Daily Kos

The New London Smoking Gun! Isn't it Time to Impeach Bush? Vote Now!

Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:20:44 PM PDT

The Thursday, February 2 story by Richard Norton-Taylor in London's Guardian reveals information from a memo of a White House meeting on January 31, 2003 between George W. Bush and Tony Blair in which Bush revealed that the U.S. intended to invade Iraq whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons program.

Phillipe Sands, a professor of international law at University College in London, revealed the memo in a new edition of his book, Lawless World.  Professor Sands last year exposed doubts shared by British Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced Prime Minister Blair to publish the full legal advice given to him by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.  

The new smoking gun reveals a flagrant violation of international law.  Waging war under such circumstances constitutes a breach of the Nuremberg and Geneva codes and the UN Charter, which legitimize such action only in clear and present danger situations involving self-defense.

Bush's deceit and lawlessness were further exemplified when he told Blair that the U.S. was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam Hussein that it considered "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colors."  According to the Guardian article, Bush's rationale was that "If Saddam fired on them (the planes), he would be in breach (of UN resolutions)".

Sir Menzies Campbell, acting leader of Britain's Liberal Democrats, put the breaches of international law into perspective:  "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war.  It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions, with decision for military action already taken."

The White House meeting between Bush and Blair occurred a few days before Secretary of State Colin Powell's dramatic presentation concerning Iraq's weapons program, which Bush's White House Propaganda Ministry, also known as Fox News, lauded as a "virtuoso performance", and the bases for which were thoroughly discredited.

This latest smoking gun, taken in concert with recent disclosures concerning Bush illegalities in the wire tapping field, in which he engaged in spying without seeking court orders under a 1978 law pertaining to the collection of intelligence information, as well as egregious breaches of civil liberties exemplified in the Padilla Case involving preventive detention and widespread violations of the Geneva Code in treatment of designated "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib detention centers, reveals a consistent pattern of law breaking both foreign and domestic.

How long will this spoiled man-child and the Administration over which he is said to preside be allowed to flaunt the law?  Considering the feebleness of Congress and the so-called Democratic Party "loyal opposition" the arrogance of Bush, Cheney and Rove is completely understandable.

Meanwhile the same congressional Republicans who intensely pursued Bill Clinton and voted almost unanimously to remove him from office for lying on an affidavit about an extra-marital sex act, insisting that the criterion to be used was whether or not Clinton had told the truth, blindly supports a leader who has repeatedly flaunted both the truth and the law.  

These Republicans loudly applaud with straight faces when Bush declares his objective of firmly planting the seeds of American democracy in the Middle East when he has been its violent opponent and vigorous transgressor to democratic tradition at home.

Isn't it time to finally reject the bogus warnings of the Bush Lite adherents such as Joes such as Lieberman and Klein to "play it safe" and focus on the U.S. Constitution.  There is a mandated responsibility for members of the House and Senate to see that the laws implemented in Congress' statutes be faithfully executed.  

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton in Number 65 of the Federalist Papers outlined the constitutional grounds for impeachment:

"The subject of its jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

In manufacturing a war Bush has engaged in a serious breach of the public trust.  Isn't it time for him to be finally held accountable?

Register your vote here as to whether you believe that it is time for action in regard to the impeachment of George W. Bush and other complicit members of his Administration.

Poll

Should George W. Bush and complicit members of his Administration be impeached?

0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes

| 0 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: George W. Bush, Violations of Law, Iraq War, Richard Norton-Taylor, Phillipe Sands, Alexander Hamilton, Lord Goldsmith, quagmire, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 155 comments

  •  interesting... (4.00 / 2)

    you might want to check that poll.
  •  The answer to your question... (4.00 / 7)

    Why yes. Yes, indeed.

    "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison, Federalist 10

    by mrhelper on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:26:22 PM PDT

  •  There have been (4.00 / 14)

    more smoking guns from this administration than in all the Godfather movies put together.

    Nice catch anyway.

    I think liberal outrage fatigue is catching up to me.

    (-7.25, -5.85) "Talk amongst yourselves. The Christian Right: neither Christian nor right. Discuss." --Linda Richman

    by Slartibartfast on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:29:32 PM PDT

    •  absolutely (none / 0)

      i feel the same way ... since people have not yet woken up, i doubt they ever will
      •  What's Going to Wake Them Up? (4.00 / 2)

        They'd have to hear or see something very big and extraordinarily contrary to what they understand the situation to be.

        There's no mechanism to accomplish that.

        Anyways, the people don't impeach, only the elected reps can, and they don't have to if they don't want to.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:41:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bah! (4.00 / 6)

          Self-fulfilling prophesy.

          What politician would want to go about the messy business of impeachment if everyone just accepted the status quo. If WE don't start making noise, I can guarantee you three more years of Bush. As for me, I'll do anything to keep the possibility of a more rapid departure open.

          Keep hope alive! Keep hope alive! Keep hope alive!

          "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison, Federalist 10

          by mrhelper on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:48:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One huge media dilema is (none / 1)

          that Americans aren't really, well, readers.  It's a problem.

          Education = Democracy.

          Shoot, darn! says the GOP, who knew that would happen?  Heckava job, property tax based education.  Well done!  And right on time...

          "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

          by Unduna on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:07:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right (none / 0)

            I'm living in Europe at the moment and my little local shops (7-11 type shops) in my small village have about 10 to 15 newspapers to select from every day. And usually by the end of the day, most of them are gone.

            Recently I was visiting family and friends in the southwest TX, NM, AZ, UT. And I would be lucky to find even one in the local 7-11 or other store. Most times not even the USA Today. Not even a People magazine -- nothing.

            It's amazing. And all the radio stations here have news on the hour -- real news. Even the popular music stations. And they have real debate and discussions on current political issues, on the popular radio stations and even on TV.

        •  whats that one joke? (none / 0)

          we could have video of george w bush f***king a dead dog on the white house lawn while his family watched and republicans would still vote for him.
        •  Now vs the 2006 elections (none / 0)

          Anyways, the people don't impeach, only the elected reps can, and they don't have to if they don't want to.

          A Democratic House and Senate might want to after 2006, and by that time they might see the impertative to impeach and convict to stop Bush's virtual military/Executive Branch coup d'etat and reinstate the rule of law.

          Okay, it's a lot of work to make a Demo Congress happen but that's our only avenue. Let's get to it! All our energy has to be devoted to that objective. Not just to impeach Bush but to get back to sane, competent governance. Together we can do it.  Dean is paving the way in a 50-state buildup of the Demo Party and Feingold is coming up with some good rhetoric reminding Americans we're looking at 1776 all over again. Now if we can just get rid of electronic voting machines and protect the ballot.   We're getting "smoking gun fatigue" because we in the blogosphere are paying so much attention, but a lot of average Americans out there (believe it or not) are starting to wonder -- hey, what's going on here? Even if the American newsmedia sleeps on this story from Britain.

          •  I agree (none / 1)

            ...but I would also like to think that there are enough responsible republicans in the House that if enough of their constituients raised hell, they would have to capitulate, especially now that their IV to campaign money is under indictment.

            I would like to encourage all of us who live in a Republican's district, no matter how much we may cynically think they won't do anything, to call/write/fax their representatives.

            This is how it is supposed to work, anyway.  This is our most direct hope of changing the tragic direction our nation and world is taking.  

            And it would also be wise to mention to any dems/greens/libertarians who may consider running on an impeachment platform to GO FOR IT!!!

            Some pretty amazing spokesman for the people once said "First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you, then you WIN..."

            ¨An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.¨ - Mark Twain

            by Indiana Bob on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:18:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  only way the repubs would do anything (none / 0)

              would be if their re-election depended on it.  look at delay... they won't go near that man with a ten foot pole right now.  he's radioactive.  they want the 'appearance' of clean... not necessarily clean though.  and that is what bugs me the most.  they replace delay with another 'delay'.  but they 'appear' to be fixing the problem.  i can see where this is going.  but i digress...

              the only way his party will turn on him is if he becomes radioactive.  how do we achieve this, because as far as i can see, everything that has come out so far should have done the trick so far.  what the hell do we need to do to get this man some justice!  i am at a loss.  the sheep don't seem to pay attention to anything the herder does.

            •  good point. (none / 0)

              the repug bastards will jump on the bandwagon to save their sorry asses

              a splendid time is guaranteed for all

              by KBueno on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:49:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  A telling excerpt from (none / 0)

          today's Last Chance Democracy Cafe, set in 2069:

          "So what happened?" he asked. "How did things end up the way they are now? Did the military take over?

          "No, we didn't wake up one morning and find tanks in the streets, if that's what you're asking; nothing so melodramatic. It was more like the way global warming caused the glaciers to disappear from Glacier National Park . . . an inch at a time. A lot of it started during George W. Bush's administration. He wasn't a dictator himself, at least not in the absolute sense the president is today. But he was the one who set things in motion. He claimed that he had the right to seize American citizens and hold them prisoner indefinitely, based upon nothing more than his own say so. He ordered illegal surveillance of Americans and imposed unprecedented secrecy on governmental affairs. He authorized torture of prisoners, built secret prisons and convinced much of the public that disagreeing with the government was unpatriotic. But most importantly, he established the precedent that the president is above the law . . . free to ignore duly enacted statutes at his pleasure. And that was the beginning of the end. Because no one can be above the law in a democracy and still have it be a democracy."

          Joe nodded that he understood.

          "The thing is," continued the old man, "we didn't stop him. That's what's really so sad: The truth is that no one took freedom from us. We gave it away."

          We can't wait for something big to happen.  We have to take steps to stop this creeping, incremental fascism, NOW.  And a general observation for anyone reading this: if the most you're doing is reading and posting on a blog, you aren't doing enough.

          The History Commons needs your participation.

          by Black Max on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:58:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is the problem (4.00 / 3)

        We cannot afford to be fatigued, especially with smoking guns. The public will wake up, but it is going to take a lot. I agree that they should have woken up by now, and a few of them have. Someone on this blog said earlier that anything worth having isn't easy (forgive me for not having the person's user name or the exact quote). This is just one of those things. We need to make them understand. We need to go around to the general public, not everyone is on a blog. We just have to unite and spread the word. We can't trust the media to tell people this stuff, so we have to be the media. We can do it as long as we're all willing to work for it.

        The best gift I've ever recieved was the return of Democracy in America

        by Whitney S on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:07:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Smoking guns (4.00 / 4)

      Yes, with as many smoking guns as this administration has produced, the voting public must be riddled with ballot holes by now.

      </really bad pun>

    •  yeah (4.00 / 3)

      I dont even get angry when I read stuff like this anymore.  I just kind of sit here wondering when its gonna end:(
      •  Likely soon (4.00 / 2)

        One way or the other.

        You see let's say they get every vote they want and gain a super-majority

        The following will happen

        1.  Iran
        1.5.  The Draft
        2.  Syria
        2.5.  Severe unrest in the USA

        1.  Because we will be totally stretched China will posture and N Korea will start taking shots at us.
        2.  We respond in kind
        3.  Europe gets pissed
        4.  Semi-world war with some nuke usage
        5. 100k come home in body bags
        6.  Revolution here.

        The End.

        Sick and sad but its probably going to happen that way.

        Assassin: Its worse than you know. Malcolm: It usually is. 宁静

        by TalkieToaster on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:45:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i think the reason iran is being like they are is (none / 1)

          because they know we can't really do anything to them right now.  we are stretched too thin in iraq and afghanistan.  and besides, who would believe anything the president or tony blair say after the liesa bout iraq?  i know i wouldn't.  

          and so kids, this is why we shouldn't lie...   now no one believes what our president is saying.... well, no one outside of the us that is.

      •  When we make it end. (none / 0)

        Serious answer.  Just tough to make happen.

        The History Commons needs your participation.

        by Black Max on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:53:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Res Ipse....... (4.00 / 4)

    ......loquitor

    Latin: for "the thing speaks for itself"
    or
    you betcha!!!!

    "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson

    by penncove on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:30:04 PM PDT

    •  The Name of a Huge Sailboat (none / 0)

      we used to see off Cleveland years ago. Huge for the are, around 50' I think.

      Tragic irony--it was as hard to miss on Lake Erie as Bush's antics are hard to see & understand for the American people.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:43:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is (none / 1)

        that we're telling people about the big ugly battleship coming at them over the horizon -- they can't see it for themselves as yet.  And we're countered by hordes of people who see it as plainly as we do, but who are either waving it forward in hopes that they get to wear the jackboots in the near future, or stand there staring at it coming ever onward and say, "What battleship?  I don't see a thing."

        The History Commons needs your participation.

        by Black Max on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:02:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  An important story in the Guardian (4.00 / 17)

    you might want to post a link to it here.

    It may not be quite the ammunition we'd like, given that by late January 2003 Bush was beating his breast publicly a lot. Plus we don't yet have the text of the minutes, which is really critical in making a case against Bush.

    One thing that could resonate today with Americans is this:

    Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

    Naaahhh, Sunnis and Shiites would never think of bothering each other. In the immortal wisdom of Sec. Rice, "Nobody could have predicted..."

    •  Channel 4 in Britain (4.00 / 3)

      has also broadcast a report. Their website here has a lot of useful links, including a few extracts from the minutes (nothing more than what the Guardian reports, however) and videos of their broadcast.

      I still don't see anything radically new in this memo, just further confirmation of what we'd inferred from the DSM and other leaked documents from 2002.

      I'll add that in his personal diary under March 5, 2003, Robin Cook said:

      Prime minister's questions was notable for the confidence Tony expressed about getting a second UN resolution. I don't know whether this is calculated bravado to keep Saddam wary, or whether he is in a state of denial.
      I saw Tony privately shortly after we left the chamber. I started by observing that he'd gone out on a limb and the first piece of advice that I would offer is that he had to stop climbing further out on it, especially on Friday when Hans Blix presents his next report to the UN. "Britain has got to be seen on-side with Blix." If he needed months, we should be prepared to give him until autumn.

      Tony was quite frank that he could not deliver that: "I don't know if I could do that. Left to himself, Bush would have gone to war in January. No, not January, but back in September."

    •  I call bullshit (4.00 / 4)

      There is no way Dubya could use the word "internecine" in a sentence, let alone a complete sentence.  

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:07:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, irony (none / 0)

          When is a mistake not a mistake?

          In the interesting history of the word internecine at dictionary.com, that is the lead sentence.

          For Bush, a mistake is never a mistake, so it seems in terms of responsibility taken in tangible terms.

          And could/would he have said it? If he thought it would fuck your mind, yes. Otherwise, unless it was a clever nickname, I doubt it. But realize, he wages internecine war as a matter of fact. We got the bruises and the outrage to show for it. Ask Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. And a well-littered trail of others.

          So, they're not strangers in the night.

        "But their gift is an empty snake, Carrying hypocrisy in its mouth like venom" - Sami Al Hajj

        by walkshills on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:39:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A Brit wrote the memo (none / 1)

        Dubya said something like,"Well, ya know, these sunnys or zumis or whatever... there's like the kurds, too, and... and... uh,  different groups and such... shoot at each other?  Naah." Which in the Queens English became 'unlikelihood of internecine warfare.'

        "It's supposed to be automatic, but actually you have to push this button." John Brunner, Stand on Zanzibar

        by Orinoco on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:53:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Shrub's Dictionary (none / 0)

        Internecine. n. Used in a sentence: "Hey, is that an Internecine sneakin' outta Bill Clinton's office, or are ma eyes playin' trick on me? Heh heh heh"
  •  How long will Bush get away with it? (none / 1)

    He'll get away with being allowed to flaunt the law as long as Republicans control the executive and legislative branches of government, and, as long as they are able to brand the opposition as traitors and cowards who are weak on terror. Until those things change, we will be stuck with his flaunting. Of course, it would help if the traditional media would accurately cover his administration.
    •  Don't forget the Judicial Branch. (4.00 / 2)

      Ok, Ok, they've got Alito.

      But we've got Fitz, and he's got brethren, and they aren't done yet.  Their work is slow, but based in reality (oh, right, that! we all say incredulously), and that particular reality has a tendency to show up in full color.

      If we can hang in there, these soldiers may push through in the end (hopefully sometime before it...).

      "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

      by Unduna on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:22:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It was covered on Obermin (4.00 / 2)

    Amazingly.  

    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known---Carl Sagan

    by LibChicAZ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:48:04 PM PDT

  •  o absolutely.. but (4.00 / 4)

      you gotta fix the poll so I can vote for it...

    Free Don Seigelman, jail Karl Rove ~ mission halfway accomplished !

    by Dvalkure on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:49:06 PM PDT

  •  He will (4.00 / 4)

    get away with it up until he declares martial law.
    Consistent and repeated provocations toward this end should be clearly evident.  He have the leader of the "free" world mouthing off while several others are being dragged away for wearing T shirts.  This man has broken the law since before he was born but I have not yet seen a SWAT team come and take him away.
    Even though I couldn't watch this profane spectacle I am told legislators stood and clapped.
    What more possibly needs to be said.
    America is over, history, a fallen empire.
    End of story.
    •  A fallen republic (4.00 / 2)

      now a declining empire.

      Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

      by StrayCat on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:20:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah yes. (none / 0)

        One of my ultimate favorite television series, first aired when I was a teenager (OMG, so showing my age here) was I, Claudius. Besides the fact that I still have a crush on Derek Jacobi, one of Claudius' chief beliefs was that the Republic should return, because he and his good brother Germanicus despise the destruction of the empire by Julius, then Augustus Caesar. Like Rome, we are ruled by an idiot. [Note: Claudius had a number of physical infirmities, including stuttering, partial deafness, etc. that may, or may not have been accompanied by mental deficiency. Robert Graves wrote him as a very bright man. I'll say this for him: he stayed alive when his entire family was murdered.] Like Rome, I see a lot of the vile excesses of the empire taking a shit on the noble republic called America when I look at the White House. Like Rome, spying, scandal, and war are manifested by an out of control and depraved imperial power. Damn. Now I absolutely need that DVD set to see the whole thing again. I recommend a viewing if you want to see our future ....that is, our future if we don't fight, very hard, very long, and very smart, starting right now.
        •  Claudius was bright, but a bit strange (none / 0)

          He was an author long before he was thrust into politics.

          He wrote a history of the Etruscans that historians and linguists would give their eye teeth to get ahold of.  Suetonius reported that he would go up into the hills and interview old folks, the remnant that had learned the Etruscan language as children.

          In addition, he wrote a history of Carthage, a bit shorter, that would probably be very useful to us.

          It sounds to me that Claudius suffered from a mild form of Cerebral Palsy--he suffered from mild brain damage.  He also had mild Aspergers-like symptoms.  He certainly could fixate and also seemed to have a bit of a problem picking up social cues.  He certainly suffered from (mild) expressive speech disorder , not merely stuttering but in the interior processing of language.  It is not uncommon that persons with this problem be good writers (over compensation?).

          As an Emperor, he was innovative in administration as well as an innovator in his public works projects.  His projects focused more on what we would call infrastructure (water supply, ports, land reclamation) than on showy projects such as temples in Rome.

          He wasn't as sharp as a politician.  He may have commented that he survived when others didn't, but it really wasn't true.  His wife/niece assassinated him; this he should have seen coming--there was no reason to marry the bitch in the first place (later her son, Nero, murdered HER--of course she murdered Britannicus--Claudius' son by an earlier wife--soon after Claudius was murdered).

          Disd he favor the Republic?  I doubt it, though he may have distrusted his mother, Livia, who was Augustus' wife.

    •  When he declares martial law (none / 0)

      That will be the time. It's not the time now. It will be when he does that. When he suspends the '08 elections to stay in office, when a convenient terrorist attack makes elections too dangerous, when he finds some way to stay in office past two terms, that will be the time.

      Will he try? Maybe. Maybe not. Only a fool would think he could get away with it. See my point?

      OEF/OIF vet
      I've been called a left-wing extremist because I absolutely oppose torture. I can live with that.

      by jabbausaf on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:17:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  1984 (none / 1)

        I am re-reading 1984 along with (and skipping ahead often) Mike Malloy on his Air America Radio program.

        We have Newspeak.  We have doublethink.  We have revisionism.  And we have:

        WAR IS PEACE.

        FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

        IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

        It's time to drive this group out, legally and peacefully.  Call you're Reps, Republican or Democrat.

        ¨An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.¨ - Mark Twain

        by Indiana Bob on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:28:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  we are at war with Eurasia (none / 0)

          we have always been at war with Eurasia
          •  Iraq = "Eurasia," sorta (none / 0)

            I always laugh at how Saddam/Iraq was so villified by Republicans over the last fifteen years, when in fact he was Reagan's and GHW Bush's bestest buddy for years. The way Poppy Bush practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait, then turned on him soon after, smacks of 1984.

            In fact, I'm pretty sure that if you go back and read newspaper stories immediately after the invasion, the lack of condemnation by the Bush White House would be very surprising to a lot of people who either weren't around or just werent paying attention back then. IIRC, it took a while before Bush started saying the "line in the sand" crap, and then took even longer before he started comparing Saddam to Hitler.

            -8.25, -6.26 Pardon our dust, sig line under renovation in order to serve you better.

            by snookybeh on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:55:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  don't forget Bentham's panopticon (none / 0)

          okay ... so it's not from 1984 but the omnipresent telescreens served much the same function.

          as Foucault puts it:
          the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it

          "There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules." -Josh Marshall

          by grollen on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:01:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You guys are depressing me (none / 0)

        I have always been anti-gun and found the present interpretation of the 2nd amendment to be absurd: that it's there to protect the people from an overarching governemt. But hell I'm beginning to doubt that. The problem is that it's the repubs who have all the guns.
        •  No offense but (none / 0)

          That's because of guys like you. Not too late for you to change, read up on local gun laws and go out and make a purchase. Find a range and start practicing. I'd reccomend a long gun of some sort, and a pistol. For pistols, my dad always taught me to go with a nice simple .357 revolver. They can shoot cheap .38 solid slugs for target practice at the range, and for actual defence use you can use .357 hollowpoints. You use a revolver because it has less moving parts then a semi-auto handgun, less that can go wrong, don't have to worry about "one in the chamber", and so forth. He said "Son, if you can't hit and stop them with 6 shots, you're not going to do it with 10 or 11." The long gun will be good for hunting, especially if our current economic system and our society collapses, and instead of getting meat at the supermarket you find yourself in the mountains hunting deer.

          Luckily the Republicans going crazy has pushed a lot of us liberterians over to the Democrats. And don't think that just because an hypothetical overarching government would hypothetically have the military on its side, resistance would be hopeless and futile. Not so at all.

          OEF/OIF vet
          I've been called a left-wing extremist because I absolutely oppose torture. I can live with that.

          by jabbausaf on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:22:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Please (none / 1)

      Our founding fathers, men and women who were faced with the same government and problems we were, did not give up! We cannot give up. I am willing to fight for liberty until the day I die. I love this country. I am not about to sit quietly and watch it fall because of some spoiled man who is a puppet for Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. I refuse! We need to keep going. We need to keep fighting. My ancestors came over on the mayflower. One of my ancestors signed the declaration of independence (one of the morrises). They did not give up when they faced tyranny. I will not give up. And I ask each one of you to do the same.

      The best gift I've ever recieved was the return of Democracy in America

      by Whitney S on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:17:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bullshit. (none / 1)

      It ain't over until we say it's over.  As long as one of us is fighting for democracy, even if it's from a hole in a Guantanamo Bay shitheap, it ain't over.

      Nothing personal, LH, but it drives me crazy to hear well-meaning people bemoan about "it's over."  The hell it is.

      The History Commons needs your participation.

      by Black Max on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:06:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  March 6, 2003 press conference: (4.00 / 5)

    Bush, about invading Iraq:
    "I have not made up our [sic] mind yet."

    I have the html and hard copies in case they scrub it.

    The corporate media are destroying progressive Democrats. The Clintons are destroying the Democratic Party.

    by lecsmith on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:55:32 PM PDT

  •  Is that a Diebold poll machine? (none / 0)

    Now lets see if the MSM will pick up the story...yeah, right.

    I think some people don't care what happened yesterday...let alone 3 years ago. I know how important this is...and that it means Bush lied.
    Righties will just say...get over it.

    1/20/09: End of an Error.

    by Esjaydee on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:00:07 PM PDT

  •  14 U.S. Reps Say Yes (4.00 / 11)

    as of today.

    The number of US House Representatives who have signed on to H. Res 635--supporting a probe looking into the grounds for impeaching Bush--has jumped to fourteen (14), including US Rep. John Conyers who initially sponsored the bill, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

    14 US Reps Want Bush Impeachment Probe

    17 Total Want Bush to Resign or Be Impeached

    Atlanta Progressive News

  •  To (sorta) quote one Thomas Paine (4.00 / 6)

    Impeachment proceedings may at first seem strange and difficult, but like all other steps which we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable: and until impeachment is declared, the Continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.

    Come on! You know it has to be done. Let's quit being timid about it. Who cares if Republicans control all the levers? Demand it loud enough, and they will look like obstructionists.

    How much did you read in the press about the destroyed White House emails today? If YOU don't make some noise, no one will.

    The water is heating up in the old pot, folks. Stay and boil, or jump on over to the Impeachment pond. The water's fine!

    "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison, Federalist 10

    by mrhelper on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:25:14 PM PDT

  •  Absoeffinglutely (4.00 / 4)

    YES

    (You should correct this:
    It's FLOUT the law, not "flaunt the law")

    Vote TORTURE. Vote DEATH. Vote REPUBLICAN: the party of torturers and war criminals.

    by Yellow Canary on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:34:03 PM PDT

    •  No (none / 0)

      I have to say we shouldnt impeach Bush. Look what we'll get. Cheney--whom I think would be worse. And "if" he decides to run in 2008, wouldnt that give him an edge?
      •  They'll be impeached together. (4.00 / 7)

        Seriously.  And they should be.  That's the looming crisis.

        But to your point: NO.  NO NO NO NO.  You do not withhold impeaching a gangster thug lying evil war criminal because you are afraid of giving your enemy an edge.  Your allegiance is to

        1. The laws of the country, and
        2. The laws of the country.

        Leaving Bush in office effectively declares the laws of this country null and void.

        I'll take Cheney.

        But in practical terms, they are going to walk that plank together.

        Vote TORTURE. Vote DEATH. Vote REPUBLICAN: the party of torturers and war criminals.

        by Yellow Canary on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:48:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Phhhhttt! (4.00 / 4)

        Always do the right thing. And then if things don't improve, keep doing the right thing.

        Not calling for Bush's impeachment is equivalent to condoning his actions. Won't ever catch me doin' that...

        "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison, Federalist 10

        by mrhelper on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:52:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (none / 0)

          I want the guy gone but dont want Cheney..And I certainly dont want Cheney having any kind of an egde in 2008 should he decide to run. Bush is bad enough, I cant imagine what Cheney would be like.
          •  I understand that sentiment (none / 1)

            But we gotta fight the battle immediately in front of us.

            If Bush were impeached, Cheney would be seriously, seriously tainted, even if he survived impeachment himself.

            "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison, Federalist 10

            by mrhelper on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:08:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Cheney (none / 0)

            wouldn't have any power if he survived impeachment. No one would listen to him or pay any attention to him. He would be a figure head. He would be so closely aligned with Bush that no one would think twice about him.

            The best gift I've ever recieved was the return of Democracy in America

            by Whitney S on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:20:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We already have Cheney in charge, (none / 1)

            & he polls lower than W.  He'll either go out with Bush or spend 2 years as the weakest, most hated pres ever.  My bet:  Cheney gets impeached too.  If we take the House & Senate in 2006, we may get Pres Pelosi.  

            Job One, IMO, get Dems elected in 2006.

          •  I think Cheney would be (none / 0)

            so overwhelmingly implicated in the course of an investigation into GW that it'd be like Tar Baby - no one who came into contact with the White House on this will escape without being tarred.

            As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

            by occams hatchet on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:50:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Considering that Cheney is (none / 1)

            Bush's puppet master, there's no way Bush is impeached with Cheney dodging any of the taint.  By impeaching the one, you're effectively going after both.

            The History Commons needs your participation.

            by Black Max on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 09:08:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  constitutional problem (none / 1)

        It's easy to imagine that the majority of legitimate reasons congress would want to impeach and remove a president would require the removal of the VP too.  Nixon/Ford is a special case because Agnew had just been removed, and yet Ford still went and pardoned Nixon.  

        Clinton was a bogus impeachment anyway, but I suppose in that case there would be no cause to remove Gore.  But for any actual high crime or misdemeanor, the VP would almost certainly be implicated.  And so he is.  Cheney would have to go if Bush does.

        The problem is the current order of succession leaves the Speaker.  Well, gee, that person now has a bit of a conflict of interest in removing the two.

        This leads to the outside chance of a President Pelosi sometime in 2007.  Of course, even figuring we take back both houses, we still need another sea-change of public opinion to think we'd get the 67 votes in the senate to convict.  

        Help build the progressive governing majority at Openleft.com

        by Scientician on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:10:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  great points... (none / 0)

          ...but it has to start somewhere.

          Call your reps.  

          ¨An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.¨ - Mark Twain

          by Indiana Bob on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:34:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think we'll get those extra votes (none / 1)

          from true conservatives among Republicans, some of whom are already wriggling unconfortably in their chairs over what Bush is doing. Once the impeachment process gets rolling and the Articles are read aloud and the gravity of the charges sinks in across the country, those true conservatives might be among the first to step up and bite the bullet, just as they did in Nixon's pending impeachment. They will know it will be the only way to preserve their party.

          Yeah, a sea change but not impossible. The sea is changing.

  •  could we get a link on that one? (none / 0)

    The following paragraph is worth of a diary in its own right.  Is the Guardian the only source reporting this?

    Bush's deceit and lawlessness were further exemplified when he told Blair that the U.S. was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam Hussein that it considered "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colors."  According to the Guardian article, Bush's rationale was that "If Saddam fired on them (the planes), he would be in breach (of UN resolutions)

    Putting UN logos on US planes and trying to get them shot down? That is some seriously cynical justification for war.

    Love the diary.  Fix the poll.

    Halliburton: the bucks stop there.

    by YankInUK on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:41:20 PM PDT

    •  Like August 1939 (4.00 / 3)

      I'm not surprised Bush was already looking for a pretext for war-- the Administration had chosen war already in summer 2001, even before 9/11-- but it is interesting that Bush was even willing to create a phony provocation as pretext. Hitler carried out a raid by "Polish" soldiers (actually Wermacht in Polish uniforms on a German frontier radio station to provide a pretext for the German invasion of Poland. Bush's suggestion ranks with this in malevolent cynicism and likewise counts as a war crime.  
    •  Seriously stupid idea (none / 0)

      of Bush? got shot down instead. FEARLESS leader?
         Maybe PEERLESS.
    •  The US (none / 0)

      was so worried... that it considered...
      I didn't know that I had considered that. Obviously George didn't think that up himself. Sounds a bit Northwoodsish. After a moment's thought, it sounds a lot Northwoodsish. Airplanes in diguise. Black ops. To start a war. From the horse's mouth. Someone debunk this crazy conspiracy theory.
  •  latest smoking gun (none / 1)

    What will it take to make a dent in the common conscience? When will Democrats systematically use the words "lie", "lying" and "liar" with regard to George W. Bush? Why can't we pound back with the truth of this?
    •  more people than you think (none / 1)

      Distrust George Bush and believe (at least) that he stole two elections. Also believe that his behaviour over Katrina was outrageous. Also believe that he's as corrupt as they come.

      Not just leftie bloggers like ourselves.

      That's not to say that there isn't a large group that really really doesn't want to believe that their leader is a bad man, and will cling to the belief that he is good until he starts killing puppies on their front lawn.

      But more people think he's untrustworthy.

      My next point will be obvious to everybody here, but since many on this thread currently believe that "the people" or "the country" is blind, or asleep, or supportive of GWB, it should be re-stated.

      A "reality" is being constructed which is favorable to Bush, which mitigates any criticism of him and gives him a partial teflon coating. This "reality" is obviously propagandistic and is being enforced as the authoritative version of what's true. The way it's being enforced is through control of, or at least powerful influence over,elected officials and the MSM. Places where Bush's faction either has allies, can buy them, or can twist people's arms (as Kerry said about ANWR:  guess Bush didn't have enough political capital to twist moderate Republicans' arms and make them walk the plank this time.) Bush's faction has a lot of power over elected officials and the media. It's cracking a bit; it's nowhere near as bad as it was in 2002. But it's still weighing us down. Weighing popular opinion down. That's where the blockage is.

      Don't buy the MSM lie that most Americans either don't think about GWB at all or that they think he's a nice guy and a great leader.

      I think the real question is:  how do we turn these revelations of corruption and power-mongering into effective political action, and how do we involve people outside the blogosphere in that action?

      I avow and affirm that I will protect and defend the sovereignty of the colonies with every fiber of my being.

      by Nobby on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:06:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  First turn off our own TVs (none / 0)

        Then get everyone we know on a caravan to take them back to the retailers who sold these defective products to us.

        IMPEACH THEM NOW! It only takes One State.

        by arbortender on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:08:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  how do we ... ? (none / 0)

        I would say that we must show the truth to be more profitable than the constructed fictions instrumentalized by this illegal and unjust administration ...

        of course we are faced with the small matter of profitable for whom?

        I am pretty sure that the trans-nationals etc haven't quite tired of squeezing us just yet

        "There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules." -Josh Marshall

        by grollen on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:30:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  good thought (none / 0)

          we also might have to ask

          profitable how?

          If we're talking, profitable=making more money and that's all...well, I guess our truth (which we might also have to define?)is, in fact, more profitable to most people, who are getting squeezed by this economy in every direction.

          I avow and affirm that I will protect and defend the sovereignty of the colonies with every fiber of my being.

          by Nobby on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:18:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We can't pound (none / 0)

      back with the truth because the facts have an anti-Bush bias.

      The truth is, truth is irrelevant, as irrelevant as the millions of anti-war protestors.  What matters is the perception.  And the Democrats in leadership have the perception that Bush is a 'popular wartime president'.  Ask anyone.  Ask Chris Matthews.  This is perpetrated by almost all of the corporate media.

      Economic issues are either ignored or lied about, while we are told that what really matters to voters is "security" (apparently not the kind that comes from knowing you can get healthcare if you need it, or have a decent job, but that scary Muslim people won't bomb your coffee shop in Lincoln, Nebraska) and defending marriage.

      It doesn't help that the Democrats are sucking at the same teats as are the Republicans.  They make money from imperialism, too.  

      Yeah, I know - I sound like a Bolshie these days.  I don't care anymore.  I have two kids and am terrified for their future, and am in year six of economic crisis.  I have had enough.  Every day, I have less to lose by preserving the institutions of capitalism.  

  •  Maybe What's Happening Is Not (none / 0)

    a cabal taking over the country.

    I think it's the Empire taking over the country. Makes a little more logistical sense that way.

    I'm not convinced that elected government has had control of the Empire since Ike gave his farewell warning.

    It looks like they're in the process of preparing a formal announcement.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:47:06 PM PDT

  •  Could you do something about the title? (none / 1)

    I thought you were talking about a gun in New London, Connecticut.
  •  Will Rogers, FDR quotations (4.00 / 13)

    "In Europe public men do resign. But here it's a lost art. You have to impeach 'em."
           -- Will Rogers

    "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
           -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    Best Diary of the Year? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/03912/3990

    by LNK on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:53:35 PM PDT

  •  You knew it. I knew it. (none / 0)

    Pretty much everyone here knew it. Right?

    But Emperors are above the law. By Divine Right, they are the law. All this indignation about broken laws is beside the point. First, you have to establish that the law applies.

    Historically, you will note, that tends to be the hard part.

    Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

    by Canadian Reader on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:56:15 PM PDT

    •  "everyone here" (none / 0)

      It's easy to say that everyone here knew it, but I wonder if that was true at the time in question? 3 years ago, had this site been as big as it is today, do you really think most people would have been so willing to refuse to believe this administration's lies? I can gurantee you that a significant number of people would have attacked people like me with their "tinfoil" remarks. "I like to use Reynolds wrap!" blah blah blah. 3 years ago was a dark time for me. I had to sit by and watch this country make a horrible mistake. Very very few people could see it. And even now, most people think that Afghanistan was justified but Iraq was a mistake. What kind of nonsense is that? We were even less justified in invading Afghanistan, and yet the tinfoil remarks will fly against anyone who points out the facts supporting that conclusion. Why? Because it's alot easier to admit the truth when enough people before you have already done so. This aspect of human nature has me very worried about Iran. Despite all that we've accomplished in the last few years, it could all be for naught because so many people are so willing to swallow propaganda.

      Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

      by Iconoclast421 on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:29:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  James Risen (4.00 / 8)

    the reporter who first broke the story of Bush's warrentless spying, has written a recently published book called "State of War."  I am about 3/4 of the way through it.  Unfortunately it is in my desk drawer at work.  According to his book, there were so many "smoking guns," it would make your head spin.  The book seems to infer that Bush himself was deliberately kept out of the facts/nonfacts leading up to the invasion of Iraq.  The more interesting part of the book deals with the partisian reporting on Iraq after we invaded.  Apparently any naysayers who pointed out the disaster that Iraq had become were demoted.  The book emphasizes the total lack of planning after we invaded, and how the Bush Administration keeps trying to sell a rosey picture of Iraq in spite of the actual situation on the ground.  

    I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with. World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -- Albert Einstein

    by elveta on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:57:24 PM PDT

  •  gah (none / 1)

    What are the chances of this administration being held accountable before pushing us off the next cliff and into Iran?

    Slim to none...

    I am waiting to hear the following statement on the news:

    "The British Government has learned that Iran recently sought significant quantities of yellow cake uranium from Africa."

    I bet that if such a statement were ever made, less than 5% of the population would even think twice about it.

    Yellow-what?

    I aint got time to think about such things. I'm saving what's left of my mind for that 2+ hour tv advertising orgy we call the Super Bowl.

    Go [hunt] yourself, Mr. Cheney

    by Iconoclast421 on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:12:52 PM PDT

    •  If I had a million dollars... (4.00 / 3)

      ...I would put this ad on the air during the Super Bowl!

      "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison, Federalist 10

      by mrhelper on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:19:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good ad, (none / 0)

        but I object, on personal moral grounds to using Adagio for Strings as the background.

        That particular music, aside from having some fairly intense personal memories, was played at JFK's funeral.  It's not sad music, damnit.

        Shrapnel was invented by an Englishman of the same name. Don't you wish you had something named after you?
        -- Vonnegut

        by ew73 on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:51:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not meant to be sad (none / 1)

          It was meant to be chilling. The subliminal image I was going after when I chose that music was the movie Platoon, which features the music very prominently.

          Wasn't aware it had been played at Kennedy's funeral. That was definitely not what I was trying to tie into.

          "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison, Federalist 10

          by mrhelper on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 05:33:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Your TV ad about impeachment (none / 0)

        is quite moving. I don't like the Bush photo at end, almost cruelly ugly and jarring compared the rest of piece, not really typical of his look. Should be a smart-ass smirk photo that conyeys his attitude, like the whole thing is a joke. I do like the music.  Overall -- esp with the words "Now it's your turn" -- it brought tears to my eyes. This is exactly the frame that Finegold drew today in what I've come to call 1776 all over again.

        Back to main subject, are we sure we have rock-solid sourcing on this "smoking gun" memo?

      •  I'd Put On This Ad (none / 0