RSS
Using PayPal
Elizabeth Holtzman: The Nation's Impeachment Brief
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Jan 11 2006, 11:59PM
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman has the cover of tomorrow's Nation, and I suspect that it will become the script for those on the left who will be organizing, protesting, advocating, and clamoring for George W. Bush's impeachment.
The article, "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" has just now been posted, but I have been thinking about her argument for two days, wondering what I could add to the mix or say about this that she has not.
Holtzman has written a powerfully argued piece with which I mostly agree -- but to be honest -- could have been even more powerful if it had embedded more Republican disgust with what Holtzman appropriately terms the "President's systematic abuse of power." Nonetheless, it's an important brief.
While Holtzman was a steadfast liberal in Congress, her writing about the Nixon impeachment in which she participated and voted for as a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, reaches beyond her party affiliation as it's clear that for her, considering "impeachment" of a president is as grave as "declaring war", which she argues is the toughest and most serious call a president can make.
She compares Bush's "high crimes and misdemeanors" to those of Nixon -- and makes a very compelling case.
In her methodic and reasoned indictment of President Bush, Holtzman states that she has been "deeply troubled by Bush's breathtaking scorn for international treaty obligations under the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions." She proceeds to outline the torture scandal and violations of U.S. criminal law which reach to the highest levels of government but for which there has been virtually no application of accountability.
Part of her argument follows a course that I (if writing the article) would not have so strongly emphasized: resurrecting the assertion that Bush deliberately misled the country into war against Iraq. Bush and Cheney did mislead the country, in my view, but in a matter of court of law -- it's tough to prove and no longer has the weight that either the NSA intercepts controversy or torture policy have at this point.
She does proceed into the NSA matter and argues that "President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."
She compares these to the crimes committed by Nixon and suggests that she "felt the same sinking feeling as (she) did during Watergate" and argues that in some cases, the legal breaches are worse under Bush than Nixon -- in part because of the lengths that Bush went to circumvent Congressional controls enacted in the wake of Watergate.
Holtzman's most powerful and compelling case rests on her blow by blow treatment of the case of "warrantless wiretaps". As she points out, after the Vietnam-rationalized warrantless wiretaps that Nixon authorized against his list of enemy journalists and suspected traitors on his White House staff, Congress imposed explicit controls on the White House. But these constraints which required the President to get court approval for wiretaps still allowed ex post facto approvals after a wiretap began -- as long as secured three days after the wiretap was initiated.
Holtzman tells us that over 28 years, more than 10,000 wiretaps have been approved and only four rejected. Four.
The article posits that the White House is pursuing power for its own sake and attempting to restore a Nixon-style imperial presidency. She suggests that the warrantless wiretaps are less about securing national security objectives than they were of establishing new precedents for unconstrained, expansive Executive Branch authority during a war.
Even if some sympathize with the President's view -- for a short crisis -- Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld have argued that this "war against terrorism" will go on for years, perhaps indefinitely. Thus, the power the White House has tried to grasp is one rationalized by them as having no finite end -- and having no legitimate constraint.
What is dictatorship, if not that? Holtzman asks the same question.
The article quotes a poignant comment by Sandra Day O'Connor that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
If only Samuel Alito carried any of O'Connor's sensible judicial DNA. . .
Holtzman adds to her brief against Bush many other counts -- such as asserting a false connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, pushing war using false intelligence, not firing or punishing any senior staff -- particularly Donald Rumsfeld -- after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, not providing armor for soldiers, not planning for the demands of occupation after the invasion of Iraq, and other crimes.
But to be honest, this article could have quoted a roster of Republicans like Congressman Chris Shays, former Congressman Amo Houghton, Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator John McCain and others -- particularly other Republicans knowledgeable and present during the Nixon impeachment like William Cohen and Howard Baker -- to make her Nixon-Bush impeachment case even more powerful.
I think that this country, and its elected Congressional representatives, are far away from any serious impeachment effort. The Republicans control both chambers of Congress and are highly unlikely to unleash a process that would lead to the most serious kind of legal challenge to the President, particularly if the only ones calling for this sort of ultimate accountability are on the left.
The fact is that there are many moderate Republicans and Democrats who are disgusted by many of the same issues that Holtzman documents.
I also feel that one of the connections that Holtzman and the media are not making is that while Bush authorized a great number of warrantless wiretaps using al Qaeda as the rationale, the fact is Bush took his eye of the Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda ball -- and distracted resources that might have quickly shut down the man, myth and rabid ideology of bin Laden so that they could settle old scores with Saddam Hussein.
On one hand, Bush has engaged in serious abuses and violations of the law in the name of fighting al Qaeda and protecting Americans -- and yet he failed in this very cause when he chose to make Hussein the number one enemy over bin Laden. As Cheney said to Bob Woodward, Hussein was a more tangible target to Americans in contrast to the more ephemeral bin Laden. That seems admission enough.
Holtzman calls for "full investigations" of the President's crimes -- which won't happen, not as Congress is currently comprised. But Arlen Specter might launch relatively fair and serious hearings into the wiretap issue, but he won't get much assistance from colleagues or the White House.
While Holtzman recognizes this constraint, she really doesn't outline ways to draw Republicans into the process, to cultivate the currents of disgust that do flow in Republican circles.
But whether impeachment is the right strategy or not -- LEGALLY challenging the White House and Bush on every front is important and is ultimately the only effective way of curbing Executive Branch authority -- which is forcing America's system of checks and balances to force the White House back if there are going to be any checks at all.
To some degree, the legal assault against and dethroning of Tom DeLay, the Fitzgerald investigation into the Valerie Plame case and indictment of Scooter Libby, the relatively fragile position of Karl Rove, and the scrutiny of Cheney and his role have all been helpful in getting some momentum going against Bush's unchecked power.
However, the process -- if it continues to have traction -- has only begun. It's important for someone to paint the big picture of what Bush could face if the Congress were controlled by Democrats -- but there are many other iterations of legal challenge that can and should be launched against Bush than impeachment.
And to win -- as Holtzman implies but does not say loudly enough -- a consensus must be cultivated in the country, ACROSS party lines that these abuses deserve serious punishment.
While Holtzman has written a powerful brief against Bush -- and it should be read and kept on hand -- I'll settle for squashing DeLay, further exposing Abramoff's corrupt networks, exposing the truly heinous crimes of Cheney and his staff, and knocking one pillar out after another under Bush.
That may not be impeachment -- but it will help to get controls back in place on White House power.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World: Albert Brooks' New Film Fails» Next Article - Note to Pat Robertson: Just Sayin' Your Sorry Ain't Enough. . .
i'm sure this point has been made a thousand times... do we really want Cheney as the Commander-in-Chief?
Marx's adage, that a momentous event in history the first time appears as tragedy and the second time, when it's repeated, as farce, aptly applies to Holtzman's 'The Impeachment of George W. Bush.' The impresarios of the center to the left liberals are moving their burlesque road-shows, in our tragic times, on the American homeland in their maniacal obsession to inflict George Bush,(with what?)with their "stagy" theatrical mortal blow.
The impeachment of Bush, on such rambling, brittle, and shakeable evidence, as Holtzman produces, is a farce and an egregious display of theatrics of the absurd. It has a 'Buckleys chance,' to use an Australian expression, of having any impact either on the relevant authorities that could impeach the President, or on serious minded people.
Holtzman's impeachment is nothing else but a fizzling balloon.
As a formerly raised conservative, the evidence is there for those willing to see it.
The problem is that there is so damned much evidence and a complicit, "no-see'm" congress that's not worth a damn.
After WWII it was necessary to use former Nazis to help put Germany together again because they knew the who, where and how of what was left of the German economy and how to put it back together again.
When it comes to honesty, we're not a lot better off because our congress controls the who, where and how (excluding and including a "nod", a "wink" and "understanding").
Probably the brief is compelling, and investigations must be promised, but if you make too much of impeachment Karl Rove will turn the 2006 elections into a referendum on impeachment itself. Put it on the back burner, and make the 2006 election a referendum on all the other issues.
Bob_h is right. The 2006 elections should be a referendum on corruption and the Abramhoff scandal should be front and center for everyone to see. Especially if the Dems did as Howard Dean has said and meticulously scrutinized all the money they had received from the indian tribes to be sure that it didn't come directly from Abramhoff. If that is truly the case, then the dems have a helluva platform to run on. The Anti-corruption party. THATS what americans are craving. This could be a dawn of a new era of politics where what is right and good might finally win out over the corrupted processes that the current state of campaign financing has created.
We cannot prevail by simply saying President Bush broke the law. He and his say no laws were broken and lay out their case.
I think it's a bullshit case, but they lay it out there.
We have to challenge the view that President Bush's wartime powers permit this activity. We have to tie the NSA intercept to peoples real life, or it will be ignored. We have to show where this claim of unfettered authority can lead.
For example, during the runup to war, those of us who challenged the rationale for war were openly labeled as traitors by members of the administration. During wartime, traitors can be shot. We can show that this course of action was openly advocated by some Bush supporters. People will respond to the idea that dissidents can be eliminated. President Truman tried to take over the steel mills during the Korean Conflict using the Bush rationale. The possible loss of your business because it's needed for the war effort is something that people would respond to. "Your company makes shirts and slacks? Then it can make uniforms? We're taking you over." After the fight about taking property by eminent domain, this is a scenario people know can happen.
Just saying "he broke the law" isn't going to get us any traction. People have to be shown the connection to real life. We have to show them what this power means.
"resurrecting the assertion that Bush deliberately misled the country into war against Iraq. Bush and Cheney did mislead the country, in my view, but in a matter of court of law -- it's tough to prove and no longer has the weight that either the NSA intercepts controversy or torture policy have at this point."
Are you blind, Steve, or willfully blind?
You can't see or don't understand that the Boy King administration was hell bent on war with Iraq from day one, and settled on trying to deceive the American people and the world by fixing intelligence around policy, as in, Boy King wants war so give him the cherry-picked manipulated intelligence to con the People into war; War as the Only resort, Not the last, as Boy King had always told us. A war of choice, not of necessity.
God damn! are we all going to drop this obvious high crime of all high crimes imaginable, leading a nation to war under false pretenses which is tantamount to murder! Oooooo, can't think that about The President, as in Office of the President.
This nation is being led by a War Criminal, and Victory is when War Criminals are brought to Justice. The War Criminal is in plain sight hiding behind his War on Terror, and the war he started unnecessarily, illegally and immorally. The War Criminal is easily proven guilty by any prosecutor worth his/her salt, and if the prosecutor ever got hold of Executive documents, like those of WHIG, it would be a Slam Dunk!
Never forget what they have done; Evil.
i'm sure this point has been made a thousand times... do we really want Cheney as the Commander-in-Chief?
Posted by pzykr at January 12, 2006 02:44 AM
Exactly! Unless you can impeach both Bush and Cheney (is that possible?) AFTER the Democrats take over the House (not likely in 2006 given the deficit), then I'm not sure it's worth doing.
If Cheney provides 'extortion value' to the presidency, you can be sure it will be copied for decades to come. The danger of not impeaching is greater than the danger of doing it.
Let's go.
Have to disagree. I have been concerned about Bush's open masquerading of executive powers in wartime etc.
But, there is little basis for impeachment, a lot of what Holtzman writes to bolster an argument is improvised chronology with conjecture where concrete is needed.
Frankly, the "Cheney would be worse!" hobgoblin is bogus. The Dickster's practically the embodiment of the stereotypical ruthless and evil corporate henchman. The bastard can't say one thing without discrediting it by association, and he scares people. Cheney is the face that the GOP emphatically does not want to present, and as president he'd stir up so much mistrust and dislike that he'd get a lot less done than people think. Why do you think he's been so determined to remain in the background as much as possible?
That said, it's unlikely that impeachment will get off the ground just yet -- unfortunately. I dunno that it's quite the losing issue that many people think, though. I suspect that as the end of the year approaches, scandal, the Iraq clusterfuck, and grim economic news is gonna have the GOP running scared from their own works.
Just a small point, but the comment seems to indicate that the president "can declare war." Although I am aware that a president can on his or her own enter inter certain skirmishes abroad, last I checked only Congress can declare war. It's not a call a president can make.
Actually, Steve, when one states that he is not in favor of impeachment, one is ACTUALLY opining that a President of the United States should be ALLOWED to hold hiimself ABOVE AND OUTSIDE the law. The NSA wiretaps were either legal, or they were not. Apparently, the prevailing consensus of legal scholars is that the taps were ILLEGAL. The fact that Ashcroft didn't even want to sign off on them implies that Bush KNEW that taps were illegal. If this is the case, then impeachment ceases to become a matter of opinion or personal preference. It becomes a MANDATE of the laws of this land. So, are we to assume, given your failure to CONDONE AND SUPPORT impeachment, that you are comfortable with a President acting ABOVE AND OUTSIDE the law???
Steve,
I thought that your commentary was excellent. The
only flaw I saw is in your faith that there are
Republicans who are disgusted with G.W. Bush who
would actually act to hold him accountable.
I'm sure that there are Republicans who are disgusted
with Bush. Any true conservative would be disgusted
with this administration. But they all know that
their fate and their power are tied to Bush. Bush
has come to embody Republican power. The
Republicans and Bush can no longer be separated.
Sadly there seem to be few Republicans who put
their country's good above their own personal
interests.
Ian
Go ahead. Try and impeachment Bush and Cheney. Good luck as it backfires and it goes down in flames. As for Ms. Holtmann, who cares what the UN or international law says? - we are not subject to it. It is just a fantasy that countries pick and choose which international laws they follow. A realist ought to know this. And were these "international laws" democratically derived from all those dictatorships? Nope.
I do agree on one point, however. The LAST thing this country needs is an Executive Branch with more power, especially war-making powers that leave out Congress whose job it is to declare war. That is why people like Mr. Yoo should not be in government, even if he has super other ideas, especially relating to the joke of "international law," whatever that is.
Robert,
In your opinion, what should the country do to keep the current executive branch from gaining more power? If the NSA wiretapping is found to be illegal, what would be the best course of action? I sincerely want to hear your thoughts.
"Sadly there seem to be few Republicans who put
their country's good above their own personal
interests..."
Ian, Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin fellow
at the Institute for Political Economy, a research
fellow at the Independent Institute, and senior
research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is one of a small group of thoughtful conservatives who thoroughly understands the threat Bush poses to our country and has the courage to speak out.
Former Conservative
Wall Street Journal Writer
Calls Bush Hitler
& 911 His Reichstag Fire
Paul Craig Roberts is starting the
New Year off with his 'pen blazing,'
asking whether neo-cons are
planning another terrorist attack in 2006.
By Greg Szymanski 1-4-6
"A former conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and Reagan Cabinet member is again on the warpath against President Bush and his gang of thugs, calling Bush's actions for spying on Americans treasonous and one more reason for a 2006 impeachment of "Hitler in the Oval Office."
A feisty Paul Craig Roberts, a former Asst. Sec. of the Treasury during the Reagan years, is starting off the New Year with his "pen blazing," comparing the Bush administration to the Nazi regime while ending his latest column, called "A Criminal Administration," with the ominous possibility of another huge terrorist attack in 2006 orchestrated by the neo-cons"
"September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the 1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler's hands. Fear, hysteria, and national emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush's claims of power, will another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its coup?"
And those are mighty harsh words, seemingly coming from the likes of a 1960's radical. But what makes even more disturbing are the words are coming from the voice of the heartland of America and from a man who, for years, was considered a calming conservative voice, well-respected on Capital Hill and in the right wing media..."
The NSA wiretapping only related to international calls coming from Al Queda, or other terrorists, to people in the USA. It was limited in scope. The Bushies need to follow the paperwork next time on this issue.
The best way to stop any abuses by the Bushies is to shine a bright light on them and shame them into conformance. Or vote them out of office if you don't like them.
Somebody needs to sit down and explain to them that if the USA is going to invade Iran or Syria next, they will a need Congressional declaration of war, which may or may not be justified.
"The NSA wiretapping only related to international calls coming from Al Queda, or other terrorists, to people in the USA. It was limited in scope."
Evidence, please?
I join others here in rejecting the notion and the your framing Mr. Clemons, of the fascist Bush government totalitarian dictatorships purposeful, intentional, systemic, and repeated lying to the American people about the justifications for, and necessity of the bloody costly, noendinsight war of choice in Iraq as being "tough to prove" and not of sufficient "weight" to stand in a court of law.
The office of executive intentionally misleading the American people into an unjust, unnecessary, and illegal war of choice base on a festering litany shapeshifting deceptions, manipulations, exaggerations, contamination of the intelligence product, and patent lies is a grotesque abuse and misuse of power, and the single most dangerous and pernicious crime an elected offical can make. If we do not have the laws in place to correct this kind vicious, catastrophic, and extreme abuse, and/or misuse of power by our elected officials, - then what good are our laws, and what sense is there in pretending to abide by the concepts of justice and civility.
Misleading the nation to war is a radical betrayal of the public trust, and the single worst crime a president, vice president, and all the fascist collaborators can perpetrate.
That said, the sad reality is that unless democrats gain control congress in 2006, and as necessary and justified as impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney and others are - congress controlled by the republican reich will never serve the peoples best interests or honor the Constitution or seriously consider impeaching any high priest in the fascist Bush government totalitarian dictatorship.
If our leadership is not acountable to anyone, - if our is leadership willing and able to dismember and re-engineer our own laws and principles to conform to the leaderships perverted fascist ambitions and designs unfettered and unchecked by any court or branch of the government, - if our leadership operates above, beyond, outside and in total disdain of our own laws and principles proclaiming "kings rights" and infallibility, - if our leadership continually, systemically betrays the public trust and throws sand in the face of both the judicial and political system, - if our leadership ruthless exploits the horrors of 9/11 and repeatedly terrorizes the American people for the leadership singular and exclusive political and economic gain, - if our leadership profiteers wantonly from an Hegelian fabrication of neverendingwar, - then our leadership is fascist - our government is a totalitarian dictatorship, - and our nations once noble principles and standards have been abandoned, currupted, and perverted.
Impeach them now while we still have a country.
The Man,
You stated: If the NSA wiretapping is found to be illegal, what would be the best course of action?
Now, not that I am in favor of such wiretapping without warrants, but the obvious course, if the administration really thought this was a valuable tool, would be to seek a limited constitutional amendment to the 4th Amendment, allowing warrantless wiretaps to a certain degree, with limitations saying that the information cannot be used for any criminal charge other than certain specific ones cited in the amendment, can never be used in a civil matter, and authorize huge fines and prison terms for anyone found to violate those terms in any way whatsoever. But this would require a public and transparent debate, which this administration is not willing or capable of doing. I would be willing to listen, but that isn't going to happen.
You Americans just cannot face the bald-faced truth: You are being led by a War Criminal, YOUR PRESIDENT IS A WAR CRIMINAL !!
Everybody knows, but you guys, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, ha, ha, ha. Afraid to come to grips that your monarch is an evil deceiver, and you all were his victims in these lies, and you all are accomplices in his crimes since you can't get up the courage to call him out to stand trial for his deception unto War.
Whatever respect you all had is gone until you all try your War Criminal.
This is not a game; no one forgets; Evil is in your midst squirming that you might have an epiphany.
Do something!
ilsa, posts like yours do no help whatsoever. You earn no respect here with such rubbish.
Regardless, you are preaching to the choir here, so say something constructive, or funny, or just shut your pie hole.
"The NSA wiretapping only related to international calls coming from Al Queda, or other terrorists, to people in the USA. It was limited in scope."
Considering that the wiretaps number in the MILLIONS, Al Qaeda must be a much bigger problem than we were aware of, eh????
Idiot.
"The NSA wiretapping only related to international calls coming from Al Queda, or other terrorists, to people in the USA. It was limited in scope."
So if this is true, why have we not killed or arrested all of these silly terrorist types?
I agree the best check on the Bush admin is the light of day. However, they are going to thwart that at every chance. I personally find it hard to believe that doing an end run around the FISA court was merely a lapse in paperwork. There is clear evidence they stepped over the line and potentially broke the law. If I forget to do my tax paperwork, I doubt the IRS would be so understanding. In addition, they have given me no reason to deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I agree that any future military action should require a declaration of war. According to most people "we're at war", but last time I checked, it was never declared. A resolution to use force or whatever it was, was simply the congress abdicating its duty. I'm not sure why they should need this explained to them like they're kids or something. Anyway, that is the role of the congress and once again they have abdicated their duty.
We are at a perilous crossroads. At what point do we demand our executive branch follow the letter of the law just as us citizens are expected to? If we allow these issues to go unchecked, our liberties are going to slowly slip away.
I believe, with all this talk about "War Criminal," we here have entered into what Our President has warned His People about, i.e., "irresponsible debate." We must remember that there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate, and it is even more important to conduct this debate responsibily when American troops are risking their lives overseas. What would our brave troops think, how down-hearted would they become, if it became common banter to say Our President was a war criminal. Never call your President that. He may have made some slight erreurs in judgement and mis-calculated a bit, but we have all done that before and have been excused, as Our President also must be excused. Forgiveness, and minding our tongues in this War we have nobly embarked upon against those who wish to expunge our hard fought for freedoms. No matter how deeply you believe Our President did grievous wrong-doing, hold your Peace, since we are at War and need to work in unision for Victory over the Evildoers. God Bless America!
Thanks for the comment, Susan.
I do know of Paul Craig Roberts writing and his
call to impeach G.W. Bush. I also agree with
his views on offshore outsourcing of US jobs.
As I note on this web page
(http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_other/economics.html
- search for Paul Craig Roberts) he is one
of the few Republicans who puts loyalty to his
country above loyalty to his party. However, I
disagree with Mr. Roberts on many things. In
fact, our differences are such that I was shocked
to find that we had the common ground that we
seem to.
On Mr. Morrow's comment that the US does not
have to abide by international treaties...
My understanding is that treaties that are
passed by congress and signed by the president
have the force of US law. The conventions
against torture have, as I understand it, the
force of US law. It is just that no one seems
inclined to press the issue with the Bush
administration.
An additional note on the Bushies and their
warrentless wiretapping.
Bush and Co. use Al Quaida as justification for
their warrentless surveillance. What is deeply
ironic is that the Bushies only trot out Al Quaida
when it suits them. With the recent books out on
"Operation Anaconda" in Afghanistan there is plenty
of evidence that they Bushies botched the chance
to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. Following this
they invaded Iraq. Mean while, Al Quaida and
the Taliban are still active in Afghanistan.
Al Quaida is used to justify the destruction of
civil liberties in the United States, while the
Bushies do little to actually attack terrorists
in Afghanistan or to any serious steps toward
a stable Afghanistan. If the US spent a fraction
of the money that is being spent in Iraq on
the Afghani infrastructure, it could transform
the region. Who knows, it might even produce
positive change in Pakistan, which has been
described as the most dangerous country in the
world because of its combination of political
instability, Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear
weapons.
There was no reason for the Bushies not to get
warrents, except to assert dictatorial power.
This is what the Bush administration is all
about. I used to have my doubts, but I now
strongly believe that Bush is worse than Nixon
(at least Nixon wrote his own books).
"...In fact, our differences are such that I was shocked to find that we had the common ground that we seem to."
The enemy of our enemy is our friend?
Some of you need either therapy or a serious reality check.
I understand the whole "for principles and values argument" and the democratic foundation fight.
But Im sure most of you didnt do the same when Clinton had his little impeachment issues.
To be honest, I dont believe the government is out to destroy me like the Reagan official.
Am I concerned about the disregard of judicial power and executive checks and balances. Absolutely, because its reckless and poses dilemmas, but not because theres a secret neo-con army waiting to kill all of us.
Robert above said, "Who cares what the UN or international law says, we're not subject to it."
What a pitiful, ignorant statement.
It ranks right along with what an untrained, inexperienced, conservative, fundamentalist preacher stated one day from his pulpit; "I'd rather be narrow minded and be right than than be broad minded and be wrong."
With thinking like Robert's we should close down all our borders and seaport entrances - no one, including ourselves, gets in or out.
I'm with JS. There ain't no secret Neo-con army waiting to kill us. They ain't secret and they only want to enslave us with eternal war, and that's a far cry from killing us.
Youse guys exaggerate way too much.
Waging "aggressive war" is the ultimate war crime -- and it's the crime for which we hanged the German and Japanese leadership (at least the ones we could get our hands on) after World War Two. Bush launched an "aggressive war" against a country that was no threat to us and as a result he is personally responsible for the deaths of over 2300 American soldiers and 100,000+ Iraqis. And you're debating as to whether he should be impeached? He should be impeached, then tried and sentenced to life in Abu Ghraib prison -- along with all his cronies.
There has to be a euphemism for "war criminal." Something less horrendous, more palatable, that we can label Bush for his unnecessary, illegal, and immoral war of choice that he deceived us into. There's got to be something that gets the message across without being so grating. We also need a euphemism for "Evil," something like "way bad," or "very, very, very, not good," ya know. To tell it like it is is too jolting to the sensibilities of most people, unless you revel in truth-telling and don't give a damn about others.
If someone wants "to enslave us with eternal war", and war causes death, why should you be the one within the "us" that won't be subjected to being killed? Youse gonna pony up for the Hessians?
Youse don't think too much.
I've forgotten about the Iraq War with all this Abramoff, Nsa spying, and Alito.
Just let's forget about that war and move on to something that we can get traction with.
So Bush is responsible for killing people. So what's new! All Presidents do it, and we are ok with it in the long run.
Let the dead bury the dead, and blah, blah, blah.
Nobody's listening, gone deaf.
I can't even tell you how many were killed today, or last week, or last month, it's so hum-drum anymore.
Bush won; gets final word; writhe all you want but you can't escape his authority on the subject. We are winning.
Smile.
My take on calling Bush a War Criminal is that it is no different than saying he should suffer the ultimate price, which should get you a knock on your door if you dare call the President a War Criminal. Get my drift.
So let's just say Bush isn't the best President we ever had; not by a long shot. And we can leave it at that without endangering our personal liberty.
As I've thought about this, I've wondered how it would affect the country, whether we could handle it. I've come to the conclusion that if the Dems are able to re-take at least one house of Congress, with the subpoena power that that entails, then we'll begin to see what this administration has been doing in all its recklessness and mendacity. And it won't be a pretty picture. Then the country will just have to see where the truth takes us.
My guess is that this administration will be put into receivership as the Reagan administration was after Iran-Contra. Assuming that is that there is anyone like Howard Baker left in the Republican Party.
Margaret Hollaway:
Are you being ironic?
I hear many people say Bush needs to be impeached for the wiretaps, then I ask them, what law has he broken? I inevitably get the partisan rhetoric that usually goes along with this statement. I am all about justice if the law is broken, but don't cloud things up just because you are a Dem, or Rep, this makes issues like this only more cofusing. So to all the people who want Bush impeached, please quit spouting the 'Impeach Bush' slogan and give me something tangible, then I can better consider your position.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com
If Cheney provides 'extortion value' to the presidency, you can be sure it will be copied for decades to come. The danger of not impeaching is greater than the danger of doing it.
Let's go.
Posted by vachon at January 12, 2006 10:13 AM
It's been argued that Dan Quayle was GHW Bush's impeachment insurance...
Raymond B.,
Bush is a War Criminal. Tangible enuf?
i'm sure this point has been made a thousand times... do we really want Cheney as the Commander-in-Chief?
We re-elected him in 2004, didn't we?
George is the greeter. Dick owns the casino.
Raymond:
You still looking outward for evidence to impeach the current administration? Check the dipstick in the well of your moral character.
Ilsa and thread--
Well, yes. Consensus here is that Bush is a War Criminal. What are the EU countries doing about it? Not too darned much. The conspicuous absence of efforts by other countries to rein in Bush speaks loudly enough. The more powerful EU members are playing Vichy government here; they only sorta oppose Bush's agenda, but are willing to let the U.S. administration be the obvious bad guy as they sit idle and let the Bush administration roll onwards.
My message is this: the U.S. is not the only powerful country on the planet. Isn't it about time some others grow up and take responsibility for opposing what's happening? Where are the pending indictments from the Hague? If it can happen to Pinochet it can happen to GW.
Raymond:
You still looking outward for evidence to impeach the current administration? Check the dipstick in the well of your moral character.
Posted by yahaddasayit
Thats it in a nutshell. Anyone still supporting this administration is either woefully uninformed, or is suffering from a complete lack of integrity or moral fibre.
Edmos, you make a great case for anarchy while we wait about 30 years for justice.
Don't forget that O'Connor's "sensible judicial DNA" helped steal an election from the American people in 2000.
If only we could melt Clinton and Bush into one.
Bush is too gung ho and not immersed enough in the intricacies of international relations and the implications of conflict.
Clinton is and was too concerned with his image and popularity that he rarely ever used golden opportunities to do the right thing.
i.e. Pulling out of Somalia (heartened Al-Qaeda into going after the US)
Failure to accept offer of handing over of Osama bin Laden.
Don't forget that O'Connor's "sensible judicial DNA" helped steal an election from the American people in 2000.
I think you just killed a thousand liberals with that note.
"Holtzman doesn't outline ways to draw Republicans into the process." ?
This one-way bipartisanship, this groveling before a false idol of phony comity, this submissive wetting as begging for just a tiny puppy treat of power from your Republican masters as they tell Steve "nice peaceable doggie" is why current foreign policy is a list of war crimes and why Bolton and Miller and their like will be in power for the rest of our lifetimes. What a pathetic cur. Unless we get Steve & Josh and whatever Vichy Democrats, appeasers, and enablers the hell out of Washington and replace them with progressives of courage, stamina, and a tiny modicum of self-respect.
You have no Republican friends, Clemons. Republicans don't have friends, only masters and slaves.
Dear "Tone it Down"
Your President really is a War Criminal, in the sense that he initiated a war of conquest based on fraudulent information which has to date killed at least 100,000 people by your own Government's estimate. Having said that, I do not advocate the assassination or any other extralegal sanction of the President. I would prefer to see him impeached and put on trial for his actions before an international court.
So, when will I be getting the knock on my door?
Your hypocritical pipedream and fanaticus republican reich talking point Margaret Hollaway questioning the "irresponsible debate" is hollow and moot in light of the rabid sliming and demonizing of every and anyone daring to question or challenge, or disagree with the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government as anti-American, unpatriotic, spawn of the devil by the fanaticus wingnutsia lockstep partisans and high priests of the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship.
There is no toning down the factbasedreality, that our leadership has ruthlessly betrayed the public trust, - consistently thrown sand in the face of the both the political and judicial, system, - perverted, dismembered, and re-engineered our own laws and principles' to conform the totalitarian dictatorships fasicst ambitions and designs, - slimed and demonized our fellow Americans for daring to question, challenge or oppose the totalitarian leaderships fascist policies and designs, and exercising the peoples RIGHT to petition the government for redress of grievances - operates above, beyond, outside, and in total disdain for our own laws and principles, - and insidiously profiteers in and from the totalitarian dictatorships fascist policies and the prosecution of the costly, bloody, noendinsight horrorshow and war of choice in Iraq, and socalled neverendingwaronterror.
Most people are anti-Bush government totalitarian dictatorship, and anti-fascist warmongering and profiteering, - not anti-American, an important distinction fanaticus wingnutsia partisans and fascist warmogners and profiteers in the Bush government totalitrarian dicatorship FAIL to admit, or recognize.
Where was your civility, and responsibility when decorated war veterans like Kerry, Chamblis, and Murtha were ruthlessly and FALSELY slimed as anti-American cowards?
When you care to enter into "responsible discourse" and a vetting of facts involving the fascist Bush governments totalitarian dictatorship's festering litany of deceptions, abuses, failures, acts of financial malfeasance and perfidy, rampant cronyism, grotesque mismangement, perversion of America's core principle, - dismembering and re-engineering of America's laws, - and wanton profiteering - then we can all accept your hypocritical request, and maybe there can be some reunification of America.
Until then, your fanaticus claims of "irresponsible debate" are both repugnant and hilarious.
JS,
In reading the thread, I had to take issue with your comment.
"Clinton was too concerned with his image and popularity that he rarely ever used golden opportunities to do the right thing.
ie - Pulling out of Somalia (heartened Al Quaeda into going after the US)
- Failure to accept the offer of handing over Bin Laden.
You do realize that the committment to Somalia was a Multinational UN peacekeeping mission authorized by Bush I? And you do realize that the United States was already in the process of and committed to pulling out of Somalia when the events of Black Hawk down occurred? And you do realize that given that this was a multinational UN force it may have been impossible for the United States to reverse its commitment to pulling out? And you do realize that after the events of Blackhawk Down, the US no longer had any credibility as a legitimate peacekeeping force, but rather, was now considered a player in Somalia's ongoing civil war - it had lost the integrity it needed in the eyes of the Somali's to be a fair and impartial peacekeeper that everyone trusted - now, no one trusted America, you do realize that, don't you?
In terms of Clinton's being hampered by concern with his image, I note that Clinton engaged in military operations both in bombing Iraq and in pursuing a NATO war in Kosovo. In each of these cases, Clinton's opponents hysterically claimed that Clinto was 'wagging the dog' to detract attention from his personal scandals. On hindsight, this appears to be untrue. Most of the scandals never amounted to anything and appeared to be largely imaginary. Clinton's actions in Iraq and Kosovo were undertaken in the face of strong attacks against his character for doing these things, quite opposite to your suggestion. Clinton arguably went out and did what he thought was the right thing at substantial personal cost, and in doing so, exposed himself to attacks.
Your suggestion that Clinton emboldened Al Quaeda by pulling out of Somalia seems suspect to say the least. For one thing, it is not even clear that Al Quaeda existed as a terrorist organization at that time. Can you support this in any way, or are you just bullshitting?
It is notable that Clinton took several pre-emptive actions against Al Quaeda, up to and including directing missile strikes into Afghanistan which missed Bin Laden by only hours. Now in 2006, this is still the closest that the United States has ever come to getting Bin Laden.
It is also worth noting that the Clinton administration made Al Quaeda and international terrorism its number one priority, that it devoted considerable resources, money and manpower to fighting it, developed an operational plan to fight it (which Bush promptly abandoned) and successfully stopped the Millenium bomber.
The Clinton administration also successfully brought to justice the original WTC bombers who had developed their operation under Bush I, and who struck in the early days of the Clinton administration.
Your allegation with respect to Sudan is blatantly false and historically illiterate. Yes, it is true that Osama Bin Laden was in the Sudan up until 1994. After that, he departed for Afghanistan. At no point while he was in Sudan was he wanted by the United States or connected with terrorism, so far as the CIA knew. Osama did not become connected with terrorism until 1995 and the Embassy bombings.
The Sudan never made a formal offer to extradite Bin Laden. This is simply nonsense. He wasn't even in the Sudan when the hunt for him started, and certainly he wasn't a terrorism suspect for the United States.
What the Sudan did do, at various points, notably 1996, was offer to share their secret intelligence files on known and potential terrorists with the United States. Clinton did indeed decline to accept the Sudan's intelligence files.
On the other hand, Sudan was a state engaged (and still engaged) in a campaign of genocide, and thus, dubious to deal with. The files were based on intelligence obtained from unconfirmed or unconfirmable sources or featured information derived from torturer. In the CIA's assessment, the files were probably worthless. The Clinton administration would have had to get in bed with one of the bloodiest dictatorships on Earth to get them.
And, as I'll repeat... all anyone was talking about then was files. Osama Bin Laden was long gone.
A search of professional biographies of Osama Bin Laden, and a search of the Sudanese issue turns up no support for the false notion which you advance. It is entirely the invention of a right wing spin machine. It is entirely lies. It does you no credit to repeat such fabrications.
On the assumption that you didn't know any better, I am setting you straight now. You may choose to believe or disbelieve me. If you disbelieve me, I suggest you do proper research and verify or disprove it. Otherwise, I'll call you a liar.
In terms of 'emboldening' or 'encouraging' Al Quaeda, substantial blame must fall on the Bush administration.
When it was determined, in Bush's term, that Al Quaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, *Bush deliberately chose not to respond, because he was **afraid** that it would provoke Al Quaeda.* This is Condoleeza Rice's own testimony at the 9/11 Commission.
The Bush administration shredded the Clinton Administration's plan to attack Al Quaeda. The Bush administration ignored the Hart-Rudman report on Airport/Airline security, which if implemented, might have stopped 9/11. The Bush administration defunded anti-terrorism operations and diverted personnel. The Bush administration removed international terrorism from the list of priorities for funding. The Bush administration made a deliberate choice to ignore Al Quaeda.
During the months leading up to 9/11, the Bush administration received warnings of various degrees of intensity from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and other nations of a planned terrorist attack in the United States, some of these warnings suggested the hijacking of aircraft and their potential use as missiles.
Finally, on August 6, 2001, Bush received a classified security brief titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US" and chose to ignore it in favour of clearing some brush.
So, who was encouraging Bin Laden?
Unless you are prepared to defend your comments, I am afraid that I must call you dishonest.
JS is not dishonest! He is merely steeped in lies and parrots them! JS is a good person led astray. Please do not condemn JS. All that is needed for JS is de-programming and guidance. JS needs rebirth; JS is basically good! God Help JS; turn JS away from ignorance and its purveyors! Hallejuelliah, and praise the Lord!
I am not condemning JS. He is either misinformed or he is lying. I have no way to tell which, at this point. If he is misinformed, then this is offensive, he has an obligation to inform himself. It is not, however, a condemnation, since it is possible to be innocently misinformed. If he is misinformed, then my informing him correctly will either set him straight, or it will persuade him to go and find out things for himself, which will set him straight. Either way, I'm pleased to offer him any benefit of the doubt. My only caveat is that there is a possibility that he is simply willfully lying, and I don't like that.
After this, if he continues to repeat these assertions, I will have no choice but to assume he is deliberately lying. At which point, I will condemn him.
On the other hand, it is possible that he will do the research and come back with verifiable facts which will persuade me to alter my positions. In which case, good on him.
I hear many people say Bush needs to be impeached for the wiretaps, then I ask them, what law has he broken?
50 U.S.C. § 1809. Criminal sanctions
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.
No statute authorized the President or his minions to wiretap anyone without getting a warrant (or, under FISA, getting one within three days of an emergency wiretap). The warrantless surveillance was not done under a court order. They didn't bother to get warrants or a court order and they're boasting about not bothering to do so. They should be facing criminal charges right now, and, since they don't have any defenses (other than the claim that the President is above the law), then, after a fair trial, they should be pounding rocks in a federal prison for the next five years.
Book 'em, Danno.
Steve,
Thanks for the Holtzman piece. I agree that this needs to be talked about much more than the mainstream media is doing. Just like the 'Downing St Memo', the NSA wiretapping story is losing steam and has been pushed off the front page by the just concluded Alito hearings. Holztman was a part of history and is more than qualified to draw the historic comparison to the Nixon abuses of presidential power. The difference is more pronounced with GWB as he has undeniably voiced his stand on the matter. He has publicly and defiantly admitted that he more less blatantly violated FISA and that it was his presidential perogative to do so. What adds to this troublesome authoritarian action is his add on comments that those who exposed the carrying out of his will had committed a shameful act and were providing comfort to the enemy. The administration clearly exhibited their disdain for those leaking this to the world by having the Justice Dept implement an investigation to have those responsible held accountable. Along with this total disrepect and disregard of the Constitution, the Office of the Presidency and the intelligence of the American people, this President went one step further in asserting his claim of absolute power when he signed the bill pushed through Congress with Sen. John McCain's prompting on detainee/prisoner treatment. The President added notes stating that he was signing the legislation to prohibit torture, but that under his authority he would not have to abide by it. This type of outlandish pompous attitude is not what the founding fathers of this nation intended the Presidency to be. As Sen. Russ Feingold plainly articulated in the first hours after the NSA wiretapping story broke, this man is the President, not a king. He is not above the law. Again, Elizabeth Holtzman is to be commended on her clear and concise assestment of the situation at hand. The Presidents actions have to be checked and he must understand that he is not a dictator. I know there are undoubtedly people like yourself who've talked about it, but I dare say that people close to this story have shuddered to think about the following scenario: this President has roughly 3 yrs in office remaining and in that time it is quite conceivable, that another act of terrorism could occur on this nations soil. I pray that we are spared it from ever happening again, but I am even more fearful of it happening while George Bush is still President. Why? Well, it's not very comforting to think about because when he was recently asked at a press conference how he would respond to the much talked about and feared Bird Flu Pandemic his answer was that martial law would most likely need to be instituted. Seeing how blatantly this President spoke and acted regarding his authority on the NSA matter leads me to fear that if another attack came even at election time in 2008 that the constitution be damned and he would retain authority because he'd sworn an oath and that it was a matter of national security...he would remain President until for as long as he deemed necessary. This is a dangerous thought, but one I think has to be considered and looked at. Remember this man has claimed that he has been called by God for this moment in American history. As a Christian I fear this administration headed toward the fufillment of a dominionist theocracy. I pray to God this doesn't happen. It's a terrifying thought, but remember the Nazi's too claimed a Christian mandate to rule with an iron will after the Reichstag was torched. I commend your reporting and hope that you continue to comment on the important matters regarding this nations future. Please tell your colleagues that this story is too important to let die. This President has broken the law and needs to be held accountable.
I think you may be beginning to understand why so many of us are angry at Colin Powell and your pet Colonel. Where were they in 2004 when they could have made a difference and why should they get any respect now when it is too late?
Al-Qaeda existed as a terrorist organization as early as 1991 upon the refusal of King Fahd to reject US military presence.
Bin Laden issued numerous fatwas, most of which were not publicly known until much later, calling for forceful removal of US interests on the Holy Land.
Mohammed Atef had contact with Somalian warlords and militias including Aidid's in 1993 when the UN established its presence.
Saif Al Adel has now been proven to have been in Somalia and his operatives were on the ground assisting Somali militias fighting the US during the Black Hawk Down incident with command and control and methods of attacking the US troops rescuing.
Im not saying Clinton never took national security as a primary interest. But he clearly lacked direction and a sort of compass into the understanding and focus. Focus and Interest are two different concepts.
Richard Clarke has stated that Clinton refused an airstrike to kill Bin Laden and his deputies, even though it was and still proves to be the best opportunity in terms of human, technical, video surveillance evidence of being able to kill bin Laden. Later, Clinton reconsidered and was willing to order an attack, however the opportunity had passed, and Clinton found out that opportunities dont wait for you, they present themselves.
Clinton's involvement in Kosovo/Serbia was a no-brainer. And it only took US air power. Nonetheless, this was not a National Security issue, more a "moral" defense issue.
I personally consider Clinton to be mediocre in his handling of national security.
This was only bolstered by Clarke's comments, and the disgraceful actions of Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor.
Reader Comments (62) - post a comment