Ever since the election this week, much controversy has been made of the possiblity of impeaching George W. Bush, and the assertion that such plans are not on the table. 

Elizabeth Holtzman represented New York in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1973 to 1981, and played a key role in the impeachment of Richard Nixon.  In her Common Dreams article, she points out:

Even if impeachment is “off the table,” according to Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (who as the new Speaker of the House will be next in line for the presidency after Vice President Dick Cheney), recent national polls and impeachment-ballot initiatives in San Francisco, Berkeley, and two townships in Champaign-Urbana, Ill., and elsewhere, show it is on Americans’ table.

And what of those polls?  Well, according to Rawstory,  an MSNBC online poll shows that the overwhelming majority of its participating voters believe President Bush should be impeached.  How great a majority?  How about 87 percent? 

Before any impeachment actions would take place, there would need to be investigations.  And there are several such investigations that have already begun, but due to Republican House Rules the Democrats were not allowed to take sworn testimony or to use the power of the subpoena.

John Conyers, soon to become the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has plenty to work with. He has already looked at the NSA Warrantless Surveilance programs, the irregularities that took place in Ohio in the November 2004 election, trumped up evidence which led us into the war in Iraq, and other significant events.  Indeed, Congressman Conyers will have his hands full.

And then there is Congressman Henry Waxman.  Ever diligent, Waxman will similarly have plenty to occupy him.  So much so, he’s not quite sure where to begin, there are so many issues which have been left unattended to.

The Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration’s running of the government says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue.

There’s the response to Hurricane Katrina, government contracting in Iraq and on homeland security, political interference in regulatory decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, and allegations of war profiteering, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

“I’m going to have an interesting time because the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over everything,” Waxman said Friday, three days after his party’s capture of Congress put him in line to chair the panel. “The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose.”

So clearly, Mr. Bush can look forward to having his attention drawn to the many investigations that will loom. And if you recall, it was not necessary to impeach Richard Nixon.  Confronted by reality, Nixon simply decided that it was time to go.

Reality is about to beset Mr. Bush.  And if the work of Conyers, Waxman and other members of the legislative branch don’t sufficiently raise the specter of that reality for him, when the American public begins to understand what the media has failed to inform them about over the past 6 years, the public pressure will most certainly bring reality to Mr. Bush’s doorstep.

It’s only a matter of time.  For George W. Bush, the next two years are most certainly going to be an abrupt change from the status quo of the past six.  An abrupt change indeed…

Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards’ lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had “assaulted” the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail. More here.

It is time to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The 9-11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Commission stated that there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11. Our military has done it’s best, but cannot defeat the growing Iraq Insurgency . Iraq is moving toward a civil war. Continuing to fight the Iraq war will only cost more American lives and waste more American tax dollars.

I believe we should begin a phased withdrawal of our forces. “Staying the course” is not a reasonable option . An abrupt withdrawal could cause a full scale Iraqi civil war and destabilize the Middle East . Other countries know this and will commit forces and resources for their own protection as we withdraw.

We are in a war we should not be in and that we cannot win. We should begin withdrawing our forces and hold Bush and Cheney accountable for this unnecessary war.

Neil Posson

George Washington University Professor and Countdown resident Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley joined Keith tonight to discuss the legal implications of President Bush’s proposed changes to Article III of the Geneva Conventions. Keith raises an obvious yet seldom mentioned point: Is the Bush administration trying to retroactively legalize crimes it very well may have already committed? Wouldn’t be the first time.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/16/jonathan-turley-on-legal-implications-of-detainee-treatment-act/

Much has been written about the 750+ presidential signing statements which Bush believes exempts him from the laws of our nation, a concept endorsed by Supreme Court Judge Alito.� John Dean writes about this topic:

Presidential signing statements are old news to anyone who has served in the White House counsel’s office. Presidents have long used them to add their two cents when a law passed by Congress has provisions they do not like, yet they are not inclined to veto it. Nixon’s statements, for example, often related to spending authorization laws which he felt were excessive and contrary to his fiscal policies.

In this column, I’ll take a close look at President Bush’s use of signing statements. I find these signing statements are to Bush and Cheney’s presidency what steroids were to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s body building. Like Schwarzenegger with his steroids, Bush does not deny using his signing statements; does not like talking about using them; and believes that they add muscle.

But like steroids, signing statements ultimately lead to serious trouble.

Here is an archive of those signing statements.� Just search on “signing statement”.

For example…did you realize the state of emergency that led to�war in Afghanistan ceased to�exist in�July 2002?

I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, find that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national emergency in Executive Order 13129 of July 4, 1999, with respect to the Taliban, in allowing territory under its control in Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Ladin and the Al-Qaida organization, has been significantly altered given the success of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and hereby revoke that order and terminate the national emergency declared in that order with respect to the Taliban.

Sounds so familliar…�

David Martin, author of America’s Dreyfus Affair, has written a piece entitled “Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression,” wherein he says, “Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.”

His techniques include:

1. Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “how dare you?” gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.”

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nut,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and of course, “rumor monger.” You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as “old news.”

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hang-out route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven’t reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

From Congressman George Miller (D-California, 7th District):

WASHINGTON, DC � Congressman Henry A. Waxman, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congressmen George Miller and Elijah E. Cummings, and other senior Democrats released a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report today finding that the Bush Administration spent more than $1.6 billion in public relations and media contracts in a two and a half year span.

�The government is spending over a billion dollars per year on PR and advertising,� said Congressman Waxman. �Careful oversight of this spending is essential given the track record of the Bush Administration, which has used taxpayer dollars to fund covert propaganda within the United States.�

�No amount of money will successfully sell the Bush Administration�s failed policies, from the war in Iraq, to its disastrous energy policy, to its confusing Medicare prescription drug benefits,� said House Democratic Leader Pelosi. �The American people know the Bush Administration is on the wrong track and the White House PR machine won�t change that fact.�

�The extent of the Bush Administration�s propaganda effort is unprecedented and disturbing,� said Congressman Miller. ��The fact is that after all the spin, the American people are stuck with high prescription drug prices, high gas prices, and high college costs. This report raises serious questions about this Administration�s priorities for the country and I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that changes need to be made to reign in the President�s propaganda machine.�

Congressman Henry A. Waxman, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congressmen George Miller and Elijah E. Cummings, and other senior Democrats released a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report today finding that the Bush Administration spent more than $1.6 billion in public relations and media contracts in a two and a half year span.�The extent of the Bush Administration�s propaganda effort is unprecedented and disturbing,� said Congressman Miller. ��The fact is that after all the spin, the American people are stuck with high prescription drug prices, high gas prices, and high college costs. This report raises serious questions about this Administration�s priorities for the country and I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that changes need to be made to reign in the President�s propaganda machine.�

Is this the best use of our tax dollars?

From the Independent in the U.K.:

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies’ products.

~snip~

The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.

~snip~

The controversy over the use of VNRs by television stations first erupted last spring. At the time the FCC issued a public notice warning broadcasters that they were obliged to inform viewers if items were sponsored. The maximum fine for each violation is $32,500 (�17,500).

This New York Times editorial “Block the Vote” discusses legislation that is being enacted across the United States which is specifically focussed on discouraging voter registration drives.

In a country that spends so much time extolling the glories of democracy, it’s amazing how many elected officials go out of their way to discourage voting. States are adopting rules that make it hard, and financially perilous, for nonpartisan groups to register new voters. They have adopted new rules for maintaining voter rolls that are likely to throw off many eligible voters, and they are imposing unnecessarily tough ID requirements.

Florida recently reached a new low when it actually bullied the League of Women Voters into stopping its voter registration efforts in the state. The Legislature did this by adopting a law that seems intended to scare away anyone who wants to run a voter registration drive. Since registration drives are particularly important for bringing poor people, minority groups and less educated voters into the process, the law appears to be designed to keep such people from voting.

It imposes fines of $250 for every voter registration form that a group files more than 10 days after it is collected, and $5,000 for every form that is not submitted � even if it is because of events beyond anyone’s control, like a hurricane. The Florida League of Women Voters, which is suing to block the new rules, has decided it cannot afford to keep registering new voters in the state as it has done for 67 years. If a volunteer lost just 16 forms in a flood, or handed in a stack of forms a day late, the group’s entire annual budget could be put at risk.

HAVA - Hindering votes
When placed in the context of the HAVA legislation that is resulting in a large number of legitimate voter registrations to be cancelled it becomes evident that they who are creating such legislation really prefer that Americans do not vote.

Weyrich: We don’t want to encourage voting
To gain a sense of how America’s political right feel about the importance of voting, consider the remarks of Paul Weyrich.� According to wikipedia, Weyrich is a founder of the Heritage Foundation,�the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and widely considered one of the founders of the American New Right.� Listen to him here.

Convicted GOTV phone line jamming felon released from prison:
Also related, there is the story of the executive director of the New Hampshire state Republican Party�who spent seven month after being convicted for running a�phone-jambing scheme during the 2002 mid-term election, and has just been released.� Now that he is out of prison, will he “help” with the next election?� One suspects so…

Charles McGee, the former executive director of the state Republican Party, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and served seven months for his part in the scheme to have a telemarketer to tie up Democratic and union phone lines in 2002.

He’s back at his old job with a Republican political marketing firm, Spectrum Monthly & Printing Inc., and will be helping out at the firm’s “GOP campaign school” for candidates.

Fooled Again
Mark Crispin Miller’s “Fooled Again” is a good read for understanding all of the recent strategies employed in limiting the vote.

I support Greg Messer for County Supervisor District 3. A county supervisor needs to be able to make difficult decisions, gather information from multiple sources, be strong enough to support his beliefs, be flexible enough to change his mind if he finds he is wrong, be an effective team player , understand large budgets , supervise department heads and have a long range plan for the county.

Greg Messer is an honest man, has been an effective businessman, has supervised hundreds of people and has managed budgets of more than fifty million dollars. Greg is the only candidate with an adequate background to be an effective county supervisor. I recommend Greg Messer for County Supervisor District 3.

Neil Posson
1626 Highland
Mt. Shasta, California
530-926-5767