power. How else to describe why citizens in Ohio, Texas and the the rest of the "heartland" have such a strong pull over foreign policy when these states have NEVER been threatened with attacks from Islamo-Fascist terrorsits?
Once in power, the GOP uses the levers of state not to funnel public funds into private hands. How else can one describe why a former executive in a horse husbandery guild is given charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Or that the single most important task --supposedly-- of the current administration, the reconstruction of Iraq, is handed over to third-rate political hacks with shabby MBAs, whose prior experience consists mostly of consulting for the oil industry and have hard-ons for Ayn Rand?
The House and the Congress are currently controlled by this same party, and while the politicians in control feel safe in their power (and largesse) they aren't going to lift a finger or strain a nerve ending trying to tack America back toward moderate waters. Meanwhile, one (1) Democratic Senator suggests giving the President a hand-slap for admittedly ignoring the law and the entire GOP attack machine gears up to condemn the "reckless" behavior of the Democratic party.
Personally, I think it has been reckless that the Democrats have been complict in this folly masquerading as a foreign policy for so long. Hopefully the coming mid-term elections will help balance things out.
Orrin Hatch is once again stellar in his grasp of the censure issue:
“Wartime is not a time to weaken the commander-in-chief.â€
"Scooter, your supposed to say you don't remember. Not implicate the President."
No impeachment, G.W. should just step down. It takes a lot less time. Nixon did it, when he fucked up. Why not you?
So I watched it again: Did Bush just admit he illegally wire-taps domestic phones? He puts the phrase "within the Constitution" in there but we all no that's horseshit after reviewing the 1978 FISA act. The man is right, I hope Bush feels shame.
<a href = "http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/washington/07nsa.html?_r=2&adxnnl=2&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1144440319-MlbXOKniazI68tlmKs+pzg">"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales suggested on Thursday for the first time that the president might have the legal authority to order wiretapping without a warrant on communications between Americans that occur exclusively within the United States."</a>
I'd say it's probably happening. Our <a href = "http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/02/card_says_bush_sees_us_as_a_child_needing_a_parent/">paternalistic president</a> is going <a href = "http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008157.php">monarchical</a> on our asses.
Bush thinks America is a child who needs a parent. Talk about elitist bullshit. So frustrating.
WTF?
Bush really is going for the dictator thing. 'You can't investigate my illegal actions because of national security?' This is insane!!! Wake the fuck up America. And why can't the conservative media machine put this news front and center?
<a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014004.php">Tenet admits he knew Bush was repeatedly lying to America and didn't stop him.</a>
<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10204560">Comey</a> himself: I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.
Our AG is a sleaze bag, and has the full support of our President.
Support of Clinton's impeachment never broke 33%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And now we're going to move on," Mr. Bush said in a White House news conference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...because commuting the sentence of a person who is hindering the investigation of a felony is the right thing to do.
Maybe someone else can find a WSJ opinion piece (or two or three) from 1998 about the importance of telling the truth.