Some Thoughts On Yesterday's Trial Proceedings

First, Dan Rather:

The evidence is damning, chilling, and overwhelming. Only cowardice and complicity stands in the way of conviction.

— Dan Rather (@DanRather) February 10, 2021

Yep. That's about right.

More from Dan Rather:

I firmly believe that the vast majority of American citizens will see this clearly for what it is. But our voices are on the sidelines for now, other than the pressure of conscience we can bring to bear on the 100 senators who will stand in judgement. That these same women and men were also in the crosshairs of the murderous mob and that the trial is taking place at the scene of the crime, makes the events transpiring today on Capitol Hill even more surreal. 

• For the senators, there can be no hiding from this historic decision... silence or procedural excuses equal complicity.  
• For the rioters, there can be no leniency... terrorists are inspired by weakness.
• For the instigators, there can be no immunity... to drum up a mob hellbent on violent injustice is to encourage insurrection. 
• For those in the right-wing media who aided and abetted the lies, there can be no normalizing... their role in setting the stage for the insurrection is cemented by hours of television and thousands of tweets. 
• For those who have dabbled in the false equivalence framework so prevalent in Washington, this must be the end of that... there can be no comparison between the actions of the previous president and his enablers, abetters, and cheerleaders, and any "other side." Thankfully, I think many in the press have long ago realized this and have reported accordingly.

Some might argue that this is a rush to judgement, that the president's counsel has a right to present their case. That is indeed true. But you would have to be willfully ignorant, or cynical to the point of malevolence, to not see and hear with clarity the evidence as it stands.

The Senate must convict Donald Trump.

Two Slightly Different Messages From Two Leading Republicans In The House

From the Chair of The House Republican Conference, Representative Liz Cheney:

On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic.

Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

I will vote to impeach the President.

And she was not the only defection from the Trump party:

Ten Republicans joined Democrats in voting to impeach: Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the party’s No. 3 leader in the House; Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington; John Katko of New York; Adam Kinzinger of Illinois; Fred Upton of Michigan; Dan Newhouse of Washington; Peter Meijer of Michigan; Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio; David Valadao of California; and Tom Rice of South Carolina.

The defections were a remarkable break from the head of the party by Republicans, who voted unanimously against impeaching Mr. Trump just over a year ago.

Interestingly, they were not joined by the guy who said this:

Madam Speaker, let me be clear, last week’s violent attack on the Capitol was undemocratic, un-American and criminal. Violence is never a legitimate form of protest. Freedom of speech and assembly under the constitution is rooted in non-violence. Yet the violent mob that descended upon this body was neither peaceful nor democratic. It acted to disrupt Congress’s constitutional responsibility.

And:

And make no mistake, those who are responsible for Wednesday’s chaos will be brought to justice...

And:

The President bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.

Because for some reason, GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy doesn't seem to think that such actions rise to the level of impeachment. Oh, well.

If only Trump had lied about getting a blowjob from a woman who wasn't his wife, I suppose.

Article of Impeachment (January, 2021)

Resolution

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, the Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE 1: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment, for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States from "hold[ing] and office ... under the United States.' In his conduct while President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, provide, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:

On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it by a landslide." He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol, such as: "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session's solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts.

President Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to "find" enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Senator Pat Toomey, When Will He See The Need To Subpoena Bolton?

A few days ago, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey discussed the criteria needed to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald J Trump:

But his bar for allowing any outside testimony remains as high as his bar for removing a president from office. He doesn’t see an “automatic presumption” that there must be witnesses in the impeachment trial, arguing that hearing from those individuals should be used to resolve any key disputed facts.

“The criteria is not, does the witness have something interesting to say,” Toomey told Pennsylvania reporters during an interview Friday morning in his Capitol Hill office. “The criteria is, are they likely to be able to shed definitive light on a disputed issue that is so central to this case that the resolution of it could change my final conclusion?”

He also complained that the House managers, while praising their organization and discipline, were "highly repetitive."

This weekend, the New York Times published this:

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

The Washington Post also reported this weekend that:

Charles Cooper, a lawyer for Bolton, said he submitted the manuscript to the National Security Council’s records management division on Dec. 30 for a standard review process to examine potentially classified information. Cooper said they believed that the book manuscript did not include any classified material and that its contents would not be shared with officials outside that review process.

December 30 is twelve days after the House vote to impeach Trump. The night of that vote, Senator Mitch McConnell said this on Fox "News":

Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this[.]

Senator Toomey, is this enough for you?  Here's a witness (former National Security Advisor John Bolton, a first-hand, eye-witness) who can shed light on a key element of Trump's defense: that the decision to uphold the aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into the Bidens.

Don't you think he should be heard by the full Senate?

Since Majority Leader McConnell has stated that there's no difference between his position and the White House's position on dealing with the impeachment trial, does this mean that Trump's defense team has had access to the contents of Bolton's book, especially since Trump has already gloated that they "have all the material"? 

How can this possibly be the "impartial justice" you took an oath to uphold?

I'm asking as a constituent.

This Will Not Age Well (Guy Reschenthaler on Impeachment)

From Representative Guy Reschenthaler:

This is a sad day for our democracy. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to begin a formal impeachment inquiry based on secondhand allegations shows just how desperate the Democrats are to undo the will of the American people. President Trump has agreed to release the unredacted transcript of his phone call with the president of Ukraine and the House Intelligence Committee has yet to hold any hearings on this matter. Calling for impeachment before learning the facts sets a dangerous precedent and shows that once again, House Democrats are putting political theatre before the needs of the American people.

A few things:

• Doesn't Guy know we don't live in a "democracy" but a "representative republic"?? I only ask that because whenever anyone on my TEEVEE says we live in a democracy, some MAGA hatter will snark, "It's not a democracy, it's a representative republic, you idiot!!" (Note: the "you idiot" is silent)
• Doesn't Guy know that his hero Trump lost the popular vote by about 3 million votes? The "will of the American People" was actually Trump's opponent.
• Doesn't Guy know that Trump admitted to pressuring a foreign government for his own political gain? Doesn't Guy think that that, alone, is worthy of an impeachment inquiry? I mean, what if Obama did it? Or Hillary?

Yea, this statement won't age well.

Senator Toomey Responds

Remember this blogpost from this weekend?

It was the one where Grover Norquist threatened that if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended and if the Ryan Plan for restructuring Medicare wasn't implemented, the GOP would Impeach President Obama.  At the end of it, I asked Senator Toomey (since he'd signed one of Norquist's tax-pledges) whether he'd be in favor of impeachment if those criteria weren't met.

Here's his response (or at least his office's response) via email:

Dear David,

Thank you for contacting me about taxes. I appreciate hearing from you.

Last year, the people of Pennsylvania sent Congress a clear message that the time has come for government to live within its means. Total federal spending has doubled since 2000, while the debt has already doubled in just four years and is expected to triple in eleven years. America cannot sustain its current fiscal path without devastating our economy and crippling future generations with a crushing debt burden.

It is for this reason that I have introduced a ten-year budget plan (S. Con. Res. 21) that would balance the federal budget by making crucial reductions in spending while also simplifying the tax code. As we can both agree, our current tax code is unnecessarily complicated, which is why my budget plan would consolidate the current six income tax brackets to three. By also eliminating special-interest tax benefits and deductions, we can lower America's corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, encourage growth, and incentivize job creation in the private sector. On May 25, 2011, my budget plan was unfortunately defeated by a vote margin of 42-55 in the Senate.

In addition, you may be interested to know that I have supported efforts to eliminate wasteful tax benefits. For instance, in June, I voted in favor of amendments offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would eliminate certain tax breaks for ethanol.

That said, I understand your views on taxes and value the input. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind as I remain committed to advancing common-sense fiscal reform in Washington.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

I'll leave it up to you as to whether he (or at least his office) answered the question about impeachment.

More On Republicans' Respect For The Constitution

From yesterday's National Journal.  Grover Norquist, good shepherd of our Congress' anti-tax Republicans was asked about two separate scenarios for Congress post-2012.  The first - the GOP controls everything:

I think when we get through this election cycle, we’ll have a Republican majority, [though] not necessarily a strong majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House. The majority in the House will continue to be a Reagan majority, a conservative majority. Boehner never has to talk his delegation going further to the right.

If the Republicans have the House, Senate, and the presidency, I’m told that they could do an early budget vote—a reconciliation vote where you extend the Bush tax cuts out for a decade or five years. You take all of those issues off the table, and then say, “What do you want to do for tax reform?”

Then, the question is: “OK, what do we do about repatriation and all of the interesting stuff?” And, if you have a Republican president to go with a Republican House and Senate, then they pass the [Paul] Ryan plan [on Medicare].

The Ryan Medicare Plan is the one that would, according to the CBO:

Among other changes, the proposal would convert the current Medicare program to a system under which beneficiaries received premium support payments—payments that would be used to help pay the premiums for a private health insurance policy and would grow over time with overall consumer prices.

And:

Federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be substantially smaller than currently projected amounts. States would have additional flexibility to design and manage their Medicaid programs, and they might achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of care than under current law. Even with additional flexibility, however, the large projected reduction in payments would probably require states to decrease payments to Medicaid providers, reduce eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law.

And finally:

Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system. For a typical 65-year-old with average health spending enrolled in a plan with benefits similar to those currently provided by Medicare, CBO estimated the beneficiary’s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of a benchmark: what total health care spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By 2030, the beneficiary’s spending would be 68 percent of that benchmark under the proposal, 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario, and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.

So of course Norquist's anti-tax team is just chomping at the bit to vote for it.

But I fear we're getting somewhat off topic.  What was that OTHER scenario Norquist was asked about - the one where the Democrats "still have control"?

Ah...let's take a look:

Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.

There's Norquist's choice; extend the Bush tax cuts and shred Medicare OR Impeach Barack Obama.

Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution says:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So what's the charge?  Is it treason for allowing a tax cut to expire?  For not favoring a wholesale dismantling of Medicare?  Or are those merely "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

Can someone explain it to me?

Senator Toomey?  You're one of my two Senators here in Pennsylvania and  you signed a Norquist anti-tax pledge.  Would YOU be in favor of impeaching President Obama if the Bush tax cuts expire?  Or if Representative Ryan's plan isn't implemented?

Look What Happened Today!

From CBS News:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this morning that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

Kucinich is expected to offer a "privileged resolution" this afternoon calling on the House to look at whether President Bush should be removed from office for lying to Congress and the American public when he sought congressional approval back in 2002 for taking military action to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Personally I'd be happy if they could just grow a spine (or other body part) and get it on the record dubya lied.

Lied his New Haven-born Texas bred AWOL from the TANG butt off.

In Case You Missed It

Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced Articles of Impeachment into the Congressional Record yesterday.

While we firmly believe that someone has to be held accountable for this administration's high crimes and that it's the Congress' duty to impeach Bush for the sake of the integrity of the system, we don't think that anything will come of this.

Especially since Nancy Pelosi declared back in mid-2006, months before the Democrats took over the House that impeachment was "off the table." She reiterated this the day after the Democrats won back the House.

Congressman Doyle, in February 2007, felt that he did not want his legacy to be getting Dick Cheney into the Oval Office. As I wrote back then:

Doyle feels that impeachment would be a diversion that would only serve to boost the president's approval ratings as his core would rally around him, taking with them, probably, a sizeable number of moderate republicans with them.

The real damage to be done is through strict oversight (and on this we, of course, agree). Once all the corruption is uncovered (for example how much taxpayer money's been wasted in Iraq) those guilty will be leaving office humiliated. Impeachment would inevitably be spun as a political circus. Oversight hearings will prove the charges.

There's probably not enough time to hold dubya accountable for his many impeachable acts. There're probably not enough Republicans willing to do the right thing either.

And as of about 3:20 this afternoon. the resolution, H.Res 1258, was sent to the Judiciary Committee.

Bush: "We do not torture"

Cognitive dissonance:

1) Bush: "We do not torture."

2)
.

Iraq War Vigils Tonight

From MoveOn.org:

New Priorities Vigil

The war in Iraq has gone on for nearly five years. The unbearable costs at home and abroad keep mounting. It's clear that Americans are ready for a real change in direction.

On March 19th, tens of thousands of people across the country will gather to observe the fifth anniversary of the war with candlelight vigils. We'll commemorate the sacrifices too many families have made, and the billions of dollars wasted in Iraq that could have been better invested at home..

Join us at a candlelight vigil on Wednesday, March 19th. Honor the sacrifice. Change our priorities. Bring the troops home.

Details:

Wednesday, 19 Mar 2008, 7:00 PM

New Priorities Vigil
In front of Sixth Presbyterian Church
72 registered participant(s) (100 maximum)
Forbes and Murray

Click here to see other vigils or to RSVP


.

Why do you hate America?

Apparently not only would a Clinton/Obama presidency be a "surrender to terror," it would put "prosperity and peace" at stake.

So I guess that means that a Clinton/Obama presidency would mean that we'd have a large scale terrorist attack on our watch (after ignoring any and all warnings) in which we'd sit frozen like a deer caught in the headlights when it happened, be in the middle of two wars (one civil which has increased the number of terrorists), never capture Bin Laden on our watch, have nearly 4,000 troops die on our watch, create record deficits and start a recession.

Damn, I agree! A president who'd do that would not only be the biggest piece of shit, but would also pose a real danger to our country!

(File this under: IOKIYAR -- It's OK if you are Republican.)
.

In Case You Missed It

Yesterday in the Washington Post, Former Senator George McGovern calls for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to be Impeached.

He isn't optimistic about the possibility:

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

Unfortunately, he's right. But soon enough, he gets down to business:

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

The details? The "murderous illegal war in Iraq" done without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war from Congress, that the war is in defiance of the UN charter and is in violation of international law. Oh, and he also mentions that the use of torture is in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

After asking the rhetorical question "how could this happen"? We get this:

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.

Then there's the mismanagement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

I'll let the Senator have the last word:

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.

FISA Bill Granting Telecoms Retroactive Immunity Pulled! Thank You Chris Dodd!

From The Huffington Post:

Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill

Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance.

The measure was part of a greater bill to reorganize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Earlier on Monday, the Senate, agreed to address a bill that would have overhauled FISA, authorized the monitoring of people outside the United States, given secret courts the power to approve aspects of surveillance, and granted telecom companies retroactive immunity for past cooperation.

But the threat of Dodd's filibuster, aimed primarily at the latter measure, persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. A compromise on the immunity will ostensibly be worked out in the interim period.

[snip]

While he never technically conducted a filibuster, according to aides, Dodd left the floor only once, to address a press gathering. He did, on occasion cede time to his Democratic colleagues. But even then, they say, he remained engaged in the debate.

"Everyone who spoke on the floor said they were grateful for Dodd taking a stand," said a staffer to the Senator who asked not to be named. "They said if it weren't for him they wouldn't be having this much-needed debate."

Dodd was the one Senator currently running for the White House who left the campaign trail to debate the Protect America Act, an absence he hinted at while on the Senate floor.

Chris Dodd on Bush's threat of a veto:


From Sen. Chris Dodd’s first speech on FISA today:

For the last six years, our largest telecommunications companies have been spying on their own American customers.

Secretly and without a warrant, they delivered to the federal government the private, domestic communications records of millions of Americans—records this administration has compiled into a database of enormous scale and scope.

That decision betrayed millions of customers' trust. It was unwarranted—literally.

What the telecoms did that Bush wants to cover-up by giving them blanket immunity:

What's happening in Room 641A of 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco remains one of the most closely-held secrets in the U.S. government. According to a former AT&T employee who assisted two technicians cleared to work in the telecommunications complex on Folsom Street, 641A served as a vacuum cleaner for phone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects, routing them to the National Security Agency.

The claims made by the ex-employee, Mark Klein, are the basis for a class-action lawsuit against AT&T and affiliated telecoms for illegally harvesting information from U.S. citizens.

[snip]

Klein provided a detailed list of 16 communications networks and exchanges targeted in San Francisco, including MAE-West, a Verizon-owned Internet hub that is among the largest in the country. Klein also said "splitter cabinets" similar to the one on Folsom Street were installed in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

[J. Scott] Marcus, the former FCC adviser, said in a legal declaration recently
unsealed in the case that the operation described by Klein "is neither modest nor limited" and was far more extensive than needed if it was focused only on international communications or on tasks other than surveillance.

"I conclude that AT&T has constructed an extensive -- and expensive -- collection
of infrastructure that collectively has all the capability necessary to conduct large-scale covert gathering of [Internet protocol]-based communications information, not only for communications to overseas locations, but for purely domestic communications as well," said Marcus, a veteran computer network executive who worked at GTE, Genuity and other companies before joining the FCC.

If you can, you might want to throw Dodd some $$$ --- he needs to stay in this race:!

http://chrisdodd.com


.

George W. Bush favors naked men performing sexual acts on each other! (And, it's even better if dogs are involved!)

From The Huffungton Post:

The House approved an intelligence bill Thursday that would prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.

The 222-199 vote sent the measure to the Senate, which still must act before it can go to President Bush. The White House has threatened a veto.

[snip]

The administration particularly opposes restricting the CIA to interrogation methods approved by the military in 2006. That document prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over detainees' heads or duct tape over their eyes; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; threatening them with military dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding.

This bears repeating:

George W. Bush is in favor of forcing detainees to be naked.

George W. Bush is in favor of forcing detainees to perform sexual acts.

George W. Bush is in favor of forcing detainees to pose in a sexual manner.

George W. Bush is in favor of placing hoods or sacks over detainees' heads.

George W. Bush is in favor of placing duct tape over detainees' eyes.

George W. Bush is in favor of beating, shocking, or burning detainees.

George W. Bush is in favor of threatening detainees with military dogs,

George W. Bush is in favor of exposing detainees to extreme heat or cold.

George W. Bush is in favor of conducting mock executions.

George W. Bush is in favor of depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care.

George W. Bush is in favor of waterboarding.

There can be no mistake: The President of the United States is PRO TORTURE.

Impeach the bastard now before we have no reputation left (if it isn't too late already).

The following acts are approved by George W. Bush:
















By the way: "Military Leaders: Ignore Bush Veto Threat, Ban Waterboarding"

Thirty retired admirals and generals have penned a letter to key Democrats, urging them to defy President Bush's veto threats and pass legislation requiring U.S intelligence agents to follow strict standards for detainee treatment.

[snip]

"We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans," the military officials write. "That principle, embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided generations of American military personnel in combat. The current situation, in which the military operates under one set of interrogation rules that are public and the CIA operates under a separate, secret set of rules, is unwise and impractical."

So, not only is Bush PRO TORTURE, he's also AGAINST the troops.
.

Waterboarding: Just the Facts, Ma'am

With all that's been said on the subject of waterboarding just this week a girl can sure get confused.

For example, we learned the other day that the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its "harshest interrogation tactics" that may have included waterboarding and other torture despite a court order.

However, it's probably OK because President Bush has said that he didn't know about the destruction of CIA videotapes and we know that President Bush would never outright lie or even mislead about his knowledge of anything important.

Moreover on the one hand, President Bush has said, “We do not torture."

So, cool, right?

On the other hand, the White House will not confirm whether or not the US waterboards suspects.

But on, uh, another hand (you need a lot of hands to follow this story), Vice President Dick Cheney remarked about allowing the CIA to use waterboarding, "It's a no-brainer for me."

So, I guess it maybe all comes down to whether or not you believe that waterboarding is torture.

Now, we know that in 1947 that the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. We also know that "In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject."

We also know that "On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense released a revised Army Field Manual entitled Human Intelligence Collector Operations that prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes."

This would all seem to say that waterboarding is, indeed, torture.

But, wait! Apparently waterboarding is not torture.

How do I know this?

Because Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) has told us so:

GWEN IFILL: I just would like to -- but do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture?

SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It's like swimming, freestyle,
backstroke. The waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through, but that's beside the point. It's not being used.

Now you know: the US does not torture (even if it occasionally must destroy tapes of torture); the US does not waterboard (except when it does); and, anyway, waterboarding is not torture (except when it is).

Or, to represent this in pictorial form:

NOT WATERBOARDING:


WATERBOARDING:


NOT WATERBOARDING:


WATERBOARDING:


Got it? Well, alrighty then!
.

Bush & Cheney lied to public; implicated in Plame scandal

From former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself."

The CNN story on this helpfully reminds us that, "Rove, who left the White House staff at the end of August, was not charged in the case. But his lawyer has acknowledged he was one of two sources cited by syndicated columnist Bob Novak, who first reported in the summer of 2003 that Plame worked for the CIA."

Now here's where the Wingnuts will cry that Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage admitted to revealing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE LEAKERS TO MULTIPLE REPORTERS/COLUMNISTS.

Is there anything about this was that Bush and Cheney haven't lied about?

IMPEACH
.

More Numbers

Funny how, even though I've been a way for a bit, things haven't changed much.

Note a recent poll done by the American Research Group.

A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.

Here's what ARG did. They polled 1,100 registered voters about a series of statements and asked which statement the respondent agreed with most. Here are the statements:

1. President Bush has not abused his powers as president.

2. President Bush has abused his powers as president, but the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment under the Constitution.

3. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached.

4. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.

And here's another look at the data. For all voters, 36% agreed with the first statement, 9% agreed with the second, 21% agreed with the third, and 34% agreed with the last. They did a percentage of the percentage thing and it moves things a step or two away from the raw data (and that always gets a little dicey). But there is some interesting data there when broken down by party.

For Democrats the percentages for those same statemnts are; 16, 9, 25, 50. So half of the Democrats polled think that Bush has abused his powers in such a way that it rises to the level of impeachment.

But take a look at the percentages from our friends in the GOP. Those percentages are, 64, 6, 12, 18. So while a little under 2/3 of Republicans don't think the President has abused his powers at all, 18% think he has and should be should be impeached for it. Additionally, 12% of the Republicans polled think that while he has abused his powers enough to be impeached, he shouldn't be impeached.

So...

30% of the Republicans polled think dubya has abused the powers of his office enough to warrant impeachment (though some don't think he should be impeached).

30% - where are these people?

Veterns Day: Support Our Troops

November 11 is Veterans Day (observed tomorrow). In honor of that, I'm passing along this list of things you can do to support the troops that made its way into my mailbox:

TOP 10 WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
(With apologies to David Letterman)

10. Post a message on the Wounded Heroes Tribute page
Go to http://www.caringbridge.org/ to send a message to someone recovering from injuries.

9. Knit or crochet a helmet liner
Go to www.geocities.com/helmetliner to download the pattern.

8. Donate Phone Cards
Go to operationuplink@vfw.org , to send phone cards to our troops overseas.

7. Send Books
Go to http://www.booksforsoldiers.com/ , to find out how to send books to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and in military hospitals.

6. Help Provide Groceries
Go to http://www.comissaries.com/ , to help provide groceries for service families.

5. Donate Your Frequent Flyer Miles
Go to http://www.heromiles.org/ , to help service men and women get back to their families.

4. Support the Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes
Go to http://www.saluteheroes.org/ to help wounded and disabled veterans

3. Visit http://www.anysoldier.com/
Get names and addresses of service men and women and send them care packages.

2. Give To Homes For Our Troops
Call 866-7-troops, to donate to build or remodel accessible homes for severely injured veterans

1. Call Your Congressman
Tell him Dennis Kucinich is right. Impeach Bush and Cheney Now!

Kucinich Introduces Impeachment of Cheney on House Floor

There are things happening outside of Pittsburgh. (Really!)

Read more here and here.

Too late! They wimped out.