EightGate — the “other” Monica

… only this time there’s no cigar … UNLESS the Congress can get her to spill what she knows; then we can all light up! Miss Goodling’s Christocrat programming may stand in the way of that. The “what would Jesus do” question always rests on who you think Jesus is. Monica thinks Jesus is a Republican who whispers in Dubby’s ear.

Taking out Gonzales, who is obviously about as dim-witted as his boss, is not of much interest to me except perfunctorily, I’d just as soon see him stay in place with the cookie crumbs all over his mouth and that goofy, innocent look on his face; it’s terrific PR when we’re trying to expose a cabal, if you get my drift. I do get weary with those who say leave him there ‘cuz we don’t know what heinous, fanged thing Bush has in the wings. If we don’t know what we’re looking at at this point, and don’t have confidence in the will of the people to throw the bums out, we’ve lost the damned game anyhow!

It would be good to see Heckuva Job Fredo go and someone with respect for the Constitution in place, but I’m more interested in rooting out the actual cancer in the DoJ … Fredo is just a damned foot soldier, and he’s left cookie crumbs to follow. Karl is Toxic Man — there is much evidence of electioneering to get to … and there is a BIG difference between voter fraud and electioneering — the difference between state scandal and systemicatic national fraud.

Iglesias blew the whistle to the OSC, first read — the other Monica, next — the piece by digby, whom I adore, is well worth a read, if just to review the Bush statement on sacrificing his loyal minions. What a dolt! Dig mentions an article by Greg Palast, which I’ve posted last.

Jude

Iglesias Reveals He Filed Complaint Against Rove, Leading To Special Counsel Probe
Think Progress
4/24/07

Tonight on MSNBC, fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias revealed key new details about the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) probe into Karl Rove and other White House officials reported today by the Los Angeles Times.

Iglesias said that on April 3, he filed a Hatch Act complaint with the OSC, charging that Karl Rove and others may have violated the law by firing him over his failure to initiate partisan-motivated prosecutions. Iglesias said he subsequently spoke with OSC chief Scott Bloch, who made clear that he was planning to launch an investigation. Despite suggestions that the White House may have initiated the OSC investigation to obstruct parallel congressional probes, Iglesias expressed confidence in Bloch.

Iglesias also said that while evidence of Rove’s potential illegal actions is currently only circumstantial, “I believe if OSC digs in, they can get direct evidence.”

[T]he Justice Department papers everything. I mean, the most minute issue has an incredible researched and memoed product. There has to be a paper trail. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s not at the Justice Department, it has got to be at the White House.

Finally, Iglesias said he believes that Monica Goodling ― former counsel to Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House ― holds the “keys to the kingdom” in terms of uncovering the roots of the U.S. Attorney purge, since she can describe the communication that took place between the White House and the Justice Department.

Below, key excerpts from Iglesias’ interview:

Iglesias filed a Hatch Act complaint against several White House officials, likely leading to the Office of Special Counsel probe.

MATTHEWS: Was your complaint to the Office of Special Counsel the reason for this investigation of Karl Rove?

IGLESIAS: It could have started the ball rolling, yes. It’s is something I filed back on April 3 of this year…based on, you know, Special Counsel having powers to investigate where evidence goes. I actually filed a Hatch Act complaint against Gonzales, McNulty, Sampson and Goodling and they’re already getting documents from the Justice Department and possibly from the White House. […]

MATTHEWS: Do you believe the investigators, have they talked to you at all, have the people at the office ― has Scott Bloch talked to you at all?

IGLESIAS: Yes. I had a conversation with Mr. Bloch and his deputy and two other attorneys approximately three weeks ago.

MATTHEWS: And did that lead you to believe they were going to act like they have?

IGLESIAS: Yes, yes. Yes, it did.

MATTHEWS: So you believe affirmatively that your complaint to the Office of Special Counsel in the Justice Department led to this probe we’re reading about today in the L.A. Times, the Associated Press and here on NBC?

IGLESIAS: I do. There may be other complainants that I’m not aware of, but I believe my complaints are at least a partial basis for that.

There is a paper trail documenting the attorney purge, and if it’s not in the Justice Department, it’s in the White House.

SWEET: When you talk about how you wanted to know the link between the e-mails and the memos, sometimes a good lawyer knows the answer to a question before they ask it. Do you know what are in some of those memos and emails?

IGLESIAS: No, I sure don’t. But I do know that the Justice Department papers everything. I mean, the most minute issue has an incredible researched and memoed product. There has to be a paper trail. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s not at the Justice Department, it has got to be at the White House.

Karl Rove may have violated the Hatch Act.

MATTHEWS: What law do you believe [Rove] broke?

IGLESIAS: He could have violated the Hatch Act by putting undue pressure on the Justice Department to fire me and my colleagues.

MATTHEWS: Do you have any evidence that Karl Rove had a hand in your dumping, your firing?

IGLESIAS: There are some emails ― there is some evidence. It is circumstantial now. I believe if OSC digs in, they can get direct evidence.

Monica Goodling “holds the keys” to uncovering the reasons behind the firings.

I think Monica Goodling is holding the keys to the kingdom. I think if they get her to testify under oath with a transcript, and have her describe the process between the information flow between the White House counsel, White House and the Justice Department, I believe the picture becomes a lot clearer.

Gonzales Aide Gets Immunity
House panel investigating prosecutors’ firings also approves subpoena.
The Associated Press
Wednesday 25 April 2007

A House committee voted Wednesday to grant immunity to Monica Goodling, a key aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. She had refused to testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The 32-6 vote by the House Judiciary Committee surpassed the two-thirds majority required to grant a witness immunity from prosecution. A separate vote to authorize a subpoena for Goodling passed by voice vote.

The House panel’s action was one of several scheduled committee votes pertaining to subpoenas for Bush administration officials, among them Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whom lawmakers want to question about the administration’s now-discredited claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa - used in part to justify the war against Iraq.

But House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., postponed a vote on issuing a subpoena to former White House chief of staff Andrew Card on the same issue, saying White House Counsel Fred Fielding had made a compromise proposal worth pursuing.

Political Influence Questioned

Democrats say they want to force into the open the story of why the prosecutors were fired and whether they were singled out to influence corruption cases. Republicans point out that Gonzales survived a brutal Senate hearing last week with President Bush’s support and no evidence of wrongdoing in the prosecutors firings.

Gonzales, meanwhile, was busy mending fences Wednesday. He was scheduled to return to Capitol Hill to meet with a key critic, Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who has complained that Gonzales was not truthful with him over the dismissal of Bud Cummins, the former U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark.

The Judiciary committee’s vote instructs a House lawyer to seek an immunity grant for Goodling from a federal court. The grant would not take effect unless Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., chooses to issue Goodling a subpoena compelling her to testify, Conyers said.

Goodling and her lawyer have invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, saying they believe Democrats have set a perjury trap for her. Conyers said Wednesday he hopes Goodling changes her mind and voluntarily tells the committee her story.

“I do not propose this step lightly,” Conyers told the panel. “If we learn something new in the course of our investigation … we can always stop the process s before the court issues an order.”

Politics of Immunity

Some Republicans cautioned that immunity has tied the hands of prosecutors in the past, notably during the Iran-Contra scandal. Admiral John Poindexter and Lt. Col. Oliver North were granted immunity and later had their convictions reversed when a judge ruled that they were based too much on immunized testimony.

“Think of the consequences to the integrity and reputation of this committee and this institution should we grant immunity and it’s impossible to prosecute someone,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., a former chairman of the panel.

But Sensenbrenner was one of only six lawmakers, all Republicans, to vote against the immunity grant. The others were Reps. Chris Cannon of Utah, Randy Forbes of Virginia, Steve King of Iowa, Trent Franks of Arizona and Louis Gohmert of Texas.

Rice’s aides have insisted she has answered questions repeatedly before Congress and in the media about Bush’s statement on uranium.

Waxman said Rice was “giving us no choice but to proceed with a subpoena.”

“If we are stonewalled then we can’t hesitate to call on the powers available to us,” Waxman said.

Fishing Expeditions and Witchhunts

Republicans dismissed the subpoenas as political fishing expeditions by zealous majority Democrats eager to assert their newly won oversight power.

Rep. Tom Davis of Virgina, top Republican on Waxman’s committee, called a Rice subpoena duplicative and evidence of a witchhunt. Though the uranium claim was false, Rice already has explained that she believed it to be true at the time.

Waxman’s questions to her “have been asked and answered,” Davis said.

“Subpoenaing Secretary Rice has more to do with political theater than legitimate oversight goals,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The barrage of subpoenas is an example of the Democrats’ newfound power and the plethora of White House business from which they have to choose after six years of a Republican majority that did virtually no executive branch oversight. ++

House Offers Monica Goodling Immunity to Compel her Testimony on U.S. Attorney Scandal
BuzzFlash
Wed, 04/25/2007

The House Judiciary Committee has authorized an offer of immunity to compel testimony of former Justice Department-White House Liaison Monica Goodling, a key player in the U.S. Attorney scandal. The deal would legally prevent her from taking the Fifth before a Committee hearing as she has threatened.

32 members of the Committee brought the vote over the two-thirds threshold required by law; six voted against it and two were not present. A Democratic source told BuzzFlash that Goodling could still reject the deal, but “it would look terrible” since she would be legally protected from prosecution for anything (truthful) she says.

Her only possible motive for refusing to testify now would be to protect top officials who she has essentially admitted engaged in illegal activities when she threatened to take the Fifth in the first place.

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers assured the Committee that he did “not propose this step lightly,” but that they have “exhausted all reasonable efforts to obtain Ms. Goodling’s critical information short of providing her with limited use immunity.” He also stressed that the immunity protection “does not take effect unless we use it to compel testimony from Ms. Goodling over her Fifth Amendment assertion” so she is still fair game until she actually testifies.

As unfortunate as it would be for Monica Goodling to escape justice for her actions, she has already resigned from her post. There remain bigger fish to fry that are still swimming in the Bush Administration cesspool. ++

Job Description: Lighting Rod
by digby, Hullabaloo
Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Greg Palast, who has been writing about the “voter fraud” fraud for years, writes an interesting piece today [posted below] arguing that Gonzales is irrelevant to the deeper problem within the DOJ with respect to voting rights.

I was struck particularly by this:

We’ve been here before. Gonzales is getting Libby’d. Takes the bullet for Karl Rove and the White House. If you wondered why the Republican jackals like the sinister Senator Specter piled on Gonzales ― it’s because they were told to.

These guys learned from Richard Nixon. In 1973, when Nixon was getting hammered over Watergate, he threw the Senate Committee his Attorney General, a schmuck named Richard Kleindienst. Famously, Nixon’s own Rove, a devious creep named John Erlichman, told Nixon to leave the Attorney General, “twisting slowly in the wind.”

Rove and Bush are doing the Nixon Twist on Gonzales.

I think so too. When someone like Jeff Sessions is tearing into Gonzales, then you can bet money it’s a political strategy. That guy has never gone against the wingnut grain in his life.
When I read Palast’s piece it immediately reminded me of a Bush quote that I’ve always found to be illuminating:

During a trip to West Point on June 1, Bush pulled White aside for a private talk. “As long as they’re hitting you on Enron, they’re not hitting me,” said Bush, according to this Army official. “That’s your job. You’re the lightning rod for this administration.”

For all his faults, one of the hoariest myths about Bush that persists to this day is that he is loyal to a fault — one of those backhanded criticisms that actually makes him somewhat sympathetic. It’s nonsense. Bush uses people like kleenex, always has. He keeps people like Rummy and Gonzales around long after any other president would have because they serve a purpose —- reinforcing the idea that he is not personally responsible for anything that’s happened.

In this case, Gonzales keeps the eye off of Rove, Bush’s brain (and conscience.) The longer they leave him out there as degree of separation between the corruption of the DOJ and the white house, he serves his purpose. That’s why he hasn’t resigned and why Bush hasn’t asked for it. He’s doing his job.

Update: Here was the the dog that didn’t bite during the Libby trial:

Wells contended, it was Rove―the political strategist―who had to be protected at all costs. He was, Wells said, “the lifeblood of the Republican Party” and the man George W. Bush absolutely needed for the coming re-election campaign. Indeed, after [then-press secretary Scott] McClellan issued a public statement exonerating Rove of any involvement in the leak (a statement that turned out three years later to be false), Cheney and Libby huddled about the matter. McClellan had cleared Rove but at that point had said nothing about Libby, leaving the implication that Libby had leaked but Rove hadn’t. Cheney personally wrote a note, an excerpt of which Wells read to the jury and highlighted by displaying on an audio-visual machine during his opening statement: “Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others,” Cheney’s note read.

The translation, according to Wells: The vice president was not going to allow Karl Rove to be protected and Libby to be sacrificed…

The Libby defense ultimately didn’t go there for reasons nobody understands. But it does track nicely with the old “lightning rod” theory of governance, doesn’t it? Gonzales is getting the Libby treatment. I wonder how much he likes it. ++

Don’t Fire Gonzales
Greg Palast
Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Before President Bush fired his sorry ass, US Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico, in a last sad attempt to suck up to his Republican padrones, allowed his chief mouthpiece, Norm Cairns, to speak with me. He shouldn’t have.

That was two years back, while I was investigating strange doings in New Mexico and Arizona, where, simultaneously, state legislators, Republicans all, claimed they had evidence of “voter fraud.” Psychiatrists call this kind of mutual delusional behavior folie a deux. I suspected something else: I smelled Karl Rove.

In the New Mexico legislature, a suburban Albuquerque political hackette, Justine Fox-Young (her real name), claimed to have “several” specific cases of vote identity rustling.

Like Joe McCarthy waving his list of “Communists,” she waived documents of “evidence” of illegal voting on the floor of the Legislature. I called Ms. Fox-Young and asked her to send me the papers.

The “evidence” never arrived. Maybe her fax machine was broken. I called Justine.

Q. Justine, you’ve uncovered criminals! Did you turn their names over to the US Attorney?

A. Well, no, but someone did.

Whose initials are Karl Rove?

She swore to me that US Attorney Iglesias would back up her story: he was investigating the evil voters and was about to indict them.

So I got Iglesias’ guy Norm on the phone. Was Iglesias prosecuting, or actively investigating, one single real case of voter fraud?

Norm went into a lengthy swirly-whirly river of diving, ducking bullshit. I dove in.

Me: In other words, you can’t back her story?

Norm: Well, yeah, uh, I guess you’d say that’s true.

I guess I will say that, Norm. Fox-Young had just plain made it up; fibbed, lied, faked the evidence.

There was a multi-state con in operation. But what was it? Each of these bogus claims of voter fraud was attached to a sales pitch for a state law to tighten voter ID requirements ― to prevent these ne’er-do-wells from voting twice. In Arizona, one crack-pot Republican legislator, the Hon. Russell Pearce, claimed he had evidence that five million Mexicans had illegally crossed the border to vote.

The point: Rove knew that a “challenge” operation by the Republican Party, run from his office, knocked out 300,000 voters ― mainly poor ones, voters of color. His crew wanted to hike that higher.

The notable thing about this crime of voter identity theft is that it doesn’t happen. You are more likely to encounter ballot boxes that spontaneously combust. I found cases of voters struck by lightening ― but out of 120 million votes cast, I couldn’t find a dozen criminal cases of a bandit stealing someone’s identity to vote.

Since the Republicans couldn’t find such criminals, they had to make them up. Force prosecutors to bring false charges against innocent voters (one did just that in Wisconsin) or at least claim they were hot on the trail of the fraudulent voters.

Iglesias, though a Republican, wouldn’t bring bogus charges. And he wouldn’t lie about active investigations that didn’t exist except in Rove’s imagination.

That was his mistake.

Rove’s right-hand hit-man, Tim Griffin, added Iglesias to the hit list of prosecutors who were cut down on December 7, 2006.

Griffin himself, after the December 7 firings, was appointed by Attorney General Gonzales, at Rove’s personal request, to one of the newly-vacated slots as US Attorney for Arkansas. The sleeper cell of Rove-bot US attorneys is now in place to bless voter suppression games in 2008.

I’ve previously reported for BBC that Griffin was the Man in the Memos who directed the massive, wrongful purge of African-American soldiers in 2004 ― the ‘caging’ list scam.

Based on that expose, voting rights lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said, “Griffin and Rove should be in jail, not in office.” That, too is another story ― But the important thing to pick up here is:

1. It’s all about the 2008 election.

2. It’s not about Gonzales.

We’ve been here before. Gonzales is getting Libby’d. Takes the bullet for Karl Rove and the White House. If you wondered why the Republican jackals like the sinister Senator Specter piled on Gonzales ― it’s because they were told to.

These guys learned from Richard Nixon. In 1973, when Nixon was getting hammered over Watergate, he threw the Senate Committee his Attorney General, a schmuck named Richard Kleindienst. Famously, Nixon’s own Rove, a devious creep named John Erlichman, told Nixon to leave the Attorney General, “twisting slowly in the wind.”

Rove and Bush are doing the Nixon Twist on Gonzales.

Look, I have no sympathy for Alberto the Doomed. He’s guilty of a crime I employed in racketeering cases: “Willful failure to know.” It’s a kind of fraud; Alberto was going way out of his way to not know what he had to know, that Rove and the President were toying with prosecutors.

Gonzales is their glove-puppet. Why fire him? The nation watches these hearings and wants to kill something. But why shoot the puppet? It’s time to fire the puppeteer. Eh, Mr. Rove? ++

This is based on “The Theft of 2008″ from the new, expanded edition of Armed Madhouse: From New Orleans to Baghdad - Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild, released this week by Penguin.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment April 25th, 2007

Uncle

“I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating.”
~ Harry Reid

Heavy thunderstorms in the Pea Patch knocked out cable so I wasn’t able to watch Charlie Rose interview the Dubby last night — I was disappointed; that one, I’d have liked to see.

The boyz are on the run. This is getting interesting.

Jude

Kucinich announces impeachment charges against Vice President Cheney
CQ Transcripts Wire, Information Clearing House
Tuesday, April 24, 2007

[Thanks, Eileen]

Kucinich introduced Articles of Impeachment against Cheney in the Congress today.

REP. DENNIS J. KUCINICH, D-OHIO: Thank you very much for being here.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that, among these, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government; and, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

These words from the Declaration of Independence are instructive at this moment. Because not only whenever any form of government, but whenever any government official becomes destructive of the founding purposes, that official or those officials must be held accountable.

Because I believe the vice president’s conduct of office has been destructive to the founding purposes of our nation. Today, I have introduced House Resolution 333, Articles of Impeachment Relating to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. I do so in defense of the rights of the American people to have a government that is honest and peaceful.

It became obvious to me that this vice president, who was a driving force for taking the United States into a war against Iraq under false pretenses, is once again rattling the sabers of war against Iran with the same intent to drive America into another war, again based on false pretenses.

Let me cite from the articles of impeachment that were introduced this afternoon, Article I, that Richard Cheney had purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.

That despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

That preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The vice president pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and the Congress of the United States.

That in this the vice president subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members and the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs, which has increased our federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States armed services, through an overextension and lack of training and lack of equipment; and the loss of United States credibility in the world affairs and decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

That with respect to Article II, that Richard Cheney manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida in order to justify the use of United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.

And that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida.

That preceding to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, a fact articulated in several official documents.

With respect to Article III, that in his conduct while vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the United States’s proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security interests of the United States.

That despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and despite the turmoil created by the United States’s invasion of Iraq, the vice president has openly threatened aggression against Iran.

Furthermore, I point out in the articles that Article VI of the United States Constitution states, and I quote, “This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.”

The United States is signatory to the U.N. Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, and I quote, “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

The articles conclude by pointing out that the vice president’s deception upon the citizens and the Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy so that the vice president recent belligerent actions toward Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States of America.

These articles of impeachment are not brought forth lightly. I’ve carefully weighed the options available to members of Congress and found this path the path that is the most important to take.

The justifications used to lead our nation to war have unquestionably been disproved. Brave soldiers and innocent civilians have lost their lives in a war the United States should never have initiated. The weight of the lies used to lead us into war has grown heavier with each death. Now is the time for Congress to examine the actions that led us into this war, just as we must work to bring the troops home. This resolution is a very serious matter, and I will urge the Committee on Judiciary to investigate and carefully consider this resolution.

At this time, I’m happy to take any of your questions.

QUESTION: Congressman, at this point do you have any other — any fellow members support this?

KUCINICH: At this very moment, the resolution is being transmitted to members of Congress. Because this resolution is so weighty in its import, it’s going to be important for members of Congress to have sufficient time to study the articles. This is unlike any other type of legislation or resolution. This is not something that you can ask anyone to make a snap judgment on. It took me a while to come to this point. And I would expect that members of Congress, given the opportunity to review these articles, will be able to come to a conclusion consistent with their own concerns and the concerns of their constituents.

QUESTION: But at this point, you stand alone, at this point?

KUCINICH: At this point, I believe that I stand with millions of Americans who have expressed concern through their state legislatures, through petitions to Congress, through contact with their members of Congress, that something has to be done to reclaim our country’s goodness, to reclaim a government which the American people want to be honest, want to be just.

And so I do not stand alone. I have multitudes of people backing this.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Chairman Conyers to look at this?

KUCINICH: I will discuss this with Chairman Conyers, now that this has been introduced, and I will ask for his consideration. And I will communicate this to all members of the House and ask them to give it the kind of thoughtful consideration that it deserves.

KUCINICH: I might point out that — that when you read the annotations here, you will see that everything that has been said in these articles has been carefully documented. In fact, I would imagine that some of you have even reported some of the statements, although perhaps the statements have not been challenged in this way until now.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KUCINICH: The question relates to why I’m bringing the articles of impeachment against Mr. Cheney, and not Mr. Bush. Is that it?

QUESTION: Why solely Mr. Cheney?

KUCINICH: Well, there’s a practical reason here. And the practical reason is — first of all, I want to say that each and every charge against Mr. Cheney relates to his conduct or misconduct in office.

Now, with respect to the president. I think that it’s very important that we start with Mr. Cheney. Because if we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president.

It’s significant and responsible to start in this way, because if the same charges would relate to the president as relate to the vice president, you would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KUCINICH: Well, actually — I’ll wait until that truck goes by here.

Let me tell you the difference. The difference today is that this vice president is actively encouraging aggression against Iran. It is urgent that Congress take steps to check the abuse of power. And that’s what this impeachment resolution will do.

KUCINICH: There is no comparison whatsoever — in any way, shape or manner — between these articles of impeachment and the articles of impeachment which were presented to the House of Representatives in 1999.

In fact, these articles of impeachment are deeply researched, will stand up in a discussion in the House and in the Senate. And I believe that they are — that they’re imperative to bring forth right now because the threat of war against Iran is very real.

And this vice president cannot be permitted to continue to violate both the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter.

QUESTION: Congressman, you’re running for president. Are you hoping to get the others (OFF-MIKE)?

KUCINICH: Each person has to — each person will have to make his or her own decision.

This goes beyond partisan terms. This is being done to defend our constitutional system of government. This is being done so that all those of us who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States can understand that this impeachment is one valid way in furtherance of the defense of our Constitution.

I don’t see this as being distant from anyone, in any capacity in our government. Everyone must reflect on this.

Years from now, people will ask, “Why didn’t the United States government respond when they saw this threat to our democracy? Why didn’t people inside the government respond?” if this doesn’t move forward.

And so this really isn’t so much, I might add, about the vice president as it is about who we are as a people. What is it that we stand for? What kind of government do the people of the United States expect and deserve?

KUCINICH: It’s not appropriate for the government to lie to people. It is wrong for government officials — you know, the vice president, in this case — to take this nation into war based on lies.

And so, again, this becomes a question of who we are as a people. And so this resolution 333, articles of impeachment against the vice president, will let future generations know that no one is above the law of this country and that Congresses have the specific responsibility to provide a check to administrative abuse of power. That’s the way the framers set this government up.

QUESTION: Congressman, Speaker Pelosi has said on more than one occasion she’s not interested in impeachment.

Have you had conversations with her on this, or some exchange, in your mind…

KUCINICH: No, I have not discussed this with Speaker Pelosi.

I want to stress that this is not a partisan action at all. I have not confided in anyone in the leadership of my party, because I take this action beyond partisanship, beyond party, as an obligation and commitment to my nation and my loyalty to America and my willingness to say, “Stop the lies. Stop the lying. Stop the dying that’s occurring in Iraq over lies.”

It’s imperative that America stand for the truth. It said in the Bible, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” Well, let then these articles of impeachment help set our nation free from the lies that have enveloped our governmental process, the lies that are trapping us still in a war in Iraq, the lies that could take us into a war against Iran.

This is about the truth.

QUESTION: Congressman, it’s been said by some pundits that you’re just introducing these articles to gain publicity for your presidential campaign.

What do you make of those allegations? And do you think this is going to help you out in your race for the presidency?

KUCINICH: These articles are about the conduct of the vice president of the United States, that he deceived the people of the United States to take this country into a war, that he continues to exhibit a pattern of conduct that could take this country into another war based on false pretenses. That’s what this is about.

KUCINICH: And I believe that the people of this country are demanding that someone stand up and anyone has been free to do this. Anyone in the House of Representatives could take similar action if they so choose, or could take action against the vice president or the president.

QUESTION: Pelosi says it’s not going anywhere.

(CROSSTALK)

KUCINICH: Have you talked to her today?

QUESTION: Yes, I did.

KUCINICH: Then I would say I have not talked to her. And as much as I admire the speaker, as much as I voted to support her, I feel that it’s my obligation as a member of Congress to introduce these articles of impeachment. And I believe the American people will be the final arbiters as to whether or not these articles should go forward.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, when you say the vice president led us into war, wouldn’t that be President Bush? Isn’t Cheney working for Bush? (inaudible)

KUCINICH: Well, let’s go into Article I. “Mr. Cheney: ‘We know they have biological and chemical weapons.’” Said this in a press conference on March 17th, 2002. “We know they’re pursuing nuclear weapons.” He said this in a press briefing on March 19th, 2002. “He is pursuing, activity pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.” He said this on “CNN Late Edition,” March 24th. “We know he’s got chemical and biological, and we know he’s working on nuclear.”

“Meet the Press,” May 19th: “But we know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.” “There is no doubt he’s amassing them against our friends, against our allies and against us.” August 26th, 2002.

On and on and on. “He has in fact activity and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.” September 8th, 2002, “Meet the Press.”

“He has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.” March 16th, “Meet the Press.”

This vice president was a driving force in trying to create the circumstances to justify the United States’s attack against Iran. And he not only deceived the people of the United States, and the Congress of the United States, he deceived the American media.

KUCINICH: And so these articles are tightly focused on the conduct of the vice president. And to the extent that they may reflect in some way on the conduct of the president of the United States, is another matter for another day.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KUCINICH: I think the record is very clear, that this vice president used his conduct of office to promote a war and Article I and Article II are very clear that he conducted himself in such a way as to use the power of his office to promote that war.

And so this relates to the vice president. And I think I answered the question earlier about why the vice president and not the president.

Anyone else? I want to thank you very much for being here.

QUESTION: Do you have anyone you would identify as a replacement? If Vice President Cheney were impeached, it would have to be voted on the House and the Senate for confirmation.

KUCINICH: That would be up to President Bush.

Thank you.

END

The full Articles themselves, a large collection of PDF documents, are accessible at Congressman Kucinich’s website.

George McGovern: Cheney is wrong about me, wrong about war
The 1972 presidential nominee strikes back at the vice president for comparing today’s Democrats to the McGovern platform.
George S. McGovern, Los Angeles Times
GEORGE S. MCGOVERN, a former U.S. senator from South Dakota, was the Democratic nominee for president in 1972.
April 24, 2007

VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney recently attacked my 1972 presidential platform and contended that today’s Democratic Party has reverted to the views I advocated in 1972. In a sense, this is a compliment, both to me and the Democratic Party. Cheney intended no such compliment. Instead, he twisted my views and those of my party beyond recognition. The city where the vice president spoke, Chicago, is sometimes dubbed “the Windy City.” Cheney converted the chilly wind of Chicago into hot air.

Cheney said that today’s Democrats have adopted my platform from the 1972 presidential race and that, in doing so, they will raise taxes. But my platform offered a balanced budget. I proposed nothing new without a carefully defined way of paying for it. By contrast, Cheney and his team have run the national debt to an all-time high.

He also said that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq and leave the U.S. exposed to new dangers. The truth is that I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the U.S. and diminished our standing in the world and our national security.

In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush.

Cheney charged that today’s Democrats don’t appreciate the terrorist danger when they move to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war. The fact is that Bush and Cheney misled the public when they implied that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. That was the work of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda team. Cheney and Bush blew the effort to trap Bin Laden in Afghanistan by their sluggish and inept response after the 9/11 attacks.

They then foolishly sent U.S. forces into Iraq against the advice and experience of such knowledgeable men as former President George H.W. Bush, his secretary of State, James A. Baker III, and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft.

Just as the Bush administration mistakenly asserted Iraq’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks, it also falsely contended that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson exploded the myth that Iraq attempted to obtain nuclear materials from Niger, Cheney’s top aide and other Bush officials leaked to the media that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent (knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal).

In attacking my positions in 1972 as representative of “that old party of the early 1970s,” Cheney seems oblivious to the realities of that time. Does he remember that the Democratic Party, with me in the lead, reformed the presidential nomination process to ensure that women, young people and minorities would be represented fairly? The so-called McGovern reform rules are still in effect and, indeed, have been largely copied by the Republicans.

The Democrats’ 1972 platform was also in the forefront in pushing for affordable healthcare, full employment with better wages, a stronger environmental and energy effort, support for education at every level and a foreign policy with less confrontation and belligerence and more cooperation and conciliation.

Cheney also still has his eyes closed to the folly of the Vietnam War, in which 58,000 young Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese died. Vietnam was no threat to the United States.

On one point I do agree with Cheney: Today’s Democrats are taking positions on the Iraq war similar to the views I held toward the Vietnam War. But that is all to the good.

The war in Iraq has greatly increased the terrorist danger. There was little or no terrorism, insurgency or civil war in Iraq before Bush and Cheney took us into war there five years ago. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism, a bloody insurgency against our troops and a civil war.

Beyond the deaths of more than 3,100 young Americans and an estimated 600,000 Iraqis, we have spent nearly $500 billion on the war, which has dragged on longer than World War II.

The Democrats are right. Let’s bring our troops home from this hopeless war.

There is one more point about 1972 for Cheney’s consideration. After winning 11 state primaries in a field of 16 contenders, I won the Democratic presidential nomination. I then lost the general election to President Nixon. Indeed, the entrenched incumbent president, with a campaign budget 10 times the size of mine, the power of the White House behind him and a highly negative and unethical campaign, defeated me overwhelmingly. But lest Cheney has forgotten, a few months after the election, investigations by the Senate and an impeachment proceeding in the House forced Nixon to become the only president in American history to resign the presidency in disgrace.

Who was the real loser of ‘72?

THE VICE PRESIDENT spoke with contempt of my ‘72 campaign, but he might do well to recall that I began that effort with these words: “I make one pledge above all others — to seek and speak the truth.” We made some costly tactical errors after winning the nomination, but I never broke my pledge to speak the truth. That is why I have never felt like a loser since 1972. In contrast, Cheney and Bush have repeatedly lied to the American people.

It is my firm belief that the Cheney-Bush team has committed offenses that are worse than those that drove Nixon, Vice President Spiro Agnew and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from office after 1972. Indeed, as their repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law, come under increased consideration, I expect to see Cheney and Bush forced to resign their offices before 2008 is over.

Aside from a growing list of impeachable offenses, the vice president has demonstrated his ignorance of foreign policy by attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. Apparently he thinks it is wrong to visit important Middle East states that sometimes disagree with us. Isn’t it generally agreed that Nixon’s greatest achievement was talking to the Chinese Communist leaders, which opened the door to that nation? And wasn’t President Reagan’s greatest achievement talking with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev until the two men worked out an end to the Cold War? Does Cheney believe that it’s better to go to war rather than talk with countries with which we have differences?

We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it’s wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.

On a more serious note, instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: “A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.”

Bush and Cheney Chide Democrats on Iraq Deadline
Vice President Dick Cheney took the unusual step of seeking out reporters to rebut Senator Harry Reid, who accused the president of being in “a state of denial” about Iraq.
CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY, New York times
April 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 24 — President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney aggressively challenged the motives of Congressional Democrats on Tuesday, as the House and Senate prepared to consider a war spending bill that would order troops to be withdrawn from Iraq beginning later this year.

In separate appearances that served as a prelude to an inevitable veto showdown, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney accused Democrats of political opportunism in forging ahead with a $124 billion measure that sets a timetable for leaving Iraq.

“Instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement,” Mr. Bush said Tuesday morning before leaving for New York. “That’s their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it’s wrong for our country.”

Mr. Cheney was even tougher as he spoke to reporters after a private weekly lunch for Republican senators. He lashed out at Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who delivered stinging comments of his own on Monday, portraying Mr. Bush as being in denial about the war and saying Mr. Cheney had tarnished his own office.

“What’s most troubling about Senator Reid’s comments yesterday is his defeatism,” said Mr. Cheney. “And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it is a political calculation.”

Democrats, bolstered by what they see as strong public sentiment for the administration to wind down the war, were confident they could win approval of the measure in the House and in the Senate on Thursday. While acknowledging that Mr. Bush would send the bill back, they said they were determined to force him to formally reject legislation that provides more money for the military than sought by the White House, but puts conditions on its use.

“For the first time, the president will have to face up, will have to be accountable for this war in Iraq,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said. “And he doesn’t want to face that reality.”

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, is scheduled to visit Capitol Hill on Wednesday to ask that lawmakers allow more time for the troop increase initiated by the administration to work. Members of the House are set to hear from him in a closed briefing on Wednesday afternoon, just hours before the spending measure is to reach the floor. He is then scheduled to brief senators.

Democrats were skeptical that he would change many minds. “He’s the commander,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “We always know that commanders are optimistic about their policies.”

General Petraeus’s briefing will come in a week when war-related developments are not running in the administration’s favor. Nine American soldiers were killed in Iraq on Monday and 20 others were wounded. And members of the family of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former professional football player and Army Ranger accidentally killed by other American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2004, appeared at an emotional House hearing Tuesday and accused the Pentagon and administration of misrepresenting the circumstances of his death.

Even as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney repeated their claim that a deadline for beginning a troop withdrawal would cede Iraq to America’s enemies, it has quietly been setting targets of its own for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to show progress on long-delayed political accommodations.

In a telephone interview from Baghdad, the new American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, said President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had bluntly told Mr. Maliki that failure to show results would undermine the administration’s efforts to buy him more time.

“There is Iraqi time and American time,” said Mr. Crocker. “And American time is running away from us, while Iraqi time is running at a slower place.”

Under the legislation before Congress, the United States would establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet to show progress in securing the country. If the president determines the Iraqis are complying, he would be directed to begin removing troops by Oct. 1, with a goal of having most combat forces out within six months. If the president concludes the Iraqis are not making progress on the benchmarks, the pullout would begin earlier, by July.

The House narrowly approved its version of the spending measure last month when it required a full withdrawal by fall of 2008 to mollify antiwar Democrats. Several House Democrats said they would support the latest version of the legislation, even though the withdrawal date is now in the form of a goal.

“It is the best we can do under the circumstances,” said Representative Hank Johnson, a first-term Democrat from Georgia.

While Republicans have argued strongly against the Democratic-sponsored Iraq spending plan, they have put forth little resistance to the actual legislation, saying they are simply waiting for the president’s veto so lawmakers can try again to come up with a war spending bill.

Instead, Republicans have turned their fire on Mr. Reid, who last week declared “this war is lost.”

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, took his turn on Tuesday, saying such comments damage the morale of the troops. “We should not be pulling the rug out from under them and declaring their whole effort lost before it’s even completed,” he said.

And the Republican National Committee aired radio ads in Nevada, featuring a former Army captain criticizing Mr. Reid’s remarks.

Discussing the Democratic approach on “The Charlie Rose Show” on PBS taped Tuesday, Mr. Bush was asked what evidence he had that a hard withdrawal date would have a negative impact in Iraq. “Just logic,” Mr. Bush replied. “I mean, you say we start moving troops out. Don’t you think an enemy is going to wait and adjust based upon an announced timetable of withdrawal?”

In his criticism of Mr. Reid, Mr. Cheney noted that the Democratic leader had said the administration’s troop increase ran counter to the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The study group said that a troop increase might be advisable if commanders thought it would be useful. But Mr. Cheney failed to mention that it also recommended a withdrawal of combat units by the end of the first quarter of 2008, about the same time envisioned in the legislation.

Mr. Reid fired back directly at Mr. Cheney on Tuesday, appearing at the same microphones just moments after the vice president.

“The president sends out his attack dog often,” said Mr. Reid. “That’s also known as Dick Cheney.”

Defending the legislation up for a vote this week, he said, “We believe the troops should get every penny they need and we have put our money where our mouth is with supplemental appropriations, but we believe there must be a change of direction in the war in Iraq.”

Mr. Reid said he was not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with the vice president. “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating,” Mr. Reid said.

David E. Sanger and David S. Cloud contributed reporting from Washington, and Jim Rutenberg from New York.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
for tenants loans consolidationmanufactured loan construction homeconstruction loan steps processconstruction loans bankruptcyloan rates coop auto consumercollections online consumer loanconsumer report loans payday onloan free interfamily family contract Map

Add comment April 25th, 2007