Tag: Impeachment

Iraq So-Called Government Falls Apart as Remaining Sunnis Quit Cabinet

Trish

I hate to break away from Utah mine collapse coverage just as Lindsay Lohan, in the state for more rehab, might make an appearance but…

The Iraqi government is falling apart.

…five more ministers announced a boycott of Cabinet meetings — leaving the embattled prime minister’s unity government with no members affiliated with Sunni political factions.

Clueless State Dept. calls Sunni boycott “very healthy political debate”

…The new cracks in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government appeared even as U.S. military officials sounded cautious notes of progress on security, citing strides against insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq but also new threats from Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

…The Cabinet boycott of five ministers loyal to former Iraqi leader Ayad Allawi left the government, at least temporarily, without participants where were (sic) members of the Sunni political apparatus — a deep blow to the prime minister’s attempt to craft reconciliation among the country’s majority Shiites and minority Sunnis and Kurds.

The defense minister is from a Sunni background but has no political ties and was chosen by al-Maliki.

The Allawi bloc, a mixture of Sunnis and Shiites, cited al-Maliki’s failure to respond to its demands for political reform. The top Sunni political bloc already had pulled its six ministers from the 40-member Cabinet of al-Maliki, a Shiite, last week.

So there are no Sunnis at all in the Iraqi Cabinet anymore. But hey, the U.S. State Department isn’t worried. That’s because they’re also clueless.

“There’s a very healthy political debate that is going on in Iraq, and that is good,” [State Department spokesman Sean] McCormack said. “It’s going to be for them (the Iraqi people) to make the judgments about whether or not that government is performing.”

What we need in this country is a very healthy Iraqi-style debate on whether our government is performing.

Jail Cells in U.S. Capitol Building Could Be Reopened for Rove, Miers and Bolten

Jon Ponder

Inherent contempt: Based on his behavior in the past few weeks, Pres. Bush must be hiding something really nefarious. He has forbidden his aides — including former legal counsel Harriet Miers, current chief of Staff Josh Bolten and now Karl Rove — from even showing up to testify about the firing for political reasons of U.S. attorneys.

“Perhaps it is time for Congress to dust off its rusty inherent contempt power, reopen the Capitol hoosegow, get some of the Capitol Police’s finest, and put a couple of people behind bars for a few days.”
— Norm Ornstein

When Democrats in Congress threatened the aides with contempt of Congress, Bush announced that the Justice Dept. would ignore the charges. In other words, his is an imperial presidency, and Emperor Bush is accountable to no one.

This leaves the Democrats with one option: charging the White House aides with inherent contempt:

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation).

So assuming Rove, Miers, Bolten and other White House aides are found guilty, they would not be remanded into the federal justice system, which is overseen by the president, but rather would be jailed in the U.S. Capitol Building under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch.

Yes, there are jail cells in the Capitol Complex, and they once used quite frequently, according to congressional expert Norm Ornstein:

[…]

Is Gonzales’ Perjury a Red Herring to Keep Focus off Bush’s Impeachable FISA Violations?

Jon Ponder

During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seemed to be inexplicably upbeat even while he endured hours of grilling and harsh criticism by senators from both parties.

One explanation for Gonzales’ blithe nonchalance while lying to the Senate is that his silence has been bought — as Scooter Libby’s was — with the foreknowledge that Bush will pardon him before he spends a minute in jail.

In the wake of his bizarre performance, both the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy and his Republican counterpart, Arlen Spector, have warned Gonzales that he is very close to facing perjury charges.

Compounding their threats, documents were produced yesterday that appear to demonstrate that Gonzales lied under oath about events leading up to his extremely inappropriate late-night visit in March 2004, when was White House counsel, to the hospital room of his predecessor, John Ashcroft, who was recuperating from surgery.

Others in the room have testified that Gonzales, along with Bush’s then-chief of staff Andrew Card, visited Ashcroft, who was heavily sedated, to try to convince him to countermand objections to the president’s illegal wiretapping scheme.

In earlier testimony, Gonzales claimed that no one in the administration objected to the illegal scheme. In fact, according to subsequent testimony, several top officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, threatened to resign if the scheme continued.

On Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly denied that the purpose of his visit to Ashcroft in his hospital bed was the illegal program, claiming instead that it was another, as yet undisclosed secret program. The newly released documents, as well as statements by people present at a meeting prior to the trip to the hospital, appear to prove that Gonzales is lying.

Alberto Gonzales is following a course remarkably similar to that of John Mitchell, the only previous attorney general to face criminal charges. Like Gonzales, as Pres. Nixon’s A.G., Mitchell okayed the wiretapping of U.S. citizens (most of whom were political enemies of the president) and used security issues as an excuse to restrict civil liberties.

In 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy and sentenced to 30 months in prison.

The fact that Gonzales is unconcerned about facing a fate similar to Mitchell’s may itself be circumstantial evidence of a continuing conspiracy to obstruct justice at the White House.

Earlier this year, Gonzales was said to have spent two weeks rehearsing for the appearance before the Senate in which he used phrases like “I don’t recall” dozens of times. Even on Tuesday, his responses were obviously coached and practiced so as to obfuscate … something. He obviously has something to hide. What is it?
[…]

Conyers: If Three More Reps Will Support Impeachment, We’ll Proceed

Jon Ponder

Via the BRAD BLOG — at an appearance hosted by the Progressive Democrats (PDA) in San Diego yesterday, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers signaled a new willingness to proceed on impeaching both Pres. George Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, according to sources in the room.

“What are we waiting for? Let’s take them out!”
— Rep. Conyers

In a report on the event posted to the PDA website by Judy Hess, a member of the San Diego chapter who helped organize the event, Conyers opened his remarks by referring to a pro-impeachment banner near the stage:

“What are we waiting for? Let’s take them out!” The room jumped with applause and shouts of approval.

Hess also reported that Conyers said he is seeking additional support for impeachment from his colleagues:

In his remarks, he said he needs three more Representatives to contact him in support of impeachment in order to move forward, with or without Nancy Pelosi.

Radio talk show host Bree Walker was also at the event and confirms Hess’ account, via AfterDowningStreet.com.

In January, at an anti-war rally on the National Mall, Conyers said, “We can fire them,” but when he was asked about it later, he waffled. That could happen here too, but if you support impeachment, this might be a propitious time to let your House member know.

West Hollywood Becomes 80th City to Call for Impeachment of Cheney and Bush

Jon Ponder

On Wednesday, the West Hollywood City Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the impeachment of Pres. George W. Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney:

The … resolution states that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have repeatedly violated the U.S. Constitution and other laws of the United States.

The resolution cited these impeachable actions:

  • Stripping Americans of their constitutional rights
  • Ordering and authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to override judicial order for the release of detainees
  • Directing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans
  • Misguiding Congress and the country on false intelligence in order to lead the United States into war

The resolution was co-sponsored by Mayor John Duran.and city council member Abbe Land, one of two openly straight members of the five-person city council.

West Hollywood is the 80th city in the country to adopt an impeachment resolution, and, according to the National Impeachment Center in Los Angeles, it is the first in Southern California to do so.

Andrew Sullivan Joins Fray on Impeaching Cheney

Jon Ponder

The conservative crack-up continues:

Cheney believes that the executive branch is not subject to domestic or international law, has inherent powers to arrest, detain indefinitely without charges and torture anyone on earth if it so wishes, and can wire-tap Americans without any court oversight for good measure.

Well, the only language Cheney understands is force. And even if it were to fail, the instructive power of the exercise would be considerable. Most Americans are not yet fully aware that this vice-president believes that the executive branch is not subject to domestic or international law, has inherent powers to arrest, detain indefinitely without charges and torture anyone on earth if it so wishes, and can wire-tap Americans without any court oversight for good measure.

These are not emergency powers in wartime, but permanent new powers since we are in permanent new state of war. Alongside our constitution, Cheney has constructed a rival governing force, a protectorate, answerable to no one and no law, dedicated to our security. We do get to select that protector every four years (our “accountability moment”), but that’s the extent of our ultimate constitutional and legal protection. This is not self-government; it’s delegation of power to a single leader-guardian-decider. The president is not really the president in this constitutional model. Presidents preside over a constitutional order. Protectors act as constant and energetic guardians of the security of others. They are outside the law, because they believe the law impedes the necessity for risk-free security.

All of that sounds reasonable, but lest you think Andrew Sullivan has finally gotten good sense, he reminds us that he is in fact a kook of the first order by drawing a comparison between Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney: “Cheney’s protectorate is going to be inherited by a person as power-hungry, secretive and ruthless as Senator Clinton.”

Poll: Little Support for Bush and His Libby Commute, But Growing Support for Impeachmnent

Buck Banks

There’s some speculation that George Bush’s dismally low approval rating made it all that much easier for him to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence because, well, what did he have to lose? His vaunted “political capital?”

As Time’s Richard Lacayo sees it, it’s just another Bush promise that seemed to be broken — or was it?

George W. Bush once promised that anyone in his Administration who broke the law would “be taken care of.” At the time, he appeared to mean they would face the consequences of their actions. Then he took care of I. Lewis Libby, and all at once, his words assumed a somewhat different tone.

Semantics aside, National Journal’s PollTrack surveyed the surveys, and found that Scooter’s Get Out of Jail Card did not play with most Americans:

A 54-percent majority said they wanted to see the House move to impeach the vice president.

Just 31 percent of American Research Group respondents said they supported Bush’s move to commute Libby’s sentence. About double that number (64 percent) said they disapproved.

A full pardon would have been even less popular. Just 11 percent of respondents said they supported a “complete presidential pardon” for Libby; 84 percent opposed one. Seven in 10 Republicans said they were against a pardon; 82 percent of Democrats and a whopping 97 percent of independents said the same.

Earlier polls didn’t show much support for a pardon, either. Just two in 10 told FOX News/Opinion Dynamics pollsters two weeks ago that Bush should let Libby off the hook. Polls from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation and Gallup taken soon after the March 6 verdict found similarly low numbers.

Are we, as a nation, fed up enough with Bush and Cheney’s antics to demand they be impeached? Maybe:

The ARG survey also shows that some Americans want to put their disapproval of Bush into action. Forty-five percent of the total sample said they support the House starting impeachment proceedings against the president, including half of all self-described independents. Overall, 46 percent opposed it. Cheney’s numbers were even worse: A 54-percent majority said they wanted to see the House move to impeach the vice president, and four in 10 said they did not.

Why Won’t Cindy Sheehan Just Shut Up and Go Away?

Buck Banks

Two months ago we thought we were rid of Cindy Sheehan, whose well-intentioned anti-war activities were rendered virtually meaningless by her own personality and her poorly chosen associations. In May Sheehan said she was quitting the peace movement and retreating from public life to mend her health and personal life.

Unfortunately, she’s back and yacking at the media again.

Now, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq is threatening to challenge the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2008 elections unless Nancy Pelosi files articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush within the next two weeks. Ooh, I’ll bet Nancy’s just quaking in her Prada heels.

“I think all politicians should be held accountable,” Sheehan told The Associated Press on Sunday. “Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war.”

While Sheehan does have a point that the Democratic leadership has rendered the term “Democratic leadership” an oxymoron, the thought of Sheehan running for Pelosi’s seat in Congress is absurd. Granted, Pelosi has had her blond moments since becoming House speaker, but she has a track record that trumps Sheehan’s “name recognition,” which Sheehan says is her strong suit.

While I would never belittle Sheehan’s loss of her son or deny her right to protest against the war in Iraq, I think she would be doing the peace movement, the impeachment movement and all of us a favor if she would just quietly fade away. And stay away.

Are We Still in Iraq So Democrats Can Win?

Trish

Independent weekly columnist and author Hal Crowley was no doubt already working on this masterpiece when headlines proclaimed that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would — incredibly — not yet consider impeachment an option for either Bush or Cheney.

Crowther tries to MOVE US ALREADY from our collective inertia and the delusions we’ve accepted about what we have to lose by leaving Iraq (nothing) and by impeaching Bush/Cheney (nothing).

He also asks a damn good question.

The Bush administration is a cadaver decomposing on America’s doorstep—yet no one will take responsibility for it, no one will give it a decent burial, no one even has the courage to step over it and try to get on with a nation’s decent business.

Democrats are so desperate to win the presidency in 2008 that they refuse to relinquish their two most persuasive, most visible arguments for regime change

This is the president who cannot be resuscitated and cannot be removed. A lame duck is a thing we’ve dealt with before…A dead duck in the White House is a constitutional crisis no scholar ever anticipated and no think tank ever analyzed.

The president’s Memorial Day speech at Arlington was a crowning outrage, one that pushed many a patient, hopeful citizen over the edge into incoherent despair… “Now this hallowed ground receives a new generation of heroes,” he declaimed. “I hope you find comfort in knowing that your loved ones rest in a place even more peaceful than the fields that surround us here.”

…Hypocrisy of such concentrated toxicity seems almost superhuman. “Shame!” the dead cry, but in America, shame died years ago and lies buried in an unmarked grave, perhaps at Arlington…

As Baghdad disintegrated, body bags proliferated and his henchpersons’ interlocking scandals reverberated—as his approval rating scraped bottom near an historic 25 percent, meaning he’s squandered the trust of at least half the people who voted for him in 2004—President Bush faced no future but no certain reckoning. Can no one rid us of this albatross?

…Across the country, from Hawaii to Maine, 70-odd city councils and 14 state Democratic parties have voted to impeach both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney…But in Congress no one seems to have the stomach for the job.

[…]