Jude

Meet Dick Cheney's Legal Team!
Note: Extra fees may apply for hunting accidents
Mark Fiore
February 16th, 2006
http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,fiore,72214,9.html

Impeach George W. Bush
BONNIE ERBE
Feb 21, 2006, 00:33
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8173.shtml

Those blasphemously "liberal" media outlets have once again deprived
the American public of widespread coverage of nothing less than
startling poll results. The non-partisan polling firm Zogby
International last month found that by a margin of 52 percent to 43
percent, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush
"if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval."

Well, there's no "if" about it anymore. The president approved
warrantless wiretaps in 2002. Two years later, during a campaign
appearance in Buffalo, N.Y. he volunteered he'd done nothing of the
kind. That's called breaking the law and lying about it.

Yes, the poll results have been reported on a few Web sites. But they
have not exactly been trumpeted by the Blow Hard Boys on the Fox News
Channel, nor even "front-paged" on the New York Times. Nor have they
appeared as the lead story on any of the evening newscasts. From the
right to the left, this poll has been ignored _ as has a recent Gallup
poll showing a majority of Americans consider the Bush presidency to
be a failure. Why? Because it's seen as risky.

Media inattention to the growing American pro-impeachment sentiment is
not a partisan issue. Reasonable, honest Republicans such as Sen. John
McCain, R-Ariz., have criticized Bush's wiretapping "sans" court
approval as a violation of the law and basic civil liberties.

Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., now a conservative TV commentator, also
sees the president's actions as law-breaking. Conservative legal
analyst Bruce Fein, who worked in the Reagan Justice Department, wrote
in The Washington Times that Bush should face "possible impeachment"
if the practice is not stopped.

Personally, I do not find illegal wiretapping to be the worst offense
committed against our nation by this president. I'd rate purposefully
destructive federal overspending as the most egregious transgression.
Did you happen to notice last week Treasury Secretary John Snow
"informed Congress that he would begin borrowing from the federal
employees' retirement fund to avoid exceeding the nation's statutory
debt limit of $8.184 trillion"? That, as reported by my Scripps Howard
colleague, Dale McFeatters.

I'd rate "tricking" Americans into a costly, deadly, unwinnable war in
Iraq and alienating most other nations as second. I'd rate wanton
disregard for science and the promotion of so-called junk science - to
wit, global warming is a gossamer concept - as an excuse for
environmental destruction as third. Abramoff-related partisan
corruption and the outing of CIA agent Plame would figure in there
somewhere. And somewhere lower down the list would come warrantless
wiretaps.

But grassroots passion for impeachment prompted by this president's
circumvention of Congress and the Constitution is what's driving
growing public support. And America's transition from "Bush fan" to
"Bush foe" is being ignored by the mainstream media.

Surprisingly, the media did anything but ignore the Republican-led
impeachment movement against former President Clinton, even when the
public was decidedly more supportive of that president than it is of
the current one

In December 1998, after the House voted to send articles of
impeachment to the U.S. Senate, 59 percent of Americans told
Washington Post/ABC News pollsters they disapproved of the House
action. A minority of 40 percent said they favored it. And that
followed months and months of nonstop, primetime, mainstream media
coverage of Clinton's lie. If anything, the constant chorus of
conservative calls for Clinton's ouster coupled with unending coverage
of same should have pushed the public into a more solidly
pro-impeachment stand. It did not. But the media did not relent. (For
the record, I wrote at the time that Clinton should step down.)

Of course, U.S. leadership is rearranged now. Clinton, a Democrat,
faced an opposition-led Congress. Even if congressional minority party
Democrats could muster the backbone to make a unified call for
impeachment hearings, they lack the votes to succeed in either
chamber. At least Republicans succeeded in the Republican-controlled
House against Clinton, although they ultimately lost in the
Republican-controlled Senate.

Where are the oft-denounced "liberal" media on this issue? Truth is,
the "liberal" media is and always was a figment of extreme (not
mainstream) conservative rhetoric. The corporate media stays where it
almost always has been - to the right of center and shying away from
risky topics. ++

White House Working to Avoid Wiretap Probe
But Some Republicans Say Bush Must Be More Open About Eavesdropping Program
Charles Babington
Monday, February 20, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR200...

At two key moments in recent days, White House officials contacted
congressional leaders just ahead of intelligence committee meetings
that could have stirred demands for a deeper review of the
administration's warrantless-surveillance program, according to House
and Senate sources.

In both cases, the administration was spared the outcome it most
feared, and it won praise in some circles for showing more openness to
congressional oversight.

But the actions have angered some lawmakers who think the
administration's purported concessions mean little. Some Republicans
said that the White House came closer to suffering a big setback than
is widely known, and that President Bush must be more forthcoming
about the eavesdropping program to retain Congress's good will.

The first White House scramble came on Feb. 8, before the House
intelligence committee began a closed briefing on the program, which
Bush began in late 2001 but which was disclosed only recently. The
program allows the National Security Agency to monitor communications
involving a person in the United States and one outside, provided one
is a possible terrorism suspect. The administration says the program
is exempt from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which
provides for domestic surveillance warrants. Many lawmakers and legal
scholars disagree.

The House hearing came a day after a prominent Republican member
called for an inquiry into the wiretapping program, and two days after
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had angered some senators by
defending it without providing details. On Feb. 8, House members were
grumbling that the administration apparently planned to have Gonzales,
joined by former NSA director Michael V. Hayden, provide the same
limited briefing to the House intelligence committee.

But the White House unexpectedly announced that Gonzales and Hayden
would give the 21-member committee more insight into the program's
"procedural aspects." The briefing placated many members. When
committee leaders later said the panel will look further into the
program, they made clear it will be a controlled process rather than
the freewheeling investigation some Democrats want.

The second White House flurry occurred last Thursday, as the Senate
intelligence committee readied for a showdown over a motion by top
Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.) to start a broad inquiry into
the surveillance program. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card
Jr. -- who had visited the Capitol two days earlier with Vice
President Cheney to lobby Republicans on the program -- spoke by phone
with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), according to Senate sources
briefed on the call.

Snowe earlier had expressed concerns about the program's legality and
civil liberties safeguards, but Card was adamant about restricting
congressional oversight and control, said the sources, who spoke on
the condition of anonymity, citing office policies. Snowe seemed taken
aback by Card's intransigence, and the call amounted to "a net step
backward" for the White House, said a source outside Snowe's office.

Snowe contacted fellow committee Republican Chuck Hagel (Neb.), who
also had voiced concerns about the program. They arranged a three-way
phone conversation with Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

Until then, Roberts apparently thought he had the votes to defeat
Rockefeller's motion in the committee, which Republicans control nine
to seven, the sources said. But Snowe and Hagel told the chairman that
if he called up the motion, they would support it, assuring its
passage, the sources said.
When the closed meeting began, Roberts averted a vote on Rockefeller's
motion by arranging for a party-line vote to adjourn until March 7.
The move infuriated Rockefeller, who told reporters, "The White House
has applied heavy pressure in recent weeks to prevent the committee
from doing its job."

Hagel and Snowe declined interview requests after the meeting, but
sources close to them say they bridle at suggestions that they buckled
under administration heat. The White House must engage "in good-faith
negotiations" with Congress, Snowe said in a statement.

Roberts, reacting to Hagel and Snowe's actions, told the New York
Times on Friday that he now supports bringing the NSA program under
FISA's jurisdiction in some manner, a stand that could put him at odds
with the administration. The White House has praised a plan by Sen.
Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) to draft legislation that would exempt the NSA
program from FISA, while providing for congressional oversight.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that Bush "is open to ideas
from Congress regarding legislation, and we've committed to working
with Congress on a bill." ++

The S.O.B. has to go
DOUG THOMPSON
Feb 21, 2006
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8177.shtml

Bonnie Erbe, a columnist whose work I respect, writes elsewhere on
this web site today that President George W. Bush should be impeached
for his many high crimes against the Constitution of the United
States.

"The non-partisan polling firm Zogby International last month found
that by a margin of 52 percent to 43 percent, Americans want Congress
to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American
citizens without a judge's approval," Erbe says. "Well, there's no
"if" about it anymore. The president approved warrantless wiretaps in
2002. Two years later, during a campaign appearance in Buffalo, N.Y.
he volunteered he'd done nothing of the kind. That's called breaking
the law and lying about it."

It has taken a while but the American people are coming around to
realize what some of us have been saying for some time: George Bush is
a serious threat to the future of this country and represents a clear
and present danger to the peace and security of the United States of
America.

We're not talking about some Presidential horn toad nailing an intern
in the oval office. We're not even talking about a paranoid, power-mad
President tapping the phones of the opposition party. We're talking
about a concentrated effort to undermine the Constitution of the
United States, subvert the laws of the nation and destroy the very
foundations of this country.

Bush is a power-mad megalomaniac hell-bent on undermining the freedoms
and civil liberties that once characterized this nation, a crazed
despot who cares nothing for the truth, human decency or law.

He is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden and more corrupt than any
President in modern history. He is, simply put, a threat who must be
removed from office now by whatever legal means necessary to protect
the safety of the nation.

Bonnie is a lady and her well-written, sanely-reasoned column should
be read and heeded by all.

"Grassroots passion for impeachment prompted by this president's
circumvention of Congress and the Constitution is what's driving
growing public support," she says. "And America's transition from
'Bush fan' to 'Bush foe' is being ignored by the mainstream media."

Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law professor at George Washington
University and also sees Bush as a threat to Democracy.

"President George W. Bush has claimed the authority to violate federal
statutes when he believes it is necessary for the nation's security,"
Turley says. "Such a claim of authority would upset the delicate
balance of power in our tripartite system of government and convert
the Chief Executive into a type of maximum leader; the very scourge
that led our Framers to form this Republic"

I'm neither as polite as Bonnie Erbe or as scholarly as Jonathan
Turley. But agree with both of them without reservation.

The son-of-a-bitch has to go. ++

It is not enough to be compassionate; you must act.
-- The Dalai Lama