Impeach, Bush, Cheney … Now!

Before all of this ls lost. Charters of Freedom

We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives, that it is inside ourselves.

–Albert Camus-

Ed’s Widget Library (Drop in and check out my new work room)

Can’t do justice to Bush-Cheney BS right now

We should write a blistering post expressing fresh outrage about the literally unbelievable pile of crap President Bush dumped on America yesterday, marking the fifth anniversary of his lying our way into the Iraq quagmire.

We should go ballistic about the over-the-top arrogance, even for Vice President Dick Cheney, exhibited in this morning’s interview the veep did with ABC’s Martha Raddatz.

After Cheney began talking up what he claims is great success in Iraq, Raddatz asked him about the fact 61 percent of Americans want our troops out of there. To which Cheney replied, “So?” before going on to explain he doesn’t care what the majority of Americans think or want.

Somehow, and probably temporarily, we’re outraged out. Oh, we’re feeling burning anger and unrelenting resentment. But right now we’re not up for going through it all blow by blow.

Let’s just say Bush and Cheney are two of the most successful criminals in American history. They’ve broken the laws, ignored the Constitution, corrupted the political process, gotten a horrendous number of Americans and others killed or maimed, wrecked a country, destabilized the Mideast and ruined America’s finances.

They should be impeached and face multiple federal indictments.

Bush’s War!

Frontline producer Michael Kirk was online Wednesday, March 26 to discuss his two-part film "Bush's War," which reviews the genesis and full history of the five-year U.S. war in Iraq, drawing on fresh reporting and interviews and more than 40 previous Frontline films that have documented the war on terror.

Bush's War aired in two parts on Monday, March 24, from 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. ET, and Tuesday, March 26, from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET on PBS (check local listings). It can also be viewed on the Frontline website.

Kirk has produced more than two hundred national television programs. A former Nieman Fellow in Journalism at Harvard University, Kirk was the senior producer of Frontline from the series' inception in 1983 until the fall of 1987. His most recent Frontline productions include "Cheney's Law," "Endgame," "The Lost Year in Iraq," "The Torture Question," and "The Dark Side," which give an in-depth assessment of the war on terror and the state of the nation's military establishment, and "The War Behind Closed Doors," an analysis of the political infighting that led to the war with Iraq. A transcript follows

Ralph Nader urges Conyers to impeach President Bush

Prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least, five categories of repeated, defiant "high crimes and misdemeanors", which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. The sworn oath of members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution. Failure of the members of Congress to pursue impeachment of President Bush is an affront to the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the people of the United States.

In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq, in violation of our constitution, statutes and treaties, there are the arrests of thousands of Americans and their imprisonment without charges, the spying on Americans without juridical warrant, systematic torture, and the unprecedented wholesale, defiant signing statements declaring that the President, in his unbridled discretion, is the law.

In 2005, a plurality of the American people polled declared that they would favor impeachment of President Bush if it was shown that he did not tell the truth about the reasons for going to War in Iraq. Congress should use its authority under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution to officially determine what President Bush knew before going to war in Iraq.

Your files and retrieval systems are bulging with over-whelming evidence behind all these five categories. When constitutional duty combines with the available evidence, inaction amounts to a suppression of that evidence from constitutional implementation.

Shirley Golub for The San Francisco Chronicle
By jurnei
election, unless they are stopped first by impeachment. We have one and only one hope. Congress must immediately commence impeachment proceedings against both Dick Cheney and George Bush, the shadow emperor and his ventriloquist dummy. ...
- http://whazgoinon.wordpress.com

The Democratic Majority: Enabling a Rogue Presidency and ...

This Week in God

Posted March 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 am

First up from the God machine this week is some follow up to a religion story we’ve been following closely for several weeks: the IRS’s decision to investigate the entire United Church of Christ denomination — Barack Obama’s denomination — in a presidential election year.

As we’ve discussed, the IRS probe seems almost inexplicable. The law prevents tax-exempt ministries from intervening in political campaigns, but all the UCC did was invite Obama to give a speech at its annual convention about his perspective on the role of faith in public life. It wasn’t a campaign event, and the church did not endorse him. (Indeed, campaign volunteers who were on hand for the event were told by UCC officials that they could not enter the building.) Nevertheless, in an extremely unusual move, the IRS has launched an investigation into the entire denomination anyway.

This week, Joe Lieberman, of all people, took a break from the McCain campaign long enough to ask the IRS what on Earth it’s doing.

Bear Stearns Buyout Illegal - Grounds for Bush Impeachment!

"Know Your Rights: 'I am going to remain silent. I want to speak to a lawyer.'"

"If an Agent Knocks: Federal Investigators and Your Rights"

http://www.worldcantwait.net/

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

Summary: After decades of historic gains, the world has slipped into a democratic recession. Predatory states are on the rise, threatening both nascent and established democracies throughout the world. But this trend can be reversed with the development of good governance and strict accountability and the help of conditional aid from the West.

LARRY DIAMOND is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Co-Editor of the Journal of Democracy. This essay is adapted from his new book, The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World (Times Books, 2008), © Larry Diamond.

Since 1974, more than 90 countries have made transitions to democracy, and by the turn of the century approximately 60 percent of the world's independent states were democratic. The democratization of Mexico and Indonesia in the late 1990s and the more recent "color revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine formed the crest of a tidal wave of democratic transitions. Even in the Arab world, the trend is visible: in 2005, democratic forces in Lebanon rose up to peacefully drive out Syrian troops and Iraqis voted in multiparty parliamentary elections for the first time in nearly half a century.

But celebrations of democracy's triumph are premature. In a few short years, the democratic wave has been slowed by a powerful authoritarian undertow, and the world has slipped into a democratic recession. Democracy has recently been overthrown or gradually stifled in a number of key states, including Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Venezuela, and, most recently, Bangladesh and the Philippines. In December 2007, electoral fraud in Kenya delivered another abrupt and violent setback. At the same time, most newcomers to the democratic club (and some long-standing members) have performed poorly.

Even in many of the countries seen as success stories, such as Chile, Ghana, Poland, and South Africa, there are serious problems of governance and deep pockets of disaffection. In South Asia, where democracy once predominated, India is now surrounded by politically unstable, undemocratic states. And aspirations for democratic progress have been thwarted everywhere in the Arab world (except Morocco), whether by terrorism and political and religious violence (as in Iraq), externally manipulated societal divisions (as in Lebanon), or authoritarian regimes themselves (as in Egypt, Jordan, and some of the Persian Gulf monarchies, such as Bahrain).

Before democracy can spread further, it must take deeper root where it has already sprouted. It is a basic principle of any military or geopolitical campaign that at some point an advancing force must consolidate its gains before it conquers more territory. Emerging democracies must demonstrate that they can solve their governance problems and meet their citizens' expectations for freedom, justice, a better life, and a fairer society. If democracies do not more effectively contain crime and corruption, generate economic growth, relieve economic inequality, and secure freedom and the rule of law, people will eventually lose faith and turn to authoritarian alternatives. Struggling democracies must be consolidated so that all levels of society become enduringly committed to democracy as the best form of government and to their country's constitutional norms and constraints. Western policymakers can assist in this process by demanding more than superficial electoral democracy. By holding governments accountable and making foreign aid contingent on good governance, donors can help reverse the democratic recession.

BEYOND THE FAÇADE

Western policymakers and analysts have failed to acknowledge the scope of the democratic recession for several reasons. First, global assessments by the Bush administration and by respected independent organizations such as Freedom House tend to cite the overall number of democracies and aggregate trends while neglecting the size and strategic importance of the countries involved. With some prominent exceptions (such as Indonesia, Mexico, and Ukraine), the democratic gains of the past decade have come primarily in smaller and weaker states. In large, strategically important countries, such as Nigeria and Russia, the expansion of executive power, the intimidation of the opposition, and the rigging of the electoral process have extinguished even the most basic form of electoral democracy. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez narrowly lost a December 2 referendum that would have given him virtually unlimited power, but he still does not allow the sort of free and fair political process that could turn him out of office.

Despite two decades of political scientists warning of "the fallacy of electoralism," the United States and many of its democratic allies have remained far too comfortable with this superficial form of democracy. Assessments often fail to apply exacting standards when it comes to defining what constitutes a democracy and what is necessary to sustain it. Western leaders (particularly European ones) have too frequently blessed fraudulent or unfair elections and have been too reluctant to criticize more subtle degradations of democracy. They tend to speak out only when democratic norms are violated by unfriendly governments (as in Russia and Venezuela or in Bolivia) and soft-pedal abuses when allies (such as Ethiopia, Iraq, or Pakistan) are involved.

Elsewhere in the developing and post communist worlds, democracy has been a superficial phenomenon, blighted by multiple forms of bad governance: abusive police and security forces, domineering local oligarchies, incompetent and indifferent state bureaucracies, corrupt and inaccessible judiciaries, and venal ruling elites who are contemptuous of the rule of law and accountable to no one but themselves. Many people in these countries -- especially the poor -- are thus citizens only in name and have few meaningful channels of political participation. There are elections, but they are contests between corrupt, clientelistic parties. There are parliaments and local governments, but they do not represent broad constituencies. There are constitutions, but not constitutionalism.

As a result, disillusioned and disenfranchised voters have embraced authoritarian strongmen (such as Vladimir Putin in Russia) or demagogic populists (such as Chávez in Venezuela). Many observers fear that Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador may be headed down the same road as Chávez . In Thailand, voters (especially in the countryside) have turned repeatedly to a softer autocrat by electing Thaksin Shinawatra, whom the military overthrew in September 2006 only to see his party reemerge triumphant in the December 2007 elections. All of these cases of democratic distress reflect a common challenge: for democratic structures to endure -- and to be worthy of endurance -- they must listen to their citizens' voices, engage their participation, tolerate their protests, protect their freedoms, and respond to their needs.

For a country to be a democracy, it must have more than regular, multiparty elections under a civilian constitutional order. Even significant opposition in presidential elections and opposition party members in the legislature are not enough to move beyond electoral authoritarianism. Elections are only democratic if they are truly free and fair. This requires the freedom to advocate, associate, contest, and campaign. It also requires a fair and neutral electoral administration, a widely credible system of dispute resolution, balanced access to mass media, and independent vote monitoring. By a strict application of these standards, a number of countries typically counted as democracies today -- including Georgia, Mozambique, the Philippines, and Senegal -- may have slipped below the threshold. Alarmingly, a January 2008 Freedom House survey found that for the first time since 1994, freedom around the world had suffered a net decline in two successive years. The ratio of the number of countries whose scores had improved to the number whose scores had declined -- a key indicator -- was the worst since the fall of the Berlin Wall…..(More)