Saturday, August 16, 2008

The Why-Haven’t-You Impeached-the-President Tour


August 15, 2008

On the Hill


WASHINGTON -- When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set out to promote her new motivational book this month, she simultaneously touched off her national why-haven't-you-impeached-the-president tour.


As she made the coast-to-coast rounds of lectures, television interviews and radio chats the past two weeks, Ms. Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily.

In Manhattan and Los Angeles, at stops in between, on network television and on her home turf of Northern California, Ms. Pelosi has been forced to defend her pronouncement before the 2006 mid-term elections that impeachment over the administration’s push for war in Iraq was off the table.

Pressed on ABC’s “The View” about whether she had unilaterally disarmed, the author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” said she believed the proceedings would be too divisive and be a distraction from advancing the policy agenda of the new Democratic majority.


Then she added this qualifier: “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”

That assertion only threw fuel on the impeachment fire as advocates of removing Mr. Bush cited the 35 articles of impeachment compiled by Representative Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, as well as accusations in a new book by author Ron Suskind of White House orders to falsify intelligence, an accusation that has been denied.

“There’s an opportunity now for us to come forward and to lay all the facts out so that she can reconsider her decision not to permit the Judiciary Committee to proceed with a full impeachment hearing,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview with the Web site Democracy Now!

Mr. Kucinich, long a proponent of starting hearings to impeach both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier this week applauded signals that the Judiciary Committee would look into the claims made by Mr. Suskind in his book.

While the Judiciary Committee might do exactly that, the chances that such an inquiry would culminate in an impeachment proceeding are, according to top Democratic officials, virtually nil.

At the moment, the House is officially scheduled to meet for less than three weeks in September before adjourning for the elections and perhaps the year – hardly enough time to mount an impeachment spectacle even if top Democratic lawmakers wanted one.

And they do not.

Despite whatever resonance pursuing the president might have in progressive Democratic circles, it is not the message Democrats want to carry into an election where they need to appeal to swing voters to increase their Congressional majorities and win the White House. They would rather devote their final weeks to pushing economic relief and health care, even if they thought Mr. Bush and the conduct of the war merited impeachment hearings.

And leading Democrats argue anyway that Mr. Bush has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

“He has been impeached by current history,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “He is going down as the worst president ever. The facts are in.”

Republicans have previously shown some appetite for luring Democrats into what they see as an impeachment trap, a set of hearings they could use to portray Democrats as bitter partisans. But Republican strategists also recognize the political danger in getting too deep in defending Mr. Bush right before the election or in justifying the buildup to the Iraq war. They might not be as eager as they once were for an impeachment fight.

Both parties know full well that the Republican push to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 did not work out for Republicans in the way they had hoped, giving many lawmakers pause when it comes to gaming out the political ups and downs of such an action.

The impeachment unrest among progressives dovetails with their profound disappointment that Democrats failed to cut off spending for the war in Iraq or impose a timetable for withdrawal after winning control of Congress in 2006. It is a disappointment that Ms. Pelosi has acknowledged she shares and one she attributes to the thin Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican determination to support Mr. Bush on the war, explanations that do not mollify staunch anti-war activists.

The disillusionment has crystallized in a challenger for Ms. Pelosi in the person of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist whose son was killed in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and her allies collected more than 17,000 signatures to qualify her as an independent for the November ballot in San Francisco.

While Ms. Pelosi has been navigating the impeachment issue on her book tour, House Republicans have been assailing her on the floor for refusing to allow a vote on lifting a ban on oil drilling along much of the nation’s coast. Democrats are back-tracking a bit on that stance, opening the door to a September vote on relaxing the restrictions on drilling as part of a broader energy bill that would also include Democratic initiatives to reduce subsidies for oil companies and encourage more use of natural gas.

These have not been easy weeks for Ms. Pelosi as she juggled promoting her book with defending her impeachment stance and fending off the Republicans. But party strategists say she’s in a strong enough political position to weather the attacks, while taking some of the political heat off more vulnerable Democrats. She might be under fire from the left and the right, but there is no talk of impeaching her.
Copyright 2008
The New York Times Company






http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/09/7756/
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/index.html

http://www.politicswithagrin.blogspot.com/

http://politicswithagrin.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccains-advisers.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/why-havent-you-impeached-the-president-tour/

President Bush: Immunity from “War Crimes”?


Amazing right? The House recently passed a bill with language contained within which would pardon President Bush - and anyone from his administration - from any possible crimes connected with the torture or mistreatment of detainee’s (dating all the back to Sept. 11th 2001).


Cafferty: President Bush is trying to pardon himself. Here’s the deal: Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies, in some cases punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They’ve been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution they’re trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week before Congress adjourns. The reason there’s such a rush to do this? If the Democrats get control of the House in November this kind of legislation probably wouldn’t pass.


Stumbled upon this piece on YouTube. “Should Congress pass a bill giving retroactive immunity to President Bush for possible war crimes?” Chime in with your thoughts in the comments or send mail to caffertyfile@cnn.com

Wake up America

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."... John F. Kennedy


Subscribe
to Wake up America by Email

Check out the blog buzz at memeorandum.




US Congress Passes $162 Billion War-Funding Bill on Thursday With No Time Tables

President Bush praised Congress yesterday for their bipartisan cooperation on the war funding and on the domestic surveillance (FISA) bill. Congress passed the war funding bill Thursday, which included no time tables for withdrawal from Iraq.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which is now known as the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (the war supplemental), passed the US Congress on Thursday, June 19, 2008, with a vote of 268 to 155.This bill provides $162 billion in war funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no time lines for withdrawal. This bill will also include the funds needed to for troops to attend public Universities which was a proposal made by Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.). President Bush praised Congress and called this a "responsible" bill that provides vital resources to the troops on the front line. He continues on to say, "This legislation gives our troops the funds they need to prevail without tying the hands of our commanders in the field or imposing artificial timetables for withdrawal."The bill will sent to the Senate to be voted on, which is expected to be within the week.
The Office of the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, also announced yesterday on his website that after months of negotiations, a compromise Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) agreement had been reached.
Negotiations were conducted by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Minority Whip Roy Blunt along with the top members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Kit Bond (R-MO).
The bill is called the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304 and the text of the bill can be read here (114 page PDF file- from Politico)

The key sticking point in the FISA bill had been the issue of Telecom immunity for the telecommunications service providers that provided the Bush administration with data that they requested.

That issue is detailed in Title II, Protections for Electronic Communication Providers, which states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that…the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007.

In the joint statement announcing the compromise bill, Steny Hoyer, stated, "This bipartisan bill balances the needs of our intelligence community with Americans’ civil liberties, and provides critical new oversight and accountability requirements. “It is the result of compromise, and like any compromise is not perfect, but I believe it strikes a sound balance. Furthermore, we have ensured that Congress can revisit these issues because the legislation will sunset at the end of 2012.”Roy Blunt also said in that same joint statement that "For months, leaders of both parties in both the House and the Senate have been working to find middle ground on FISA. Both sides have had to compromise – coming up with a legislative proposal that we individually would have written much differently. Clearly, House Republicans have long believed that the Senate FISA bill was the best way forward – and do not believe that the courts should hold the ultimate decision over how and when terrorist communications are monitored overseas. During this process, we all worked from the very basic premise that we had to find a way to modernize FISA to ensure that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to continue monitoring foreign-based, terrorist communications, while maintaining the protections of individual liberties contained in the existing FISA law. I believe we have accomplished that in this bill.” You can read both Rockefeller and Bond's statements as well at the Majority Leader's website, here. The FISA vote on this compromise deal comes up for a vote in the US Congress today.
[Update] FISA passed the House as well with a vote of 293 to 129 and will be sent to the Senate who had already approved one version that gave the telecoms immunity so it is expected to pass the Senate as well very easily and the President has already signaled that he would sign this compromise bill.

.



War Crimes Watch
http://www.warcrimeswatch.org/index.cfm
A War Crime?

Robert Fisk -- The Independent -- 7/25/06

They are in the schools, in empty hospitals, in halls and mosques and in the
streets. The Shia Muslim refugees of southern Lebanon, driven from their homes
by the Israelis, are arriving in Sidon by the thousand, cared for by Sunni Muslims
and then sent north to join the 600,000 displaced Lebanese in Beirut. More than
34,000 have passed through here in the past four days alone, a tide of misery
and anger. It will take years to heal their wounds, and billions of dollars
to repair their damaged property. And who can blame them for their flight? For
the second time in eight days, the Israelis committed a war crime yesterday.
They ordered the villagers of Taire, near the border, to leave their homes and
then - as their convoy of cars and minibuses obediently trailed northwards -
the Israeli air force fired a missile into the rear minibus, killing three refugees
and seriously wounding 13 other civilians. The rocket that killed them is believed
to have been a Hellfire missile made by Lockheed Martin in Florida.


Nine days ago, the Israeli army ordered the inhabitants of a neighbouring village, Marwaheen, to leave their homes and then fired rockets into one of their evacuation trucks, blasting the women and children inside to their deaths. And this is the same Israeli air force which was praised last week by one of Israel's greatest defenders - Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz - because it "takes extraordinary steps to minimise civilian casualties".


Nor have the Israelis spared Sidon. A heap of rubble and pancaked walls is all that is left of the Fatima Zahra mosque, a Hizbollah institution in the centre of the city, its minaret crumbled and its dome now sitting on the concrete, a black flag still flying from its top. When Israeli warplanes came early yesterday morning, the 75-year-old caretaker had no time to run from the building; he died of his wounds hours later. His overturned white plastic chair still lies by the gate. The mosque is unlikely to have been used for military purposes; a school belonging to the Hariris, Sidon's all-powerful Sunni family, stands next door; they would never have allowed weapons into the building.


Not that Hizbollah - which killed two more Israeli civilians with their rockets in Haifa yesterday - have respected Sidon, whose population is 95 per cent Sunni. They tried to fire Iranian-made missiles at Israel from the seafront Corniche and from beside the city slaughterhouse last week. On both occasions, residents physically prevented them from opening fire.


The multimillion-dollar Hariri Foundation - created by the former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, who was assassinated last year - has helped 24,000 Shia refugees out of the south and on to Beirut but its generosity has not always been happily received. One group of refugees sheltering in a technical school in Meheniyeh punched and taunted Hariri workers. Elsewhere, the foundation's staff have been cursed by fleeing families. "They are telling us that we are working for the Americans and that this is why we are taking them out," said Ghena Hariri - Rafik's niece and a Georgetown graduate. "It is something that drains our energy. We are working 24 hours a day and at the end of the day they curse us. But I feel so sorry for them. Now they are being told by the Israelis to leave their villages on foot and they have to walk dozens of kilometres in this heat."


It's not difficult to see how this war can damage the delicate sectarian framework that exists in Lebanon. One group of Shia families - housed in a school in the Druze mountains of the Chouf - tried to put Hizbollah's yellow banners on the roof and members of Walid Jumblatt's Druze Popular Socialist Party had to tear them down. Their act may have saved the refugees' lives.


Yet many of the Shia in this beautiful Crusader port have learnt how kind their Sunni neighbours can be. "We are here - where else can we go?" Nazek Kadnah asked as she sat in the corner of a mosque which Rafik Hariri built and dedicated to his father, Haj Baha'udin Hariri. "But they look after us here as their brothers and sisters and now we are safe."


These sentiments provoke some dark questions. Why, for example, can't these poor people be shown the same compassion from Tony Blair as he supposedly felt for the Muslims of Kosovo when they were being driven from their homes by the Serbs? These thousands are as terrified and homeless as the Kosovo Albanians who fled to Macedonia in 1998 and for whom Mr Blair claimed he was waging a moral war. But for the Shia Muslims sleeping homeless in Sidon there is to be no such moral posturing - and no ceasefire suggestions from Mr Blair, who has aligned himself with the Israelis and the Americans.


And what exactly is the purpose of driving more than half a million people from their homes? Many of these poor people sit clutching their front-door keys, just as the Palestinians of Galilee did when they arrived in Lebanon 58 years ago to spend the rest of their lives as refugees. Yes, the Shia Muslims of Lebanon probably will go home. But to what? A war between the Hizbollah and a Western intervention force? Or further bombardment by the Israelis?


The Sidon refugees now have 36 schools in which they can shelter - but they are the lucky ones. Across southern Lebanon, the innocent continued to die. One was an eight-year-old boy who was killed in an Israeli air raid on a village close to Tyre. Eight more civilians were wounded when an Israeli missile hit a vehicle outside the Najem hospital in Tyre. And during the morning, one of Lebanon's journalists, Layal Nejib, a photographer for the magazine Al-Jaras whose pictures were also transmitted by Agence France Press, was killed in her taxi by an Israeli air strike near Qana, the same village in which 106 civilians were massacred in a UN base by Israeli artillery shells in 1996. She was only 23.


In her marble-walled home above Sidon, Bahia Hariri - Ghena's mother, the sister of the murdered former prime minister and a local member of parliament - sat grim-faced, scarcely controlling her fury. "We are in this terrible situation but we haven't any window to resolve this situation," she said. "Rafik Hariri is no longer with us. The international community is not with us. Who is with us? God. And the old Lebanese. And the Arab world, we hope, will help us. The only resistance we can show is to be a united Lebanon. But we have only a small margin in which to dream."
http://icheney.blogspot.com/2007/04/house-judiciary-committee-to-vote-on.htmlndictdick

http://www.warcrimeswatch.org/

No comments:

Twitter

steetsblog.blogspot.com

    follow me on Twitter
    Blogo is a weblog editor for Mac OS X designed for speed and ease of use. Blogo is easy for beginners, but powerful enough for probloggers. Now with Twitter and Ping.fm support!

    Social Bookmarking

    US Deaths in Iraq since March 20th, 2003

    Child - Global Warming vs. Poverty

    human right

    Trikes Bike

    My photo
    Denny Carr, MFA Photographer and Video Artist BIKE !!!! hase lepus trike (stroke-paralysis) age 61 eco-friendly no-car "I am a stroke survivor and deal daily with a speech disorder called Aphasia. This disorder is a result of my stroke in 2005. I am thankful God has given me the ability to express myself through my images and films." For more information, visit these websites: http://www.azimagery.com/

    you biked health active

    heaven = bike green

    usa earth=auto pollutants

    usa environmentally friendly ???

    usa environmentally friendly ???
    Walk, cycle, public transportation

    grand canyon

    grand canyon