Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhat Did Pelosi Know About NSA, and When Did She Know It?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has admitted knowing for several years about the Bush administration's eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant. She was briefed on it when she was ranking Democrat the House Intelligence Committee when Bush and Cheney took office. But was she told that within days of their taking office, the National Security Agency's electronic vacuum cleaner had already begun to suck up information on Americans-criminal law and the Constitution be damned?
In a Washington Post op-ed of Jan. 15, 2006, Pelosi, with a uniquely long tenure on the Intelligence Committee, acknowledged that she was one of the privileged handful of lawmakers who were briefed. Referring to her seniority as ranking member, she wrote in her Post apologia sans apology, "This is how I came to be informed of President Bush's authorization for the NSA to conduct certain types of surveillance." She then proceeded to demonstrate her remarkably-one might say unconstitutionally-subservient attitude toward the Executive Branch:
"But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will be shared by no one, including other members of the intelligence committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president's surveillance program, and they were constrained from discussing it more widely."
How did the American people react upon reading in the New York Times in Dec. 2005 of this glaring infringement on their Constitutional rights. Most responded as they have been conditioned to react-out of the old fear-factor shibboleth: "After 9/11/2001 everything changed."
Yes, just as after 2/27/1933, the night of the burning of the German Parliament (Reichstag) in Berlin, everything changed.
As Sebastian Haffner, a young German lawyer and insider wrote from Berlin at the time:
"What one can blame them [German politicians and populace] for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the Constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence. If the Communists burned down the Reichstag, it was perfectly in order that the government took "decisive measures."
"Defying Hitler, a Memoir," p. 121
And if the terrorists attacked on 9/11, it was perfectly in order that the Bush administration took "decisive measures" of similar kind. Shamefully, far too many American politicians exhibited sheepish submissiveness, when the White House PR machine pulled out all stops to exploit the trauma brought on by the attacks of 9/11.
Now we have learned that it is even worse. The eavesdropping abuses began as soon as the Bush administration came into office - well before 9/11.
In recent days, thanks to an enterprising reporter for the Rocky Mountain News, we find that the president, vice president, and CIA director-not to mention the credulous crowd around Nancy Pelosi-have all been regurgitating a king-sized whopper aimed at providing "justification" for the NSA program. Administration PR consultants made this easy by inventing a clever-if retroactive-label to the program: The "Terrorist Surveillance Program." Nothing to fear, folks, unless you're telephoning or emailing Osama bin-Laden.
Whopper? Well yes. It turns out that seven months before the threat of terrorism garnered much White House attention (despite the best efforts of then-counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to install it on everyone's screen-saver, so to speak), the administration instructed NSA to suborn American telecommunications companies to spy illegally on Americans.
Qt the time, the general counsel of Qwest Communications advised management that what NSA was suggesting was illegal. And to his credit, the then-head of the company stuck to a firm "No," unless some way were found to perform legally what NSA wanted done. Qwest's rivals, though, took their cue from the White House, adopted a flexible attitude toward the law, and got the business. They are now being sued. Lawsuit filings claim that, seven months before 9/11, AT&T "began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the NSA."
Adding insult to injury, draft legislation now being pushed by the White House would hold AT&T and other collaborators harmless for playing fast and loose with our right to privacy in order to enhance their bottom line. For its principled but, in government eyes, recalcitrant attitude, Qwest apparently lost out on lucrative government contracts.
Yes, Before 9/11
These illegal operations, including those prior to 9/11, were enabled by Michael Hayden, then head of NSA and now director of CIA. Hayden has been out in front "justifying" illegal eavesdropping by what happened on 9/11. Did he know the illegal activities started before then? Of course; he was ordered to orchestrate them.
Did he know they were illegal? Another no-brainer. While director of NSA, Hayden had emphasized what had long been known as NSA's First Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Eavesdrop on Americans."
But in testimony at his confirmation hearings, Hayden said that in the wake of 9/11 he "could not not do" what the president wanted him to do with the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." The hypocrisy is well nigh unbearable.
Martinet
When the program was revealed in the press in late 2005, Hayden agreed to play point man with smoke and mirrors. (Small wonder that the White House later deemed him the perfect man to head the CIA.)
Nevertheless, a whiff of conscience showed through his nomination hearing, though, when he flubbed the answer to a soft-pitch from administration loyalist, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri:
"Did you believe that your primary responsibility as director of NSA was to execute a program that your NSA lawyers, the Justice Department lawyers, and White House officials all told you was legal and that you were ordered to carry it out by the president of the United States?"
Instead of the simple "Yes" that was in the script, Hayden paused and spoke rather poignantly-and revealingly: "I had to make this personal decision in early October 2001, and it was a personal decision...I could not not do this."
Why should it be such an enormous personal decision whether or not to obey a White House order? No one asked Hayden, but it requires no particular acuity to figure it out. This is a military officer who, like the rest of us, had sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; a military man well aware of the strictures against obeying an unlawful order.
President George W. Bush assured us on Jan. 23, 2006, "I had all kinds of lawyers review the process." Right. The same ones, no doubt, who were busy devising ways to "legalize" torture and indefinite detention without due process.
No American, save perhaps retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who as NSA director was present at the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (and who has said the Hayden-approved activities are illegal), knew FISA better than Hayden. Nonetheless, Hayden conceded that he did not even require a written legal opinion to satisfy himself that the surveillance program, to be implemented without warrant and without adequate consultation in Congress, could pass the smell test.
Small wonder that one of Hayden's predecessors as NSA director, upon learning what Hayden had agreed to do, said angrily, "He ought to be court-martialed."
And who was the NSA general counsel at the time? Robert L. Deitz, who is now a "trusted aide" to CIA Director Hayden. Deitz, we learn from recent news reports, has just been launched on an investigation of the CIA Inspector General-yes, that's right, an investigation of CIA's statutory Inspector General John Helgerson, who apparently does not fit in with the elastic ethos Hayden and his immediate predecessors brought to the agency.
It appears Helgerson is not a "team player," resisting, as he has, the reintroduction of the Nixonian dictum "It's legal if the president says it's legal." He has been taking his job too seriously for Hayden's taste-conducting honest investigations into abuses like torture. Fortunately for Helgerson and the rest of us, Hayden cannot fire him, which is handy proof of the wisdom of having statutory inspectors general.
Congress' Role; and Pelosi's
What was Pelosi doing all this time?
When the illegal eavesdropping was exposed, many asked why the administration did not simply go to Congress to secure changes in the already flexible FISA law, if such were needed. In an unguarded moment at a press conference on Dec. 19, 2005, Alberto Gonzales let slip that the administration did take soundings in Congress:
"This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past - certain members of Congress - as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."
Dear Madam Speaker
Were you one of those with whom Gonzales had discussions? Whether you were or you weren't. In either case it appears you were derelict in your duty.
It is time to fish or cut bait. If the Bush administration did not inform you regarding eavesdropping on Americans before 9/11, you need to reflect now on what such disregard for the laws and Constitution on matters of this importance means for future of our Republic, and cease covering up for the White House. Familiarize yourself with the orderly process the Founders wrote into the Constitution to address this kind of abuse of power. It is called impeachment; there is no reason to be afraid. You may wish to locate a copy of the Constitution and read Article II, Section 4:
"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."
I cannot believe that, with your pedigree and schooling, you now forget the difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood. The Founders did not. The Constitution does not say the president "may be" impeached, unless the speaker of the House decides for some reason to keep impeachment off the table. Given the long train of abuses and usurpations of this administration, you have no choice but to begin impeachment proceedings, Madame Speaker, if protecting our rights under constitutional government means anything to you.
If the Bush administration did keep you fully informed and, out of obeisance to the executive branch you acquiesced and said nothing, you should lay down your duties as House leader forthwith and consider resigning from the House before you further endanger our freedoms.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer from 1962-64, and then a CIA analyst for 27 years. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
A shorter version of this article appeared first on Consortiumnews.com.
90 Comments so far
Show Allhahahahaha
I didn't single her out as a woman - I singled her out as getting chunky. It being a sexist remark is entirely your interpretation. She was heavy sever months ago when I saw her on TV.
Go to a political rally, sometime; the progressives are always the scrawny ones. The regresives & Republicans are always the chunky, pasty types wearing fur. I don't really care if you LIKE it or not, it's a fact.
Skinny people are usually agitators; heavier folks are usually in favor of the status quo. Am I the first to notice it? I think not.
"Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much; such men are dangerous." - Julius Caesar.
NewtTheHippy: "Had a feeling Pelosi was all bark & no bite before she ever was made Speaker. Now she doesn't even bark - she's gained weight & gotten fat, happy, & complacent almost overnight."
No, Pelosi's currently fashionably thin..she was heavier several years ago when she met with Cindy.
Please don't make a woman's weight or figure a focal point for criticism.
It's borderline sexism and it makes you sound silly.
Nader has every right to run for president but people act like he has no right. Don't you think there is something fundamentally wrong with that? And as long as we just keep accepting it as the normal state of affairs and as long as it is reinforced as convention then we can be assured no progress.
Some people are willing to take the risk and they will be ridiculed for it--marginalized, outcast, scorned, bombarded with media messages -No! unwanted! unacceptible, more effective on the outside, mediawhore, egomaniac - and what happens is people start echoing those messages at their own expense--in the same way that people vote against their economic interests, when we should be backing those on the front lines of the horizon of progress.
Can a person get on the ballot for any post in California, if they have been arrested and convicted of a misdomenor or felony charge?
One at a time, in my district, long time (too long) Rep Leach has been replaced, but it seems to be by a "go along/enabler". Will try and throw him out next year. As for Nader, he ran for PRESIDENT, there was and still is NO WAY he was ever going to win, He should have ran for Congress, then the Senate, and maybe he'd have a chance now, but he's made alot of money doing what he does.
People who blame Nader disgust me. And I've never considered voting for Nader.
Voting the so-called "lesser of two evils" is what has landed this nation in its current sorry state of affairs. The multinational corporate elitists
who run this country want a simple, dumbed-down system that they can easily control with no wild cards. As long as the same two corrupt parties face each other year after year, there is no hope of changing the system. As long as they own the MSM and keep the playing field restricted to two simple
parties, no firebrands will threaten their interests. A two-party system is too easily made into a one-party system.
Look at the current Ron Paul movement as a litmus test. He cannot win the GOP nomination, no matter how popular he is at the grassroots, because the corporate elitists have too many trump cards. His followers are deluded; the only way he could pose any threat would be if a Third Party existed that was a threat to the Republicans and Democrats. No such party exists. Nader almost got one going, but all he achieved was scorn from empty-headed puppet Democrats.
Keep feeding the Democrat-GOP machine, and you will continue to get corruption, war, tyranny, and Orwellianism.
I certainly support any progressive, including Cindy Sheehan, who attempts to get inside. Cindy, and the country as a whole, however, needs to develop a holistic governing policy. We can't run as single-issue candidates. Our national debate has been distracted so long on Israel, Iraq or Iran that we've not even debated (let alone solved) countless domestic and economic issues. Cindy=Iraq in many people's eyes. We need a massive change of course there, no doubt, but in many other areas of policy as well.
Whether Sheehan has looked at the Green Party seriously, or would rather remain an independent on paper is fine -- but at least look carefully at the Green Ten Key Values. I'd that recommend that all progressive Dems and libertarian Republicans look at them -- there's something in there for everyone, even if you cannot run as a Green. At the very least, glean something from them and take it back to your own camp.
The other point to consider is that a Sheehan victory, however remote, will have little or no impact DLC/PNAC co-option of the Dems. We probably need a bloc of 25-50%+ genuine progressives in both the Senate and the House to effect real change. Cindy is one needed among many.
Vern,
"Why would she be more effective outside a system that either attacks her from the inside, denies her power from the inside and ignores her from the inside?"
Cindy Sheehan is not "outside" anything whatsoever. From the tragedy of losing her own son, she bootstrapped her own anti-war podium, and most everybody in the country knows her name and has heard her message. And most of us were still listening to her and admiring her for that. She was EFFECTIVE at shaping public opinion. As a candidate, she is walking away from one podium to try (against sensible odds) to establish a different one.
As for MSM and "they" wanting me to believe anything about the 2000 coup, I don't. Gore lost three times and three ways, all in the same election. (1) Nader took away a narrow margin (2) Al lost three states unneccesarily just by talking too much about gun control, and (3) Our Supreme Court made a very bad decision.
Question for you, david:
Why would she be more effective outside a system that either attacks her from the inside, denies her power from the inside and ignores her from the inside? It is a ploy.
What would be the point of trying to get on the inside if everyone were more effective on the outside?
Nader was used as a scapegoat by a Clinton DLC dominated party intent on attacking threats from the populist Left that more accurately represents the peoples interests, instead of challenging the Right where they find more common ground and pander to the same select group. They want you to blame Nader--when there was a whole host of factors contributing to the 2000 coup. Stop echoing MSM spin.
Think it through.
Vern,
"Stay out of your government and let the ruling elite run things, is that what that translates to?"
NO, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS TRANSLATES TO!!!! (How about writing your own sensible posts from scratch instead of trying to misinterpret those of others?)
When I said I suspected Cindy Sheehan would be more
EFFECTIVE as an activist than as a candidate, I am not trying to exclude, diminish, put down or eliminate her influence on America. I am, instead wishing for her influence to be maximized! And losing elections is the best way I know to have otherwise repected positions be discredited. Nader lost credibility by mounting an election campaign he could only lose, not to mention throwing away the valuable margin to the Republicans by fracture of the left. Cindy Sheehan is frustrated, just like Nader was, and she's heading off the same errant direction Nader went. And it's too bad. Cindy was doing an important service for our country, and now seems bent on destroying her own podium. Al Gore, I hope, knows better (now that he's a worldwide name in legitimate activism).
As for your admonition to the folks here to "Be on guard against mindlessly reciting planted directives as conventional wisdom", I'd second that motion. A lot of what passes for commentary on issues here at CD does indeed need filtering for usefulness.
Daniel David
Is Nancy Pelosi involved in a MFM with Bush and Cheney? Must be, no other explanation. VOTE SHEEHAN!
Actually, I think the horrifying part about ALL of this is the complete lack of options we have. We only have 2 parties to pick from, and the differences between them are few. You can count the number of representatives that dare to disagree with W on your fingers, for most issues...
...and these boards basically find solace in unreality. "Impeach whoever!" Well...not gonnna happen, any more than we're going to suddenly pick up & leave Iraq, quit deficit spending, get national healthcare, have re-segregation stop, or any of the other ideals & dreams we'd all like to see.
It's all in the crapper. Depressing! ...but what's more depressing is living in a psychotic, Disney-induced fantasy land. America's on the way down ala the USSR, just like anyone with an IQ over 90 could have predicted when they spent themselves into oblivion on the military, but we just kept on spending. Thanks Reagan. Hope you rot in hell, you brainless vapid prick.
I'm really not looking forward to being paid my weekly wages in toilet paper, or presenting my ID at checkpoints, but I see no reason whatsoever to expect that our fate will be any different than theirs whatsoever. *shrug* Empire sure is habit-forming, isn't it?
I nominate Texas for the American version of Chechen separatists. The sooner they secede and we can start shooting at & gassing them, the better. (Note to monkeybrains: this is sarcastic humor.)
...Plus I see Gore just officially demurred to run again post-nobel prize. Fuck him too. "No Al, you CAN'T do more good as a ranting voice in the wilderness than you can as leader of the United States...you damned quitter."
And Hilary supports Attacking Iraq!
What this news segment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0icVblxh2dI
"Scary article Ohioan, now how am I supposed to go to sleep?"
Maybe this will help tonight? [other 'fine-opinion' by Dr. Salla]:
http://www.exopolitics.org/
As for 'Nixonian-Liberalism' -- consider "only he could go-to-China", and that the Clean-Air/Clean-Water/EPA/etc. paved the way, as 'cover', for the same interests behind changes re: Gold/wheat&corn-Sales, etc. All under-pinned the Reagan-era 'deregulation' accelerating corporate-outsourcing and "Globalization" (so that manufacturing could be twice-as-polluting, and hugely-less expensive re: 'labor', than ever possible pre-Nixon).
If anything, Nixon was "neo-Liberal" in-effect, but "neo-Con" at-heart -- insofar as 'Interests Served'.
[And recall, re: even those 'relatively-innocent' times, that Nixon HAD to quit rather than allow an Impeachment. No such public-Investigation into 'Abuse of Power and/or Covert-Actions of Government/the-Executive' has been possible (for at-least a century) without a subsequent and inevitable 'Domino-Effect' toppling the entire US government & economy -- so harming to the American-public/Interests that it would be 'unthinkable'. That, btw (if nothing-else), is why its "off the table" -- permanently...]
Grousefeather October 16th, 2007 12:37 pm
"What's up with Nancy Pelosi having a perpetual deer-in-the-headlghts look on her face?"
That look is starting to seem pretty self explanatory.
Lobo Gris
Great article. "Impeach Pelosi First" would make a good bumper sticker.
Good discussion. I feel people on this forum are waking up to the Leviathan that is the military-industrial-media complex out of control, that it is capable of carrying out an enormous crime upon its own citizens to advance its goals, just as the Nazis did. The Neo-cons are using the Nazi play book.
Go Cindy! I cherish the thought of Pelosi's loss.
Here's that meme again folks:
"As for Cindy Sheehan, I have a feeling she should have stayed in the role of activism–where she was far more effective than she's going to be trying to run for political office."
Stay out of your government and let the ruling elite run things, is that what that translates to? First they advocate getting you involved and doing something to "take your (government,party, country) back" and then when you do something and actively threaten the status quo they advise that you would be more effective as an activist working outside the system. Meanwhile the system attacks the activists and embraces the NeoCon mythology despite the fact that the majority of Americans want out of Iraq and don't want to go into Iran. This extends to domestic issues as well--healthcare, education, environmental policy. BTW, how's that working out for Kucinich, working within the system? Just wait til he is forced to kiss the ring of Queen Hillary.
Be on guard against mindlessly reciting planted directives as conventional wisdom.
This room is full of republicans. Please Cindy, don't let W's cowardice and greed give us another Nixon by abusing you of all people
Well put her on trial too then for obstruction of justice.
Great seeing you here so often Cindy, Best wishes.
Wow. The real issue with Nancy Pelosi is the Armenian thing. Sure it might result in the end of the war, with a lotta help from blackwater, but does the indirect approach really get full faith and credibility? It sure is a sweet punch in the nose though. But not a knock-out, there needs to be a greater flurry of these punches to make the message clear to the populace. Look at the proaganda they're already cranking out.
The silence is deafening. They all are standing around wringing their hands. Nobody wants to admnit being anyone's sucker, esp since Clinton. It's a constitutional crisis.
Anyway, I spent the night getting kicked off several neocon sites tonight. It's amazing getting taken off the media. "Banned by the Deseret News". It started out with my encounter of this incredible display of The Big Lie --- but it was only politics, so I guess it doesn't matter there. Maybe it's necessary, I don't know, but, for a good time, google them and enter into the fray. Try something like Blackwater there. See if you can find a fact.
This ideological thing about Nancy Pelosi is really a trip. I think the best thing that could come out of all this is for W & Cheney to flee to Qattar, leaving Nancy Pelosi as their successor. Then we could be shed of the first woman president issue. Impeachment could well serve to absolve them of all further liability arising out of, blah, blah by virtue of double jeopardy. I want all the money back and I mean with some John Edwards punitive damages, I mean I want the money back, and I want to use their money to buy it back with. Socialized Medicine indeed.
I'm with rebel now.
Scary article Ohioan, now how am I supposed to go to sleep?
Anyone who still depends on politicians to save their freedoms: fools. Anyone who still thinks soldiers occupying and slaughtering foreign people are heroes: fools. Anyone who thinks the pseudo-democratic elections worth something -FOOLS!
Change your paradigm.
Change the way you see the world you live in, and you can change the world we all live in.
Take it upon yourself to be a freedom fighter. Learn, teach, be open-minded, be ready to create change. On your own! (Fuck the one-party system that pretends to be two - left hand/right hand = same brain).
Democrats and Republicans are both paid by corporations to do their will, not our will. Will we even see a chance for another election? Read this scary story about Cheney and the B-52 nukes fiasco. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__071012_dick_cheney__26_vigila.htm
Had a feeling Pelosi was all bark & no bite before she ever was made Speaker. Now she doesn't even bark - she's gained weight & gotten fat, happy, & complacent almost overnight. She LOOKS and ACTS like every other Republican shill, all the way down to refusal to admit failure & mistakes.
"I think we're doing great!"
No Nancy, you're full of shit; you're NOT doing great. Everything that matters, you've been defeated at or given up on. Everything you've won at is inconsequential.
For all practical purposes, we live in a dictatorship - everything that asshole in the White House says goes, nowadays. Ya'll need to stop talking crap about "impeachment" and "who you should vote for" and start thinking about "How to get out" or "How to protect yourself and your family" if you can't.
RIP American democracy. It's dead. All that's left is an oligarchy hiding behind the facade of freedom to keep dissent minimized. Very "Matrix"-ish...
Pelosi doesn't give a twit about the genocide that is going on right now in Iraq, a genocide that she is funding. 1.2 million dead and growing, and she wants to talk about a genocide that ended with World War I, a genocide about which nothing can be done? How can she get all worked up over a 90 year old genocide and not say a word about the current one? Her behavior, and that of the rest of this administration, is way beyond criminal. The behavior of Pelosi and her ilk is clearly demonic. We don't need impeachment proceedings as much as we need exorcisms.
Ralph Nader for President.
Great Article.
How dare Pelosi be so arrogant to assume the despositic power to take impeachment off the table. She should be impeached for saying it.
COMarc, you express some of my concerns. I kept chafing at the fact that the Dems weren't talking about impeachment. Then I kind of bought the Pelosi line that it was too inflammatory and there was too much other important stuff to do. But in the end, the silence is DEAFENING. The sitting Democrats are not speaking out about reinstatment of habeus corpus, shutting down Guantanamo Bay, reinstatement of civil rights, the notion of the power of the Unitary Executive, a return to oversight on spying because...they cannot wait to get their hands on that power structure.
Power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely--isn't that the saying?
I have always voted in the presidential race but for a candidate to get my vote they must talk about the erosions of democracy and freedoms issues. They cannot get my vote or my money without it. I think that Obama and Hillary are lost causes. I keep hoping to hear something, SOMETHING from Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, whoever. Dodd has actually said the most.
Progressives need to find the way to mobilize this issue--the reversal of freedoms issue. We need to ask about it, point out its' absence in the discource and keep bringing it up. I think this issue goes to the core of maintaining the American democracy identity.
I'm annoyed at the Dems because they are talking out about Genocide in Turkey in WWI. They say (at CNN) that it will restore American's credibility to talk about this issue now. Puh-leeze! The stinkin' pink elephant in the living rooms is that America tortures, that America denies civil rights, that America is not adhering to the Geneva conventions, that we practice extraordinaty rendition. Yabber about genocide in Turkey all you want but our home closets desperately need a cleaning!!
I have difficulty compairing a man running for president pre 911 to a woman running for congress post 911.
If the "Talking Head" could be stoped it would make things a little easier .It seems that no one outside of the blog or alternitive news has any clue as to just what the **** has been going on.
At this point almost any time I watch anything at all on TV it feels as though I've left the room just a little dumber than when I entered.(The room being somewhere other than my home of course, because I have no TV)
It's time to cocider new options.
"The Great Turning"
From Empire to Earth Community
David C. Korten
We are nearing a turning point in the age old evolution of man .The decisions that we make in the next 3 or 4 generations will set the stage for what is to become of the planet and any posible human or other animal inhabitents.
It seems we've all got front row tickets to the event of the age.
Remenber: "If your not part of the cure ,your part of the descease."
NOFX
A lot of people seem to be looking for reasons to bash Nancy Pelosi, so this story works for them too.
But listening to it all makes one think some would prefer the good old days of Denny Hastert and Tom Delay running the House.
As for Cindy Sheehan, I have a feeling she should have stayed in the role of activism--where she was far more effective than she's going to be trying to run for political office. Ralph Nader proved how this works, in spades. And Cindy seems bound to prove the same thing again. We'll see.
BEWARE OF THE SHEEP IN WOLVES CLOTHING!
Do you think Cheney is going to surrender the power he has built into Haliburton. It's moving to Qattar or wherever, beyond the jursidiction of American law, and Qattar (or wherever) is airing ads touting itself as the new center of world business like Utah advertises good skiing.
Speaking of Utah, take a gander at Reprensative Cannon of Utah's web site and read the comments there if you want to see how weird things can really get. I'm beginning to think he salts his own site with such bilge just to dissuade reasonable people from attempting to post their views.
Try being more of a fart smeller than an ideological purist. That's the neo-con world view. The only difference is the spelling
Besides, I'm not at all convinced that he, as the representative neo-con, wouldn't declare martial law just to prevent the prosecution or even the investigation of the Cheney abuses, among the long list of other betrayals of oathes taken. These are bad guys, remember? To preserve any semblance of legitimacy, to restore any shred of credibility, Rove tactics may not be returned in kind. It just legitimizes them
Comeon, the dems are just trying to prevent the neocon fascists from pointing to impeachment as democratic misbehaviour and improper "political motivation" They don't have the votes. They're trying to keep the flagpole clean, slick and well-greased to prevent the debate (which has no end) from getting caught up in some collateral issue upon which the opposition party will tear itself apart upon, to end with a double preposition.
bobpomeroy
==I almost fear his being formally accused more than our ability to overcome this ilk, these fascist………==
The Bush administration is so impeachable that it shouldn't be impeached because that would be worse than letting them get away with the destruction of America? Is that what you're saying?
Well, I know Congress won't impeach anybody. I'm convinced there's much more here than meets the eye, and it is all evil.
The question of impeaching Bush is not a legal one. There is easily a case there that demands at least a formal investigation. I could write from now till when the cows come home listing possible topics and targets.
The question of impeaching Bush is a political one. And we've clearly had the leaders of the Democratic Party decide to side with Bush against the American people and the Constitution.
And as long as we keep electing Democrats under the phony believe that they'll change things, then this is where we will stay stuck.
So we don't want to try to avoid the same unintended (and uncounted) consequesnces of plunging into chaos violently which has recurred and recurred all through history -- another French (I'm moving to Paris) Revolution. Comeon, power and it's abuse will remain no matter what is done. We're going to exclude classes of people from our society?
We don't even have a jurisprudence which adequately considers maaters arising from an oath of allegiance and service. Saying that there is violates Hume's Hurdle totally. I truly have a sense of the betrayal being wrought by this administration, but I almost fear his being formally accused more than our ability to overcome this ilk, these fascist.........
If you elect more Democrats, you'll just get more of the same. If you want change, you can't elect Democrats that are committed to maintaining the status quo.
The point that Nixon pursued policies that would be far too radical and leftwing for any Democrat to voice today is very telling. It shows how today's Democratic Party bears little or no relation to the myth of the old Democratic Party that still exists.
To me, it makes no difference if a pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-police state Democrat wins or if a pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-police state Republican wins.
The Democrats have shown over and over they support the same policies. And if you doubt it, just wait because they'll prove it again soon. Soon they'll pass the law giving the telecom companies the immunity they want for breaking the law and spying on us.
If you want change, don't vote Democrat.
The odds are 99.9% in favor of there being elections.
a) Bush wants out of his job. You can see it on his face at any appearence. Even with the month long vacations, this is harder than he's ever worked. He wants out to go play. He looks like a kid waiting for recess to come.
b) Elections provide no threat because the system is well under control. The Presidential election would be between Hillary and Ghouliani. Both are certain to continue all current policies, and neither would investigate or punish members of the current regime. Congress is safe simply because to change Congress we need about 470 Cindy Sheehans. Unfortunately we only have one. Even if she beats Pelosi, she's a lone voice in the Congress. Thus no threat to the existing powers.
We will certainly have elections. Failing to have them poses the risk of waking the sleeping American public. Given that the elections system is well controlled to deliver the results of only electing pro-corporate politicians, there is much less risk in having elections than in not having them.
Indeed. Let's not send the message we want another Nixon. I think Dennis, or John or whoever gets the nomination is the right way to go, but let's not equate relative impotence with intent. Let's elect more democrats and then infer motive. No matter how many peaches, you still cannot make an apple pie out of them.
WJM has the key point.
This sort of spying on Americans didn't protect any of us from the first 9-11, so there's no reason to believe it would protect us from a future attack.
fresh1 is correct in his reading of that passage.
However, each member of Congress also took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Its that oath that would require action given the current facts.
There's a legal concept that basically says that if you are a part of the system ('officer of the court'), then you have certain obligations. For instance if an officer of the court becomes aware of the commission of a crime, they must report it. The same principle should apply to members of Congress, and that oath of office says that it does. That is that a member of Congress has a certain duty to the nation as a whole. That duty, expressed in that phrase about protecting and defending the Constitution says that when a member of Congress becomes aware of actions that threaten the integrity of our government, then they must act. Its their duty. Its a duty to the nation that comes along with the big salaries, the perks, and the opportunity to get rich that a seat in Congress provides.
So, tell me, what score, from 0 to 10, would you give Ms. Pelosi on 'protecting and defending the Consitution'?
Nixon was a bit to the left of all of our recent Presidents. Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan.
After all, I couldn't picture Clinton passing a Clean Water Act or a Clean Air Act or putting into place price controls to limit inflation. Nixon did all of that.
Yes Virginia, we've moved so far to the right that Nixon is now on the left.
I am struck by literally hundreds of reports, articles, and editorials I've read that have ended by pleading with Nancy Pelosi to DO something about Bush's destruction of America, the law, our rights, our Constitution. The Bush administration actions are clearly laid out, as this one is, and then we come to realize that we learned the truth too late, the deed's damage has been done, and Nancy Pelosi knew but doesn't intend to do anything except march in lockstep with the Bush agenda.
I think I know what's she's doing. She's going to let Bush et al continue their vandalism of America as long as Bush is president and hopes to go in with a broom and clean it up later, no matter what the cost is to America or the world.
This woman has GOT to go.
Sure, let's amputate a few arms and legs before we begin the march.
Excellent work Ray McGovern, I'd love to see everyone bring pressure for Ms. Pelosi to step down or be impeached FIRST.
Our worst fears are probably true. This is just what was and who attempted by Smedley Butler except that it's an inside job. The point is, that being taken by that contrivance should not so tarnish a person as to disable her from participation in the correction or survival of the shituation. It is clear that if it can be ameliorated, so many things have been wrongly accomplished that the path should be substantially corrected by it's defeat. We certainly don't want to end up with another Nixon being elected.
On the other hand, the present course is ultimately doomed to failure and a more complete change will ensue.
Let's at least try to just not elect another nixon, and quit insisting on ideological purity and completeness. There are so many things that insisting on them all will result in our consuming each other, again.
Tolerance among ourselves is not all that bad an idea.
I'm all for impeachment, but lets get the facts straight: Article II of the Constitution does NOT imply that congress MUST impeach Bush just because he appears to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The precise meaning (and we have to be precise because the constitution is a legal document) of the passage McGovern quotes is that they MUST remove him from office IF he is both impeached and convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
The implication is that, if an individual is impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors, congress cannot just give that person a slap on the wrist or a fine, they MUST remove them from office.
Of course, if congress is a bunch of cowards, they can just refuse to impeach in the first place.
Congress-persons ought to impeach Bush, not because they are forced to do so by the language of Article II (in fact, they are not forced by this language), but because they are forced to do so by their oath of office, taken by all elected officials, to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
As this article shows, Bush and his cabal represent a domestic enemy to the constitution. The remedy is impeachment.
If they were wiretapping, why didn't they find out about 9-11 beforehand? Surprise! THEY KNEW ABOUT IT. They WANTED it to happen. Go to Newamericancentury.org and see for yourself. They WANTED a new Pearl Harbor, in their own words, and they were elated when it happened. They had over 60 warnings which they ignored entirely.
Pelosi should be flogged and thrown overboard for the sharks. She has proven time and time again that she holds the constitution in just as much contempt as W does. She has been wiping her ass with it in just the same way.
So Pelosi doesn't see an impeachable offense? I do. It's called SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS. Christ almighty, how much MORE does ANYONE need to see? PRIOR to 9-11, our supposed national wake up call, they were spying on us. WHY? What was the excuse? Nothing had happened, yet, and they were still spying on us!!! There is NO excuse for that, and there is NO excuse for NOT impeaching the whole goddamned lot of them.
I think that someone should send her a copy of the constitution and underline the part where it says that impeachment SHALL be used, not MAY be uswed. SHALL be used. The founding fathers actually INTENDED for the president to be removeed when there was ANY kind of an issue. This is NOT a divisive thing, it's a way to save the county from interlopers, fools, chareltons and crooks. Pelosi has turned her back on the country, the constitution and the people of this country. She has proven she has NO clue as to what her job is, and she is a complete failure as a speaker of the house.
Ms Sheehan, if that is indeed you in the post above and not just some troll, please do run. I suspect that you will win in one of the biggest landslides in the history of the country. PLEASE do. While I can't vote for you, I do encourage your run. SOMEONE has to get rid of this traitorous woman.
In fact, folks, vote out EVERYONE who currently sits in office. Run against incumbents, if you can. Support those who do if you can't do it yourselves. We can not survive as a country is we keep any of them around. And the longer they have been there, the more they need to go home. Send them a copy of the constitution and tell them to read it. Then vote them out so they KNOW how they have failed us.
In response to: locust October 16th, 2007 12:53 pm "Next year's election holds real possibilities for independents such as Cindy, as things are bound to be even worse by then, and people all along the spectrum look for real change."
I respect your optimism that there will actually be elections next year. And I do hope that your optimism is rewarded.
I'm thinking that, as of this moment, the odds are 65-35 against elections. Every day that the anit-Iran noise gets louder, the worse the odds get.
Impeachment for all who have broken with the Constitution. May it not be time to Impeach and Imprison all of these criminals no matter the party? Seems as though the party is over if we as a country haven't got a Constitution. Does anyone know of a rule of law how We the People can start proceedings? Doesn't seem to be any elected officials who are standing up to their Constitutional Duties....Yes Dennis is trying, but where are the Doers?
Well, this removes any doubt about Ms. Pelosi -- she's an accessory.
Hopefully Cindy has moved beyond believing that she and Nancy agree on everything except the Iraq War.
It appears that nuclear power, the pre-Dubya constitution and many other issues differentiate Nancy and Cindy.
Cindy needs to hammer these issues every day in order to put Nancy on the defensive and keep her there right up until election day. That is how political campaigns are won.
jamaz:
Article 2, Section 4, specifies that
"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."
civil officers include federal judges and cabinet members, but do not include senators and representatives (the senate and house deal with misconduct by their own members.
Read the PNAC manifesto. They needed a "Pearl Harbor" to mobilize the people into supporting a war. Remember, they want an overwhelmingly overpowering military and that military is to stand astride the world, making it safe for big business and profits. Major profits, of course, coming from the military.
Whether it was a black op by us, or we just knew it was coming and helped it along by grounding our fighters, etc., 9/11 was just what the doctor ordered for the Neocon dream.
Well, well, well. One more instance that proves Pelosi is a sell-out whore to the Republicans.
There is a saying one that who follows a group or another is an idiot. Perhaps the moral compass is broken for most in power.
Something's not kosher here. I've heard a few media reports recently, as well, that Hayden enabled illegal wiretapping before 9/11.
So the $64,000 question: If there were such wiretaps, how is it that 9/11 wasn't prevented? How is it that bin Laden is still supposedly running amok?
Is it sort of like Hoover reporting that organized crime doesn't exist?
kgarry: I just reread the Constitution and can find nothing that prohibits impeachment of a Congressperson. There is the part about secure from arrest while performing their duties or traveling between the Capitol and their jurisdiction, except for Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace. It says that the House has sole Power of Impeachment, but does not exempt them from it.
The president is barred from pardoning anyone who has been impeached, which means that they can be tried, convicted and imprisoned. That is why Nixon made his deal. He resigned before being impeached, the new appointee gave him his pardon, and his slate was clean. Otherwise he would have been subject to trial and would have been convicted of his high crimes and misdemeanors, including, no doubt, perjury.
Impeachment was not intended to be an absolute last ditch means of removing an erring president. Impeachment, if you read the Constitution carefully, is to remove from office and any position of public trust, those who have violated the public trust.
Practically every bottom feeder in DC warrants impeachment and that is why they fight doing it. It might catch on and We the People might clean house. Horrors!!!
My Dad once gave me the definition of an "honest politician." He said it is one who stays bought. I think we have scads of them in all walks of government, but especially in DC.
Who is the Chimp?
I thought a human being was in the white house.
I wish it were a chimp.
Suspicions confirmed.
But this is obviously NOT a 'high crime or misdemeanor' requiring impeachment. Riiigghht!
At least that is what my Congressional rep whp was also on the committee keeps stating.
A rose by any other name.......
But a Democrat by any other name is still a Republican at heart and bound to defend Bush policy.
Better question for NP: who were/are they illegally spying on and why? Seeing as how there have been virtually zero arrests of "terrorists" in the "homeland" in seven years, not a single "sleeper cell" found, not a single plot uncovered and thwarted (the decoys and distractions not withstanding,) the mysterious "anthrax" killer remains at large (cough)...
Who, Nancy? The militant librarians? The deadly Quakers for Peace? Members of the United Nations? Anyone who ever looked at Cheneybush crosseyed? The Democrat party? Corporate competitors?
We're not that f**cking dumb, Nancy. Cheneybush are illegally spying on We The People for reasons yet to be revealed. Now that you've admitted to being allowed into the liars club, tell us who's on the list.
Cindy, I can't vote for you (because of location) but I will send you money. You are an inspiration!
Pelosi is a lost cause in terms of launching impeachment, for whatever reason (complicity with the criminals, she's caught in the headlights, she's not doing it to defy those nasty Code Pink women camped out outside her house). I should think Cindy Sheehan shouldn't have such a hard time beating her.
But what scares me is that there is no "progressive group" within the House clamoring for hearings. I know Kucinich introduced the bill to impeach Cheney, and he's pretty busy these days, but where are the others (Conyers came to mind, who years ago had unofficial hearings on impeachment--I saw them on CSPAN). Why is there no group like this, and if there is, why are they not getting the message out, holding their colleagues responsible for their failure? Where, for example, is the Black caucus, so vocal after the 2000 debacle, so much so that they opened Fahrenheit 9/11. Where are these reps???? Are all the Dems in Congress marching in lockstep?
I've always seen Pelosi for what she is, she never fooled me. In fact, no Democrat ever fooled me.
I'm astounded at the fools supporting Kucinich, knowing full well that his change of beating Hitlery, Obomber or Scissorhands for the nomination is lower than ZERO.
Kucinich will lose and at the end will support one the warmongers chosen by the idiotic Democratic voters, like he did in 2000 and 2004. If you're serious, Mr. Kucinich, resign from this corrupt party TODAY.
GO CINDY GO.
Kucinich or Gore!
ah the ss america
well she was an interesting ship - lacked any moral fitness, and wasnt exactly seaworthy neither, but all the same - i'm sure some sort of reef loving creatures will make use of her once she's settled at the bottom of the warmed and toxic sea
jamaz: the constitution exempts congresspeople from impeachment. but we need to pressure progressive (D)s to kick the DLCers and their ilk outta leadership positions: steny hoyer, pelosi, harry reid (how did the (D)s ever vote an fiercely anti-choice senator as majority leader anyway?!
ray mcgovern: i try to read everything you write. thank you for your courage, your service, and your respect for integrity and truth.
cindy: as a D.C. resident, i have no representation. but you can count on my support. with 54 feral feline friends to feed twice a day and bring to the vet once (or more) a year, my finances are sqeezed, but i will send what i can. you go, girl!
Impeach Pelosi first!
I truly believe that the political elite class generally clings to the bygone precept that citizens must respect and trust the conduct, character, and personal integrity of members of Congress, and ought to defer to members' judgements in Serious matters, e.g. national security.
So that a Pelosi expects never to be taken to task for actions or inactions based on access to classified or sensitive information, and has no intention of disclosing or rigorously explaining her positions. If, now or at some future time, there is evidence that Pelosi and her colleagues indeed explicitly acquiesced in support of extra-legal and anti-constitutional "laws", policies, and procedures, I expect that they'll stonewall or haughtily preclude comment for security reasons.
This is another characteristic shared by both parties: how and why the US government got into the position it's in today is for them to know, and us to find out.
kucinich
locust 12:53pm...well said.
Cindy Sheehan is prepared, as she has been all along, to fight Right Now! Not when we have enough votes, not when there is more bipartisanship, not when there is more power, not when the planets are aligned, but Right Now.
The Dems first proposed National Health in 1948. We're still waiting. To all the Dem appartchiks, enablers and apologists out there: doesn't it really make you feel unclean to have to keep propping up this worn out collection of do-nothings and collaborationists?
2008 may well be a great year for Independents, Greens, Libertatians, et al, for as we get closer and closer it looks more and more like Hillary vs Rudy. Oh, the horror, the horror!
Cindy, you go Girl!!!!
I like Maxpayne's idea -- abolish the NSA altogether.
Cindy ROCKS!
Nancy Pelosi acts like an automaton, and that scared deer look is spooky. Maybe she knows what she's done has betrayed America. If she doesn't, plenty of people are telling her.
Cindy Sheehan, every progressive I know is rooting for you to take her seat. Best of all possible good wishes to you!
Pelosi is a millionaire member of the oligarchy. She's into politics for her own pleasure, not to make the world a better place!
=========================================================
"I swear by the God of my parents, I swear by my nation,
I swear by my honor that I will not allow my soul to rest,
nor my arm to relax until I have broken the chains that
oppress my people through the will of the powerful.
Free elections, free land and free men, horror to the oligarchy."
- Oath used by Hugo Chavez (when he was 28) and some of his revolutionary friends.
(Page 80, !HUGO! by Bart Jones)
Cindy,
I live in Florida but you got my support.
You are one of the very, very few who are willing to seriously run and work to get back our Human Rights.
This is the biggest threat to our National Security and real patriots like you can lead us to a better World.
Win or lose, this is the good fight!
Pelosi is a political whore and her family makes millions in the arms industry. She has a vested interest in seeing the status quo maintained. She's not about to rock the boat. If you want the boat rocked, then vote for Cindy.
Hoa binh
If I were Cindy Sheehan, I would go one step further by calling for an ABOLITION of the NSA. What do you think Cindy?
P.S.: Love your Independent run. Frankly I have no faith in either the Ds or the Rs these days.
The swelled heads in government are mesmerized by the power that they can acquire for themselves.
The interests of the nation dwindle in importance to their addictions for fame and fortune.
Their excuse is that 'in the future', after they have 'enough' power, then they can perform miracles.
Then they could be courageous, when there is no risk.
Then, but not now, they could represent the people, Americans, who depend on them.
Then they could do their jobs, but not now.
On the brighter side, even down here in Southern California there is a rising surge of disgust with both Dems and Reps.
Next year's election holds real possibilities for independents such as Cindy, as things are bound to be even worse by then, and people all along the spectrum look for real change.
Go Cindy!
cindysheehan October 16th, 2007 12:12 pm
Bravo Cindy!!
What's up with Nancy Pelosi having a perpetual deer-in-the-headlghts look on her face?
Pelosi is truly pathetic. She and Reid and those other subservient clowns should resign or be challenged by people with a conscience. Imagine these people under a Hillary Clinton administration. We will be lucky to survive it.
We need a new transparency in government and not just paying "Lip service" to that transparency.
It's time our public servants stopped treating us as if we were simple and need the protection of "big brother." Our governmental Big Brother just wants to bully us and control every aspect of our lives.
Not mine. Not yours.
Vote for me, vote for an independent that is committed to true change.
Love and Peace
Cindy Sheehan
Cindy@CindyforCongress.org
Another reason to support Cindy Sheehan. We don't need no stinkin' Nazi moles!