A panel on stage, Allan Buchman chatting up its members.
Amy Goodman moderates. She opens by noting that the media is the most powerful tool for awareness, a sort of kitchen table that stretches across the country and globe. And is not covering impeachment.
On the panel, Marjorie Cohn, John Nichols, and Naomi Wolf.
To Nichols, Goodman asks why the Dems want to wait for another pres. election to get rid of Bush. Nichols points out that elections are easy. Impeachment is important on its own. We can't just wait for an election; we have to send a message to all future presidents about what how is not okay to govern.
To Cohn, Goodman asks about the reasons for going to Iraq and potentially Iran. The real reason, Cohn says, Bush went to Iraq became clear just recently when we made agreements with Iraq to have troops there indefinitely - to stay in Iraq and move on to Iran. Notwithstanding the new evidence that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, Bush says he has not taken military action against Iran off the table.
Cohn notes that Congress does not have legal authority to start a "war of aggression," one that breaks a treaty, a war whose causes are falsified or blown out of proportion.
Cohn breaks down how impeachment works: The House votes to impeach the president; the Senate acts a court, presiding over the impeachment itself.
Nichols explains that Congress can impeach Cheney and Bush at once (I wrote "Nixon" instead of Cheney first, took a second to see it - Freud at work). But Nichols says to start with Cheney, then move up, exposing the dual criminality of the Dick and the Bush.
Naomi Wolf describes the step by which would-be dictators do their thing: They create vague internal and external threats; they create secret prisons; they create military not answerable to the people; they spy on their own citizens; they harass citizen's groups; they arbitrarily detain and release individuals (TSA for travelers, environmentalists, progressives); they target individuals (Bill Maher, Dixie Chicks, CEOs getting fire); they--oh--here it is--
I think this is so important I'm going to paste in the Wikipedia version, to reiterate:
The Ten Steps to Dictatorship
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Declare all dissent to be treason.
10. Suspend the rule of law.
Wolf points out that there was still a parliament in Italy when Mussolini took over. He talked to parliament, then he stopped talking. Then at some point later, there was no point even pretending. Bush could declare an emergency tomorrow and boot out Congress. The state is legalizing torture. We could lose democracy, de jure, at any moment. We already have, de facto (the stolen election, torture, crazy war).
Goodman reads from Wolf's The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, which begins with an anecdote of a government worker blogging (!) against torture and being fired for her morals.
Cohn says Mukase won't stop waterboarding because to do so would be to admit that Bush had broken the law. Waterboarding is so obviously torture, there'd be little point admitting it had anything to do with Bush or that torture shouldn't be legal. The only option Mukase et cronies have is to stay the course.
Cohn describes how lawyers are fighting back, protesting, making some headway against the Justice Department by not backing down on Gitmo cases.
Nichols suggests the Democratic candidates should have to debate Naomi Wolf on each point - not Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert and those who ignore the issue of impeachment.
Wolf points out that Bush terrifies so many - libertarians, anarchists, Green Party people. "On paper," Wolf says, "it's over, it's already over. The coup is over." A bill just passed criminalizing anything against Bush as terrorism. You don't need the Long Knives, says Wolf, just these scary laws. This impeachment theater could be criminal. Her book could be criminal.
Nichols is asking Congresspeople to read his book and Wolf's, to just read the articles of impeachment.
Cohn talks about the new bill again - I'm going to look this one up in a sec - and how it criminalizes thought that "advocates force," not only violence, but, say, a protest.
Wolf compares Bush & co. to the Nazis and Stalin, but conservatively, at evidence, at facts. "No one who's read my book," she says, criticizes her comparisons. She tells Cohn, who brought up the Unamerican Activities Committee in the Fifties, that Bush's plan is much more akin to Stalin's than to McCarthy's.
Goodman asks, in closing, what we can do now.
Nichols reiterates that Wexler and others have called for impeachment hearings; write and call and go visit your Congresspeople to ask them to impeach Bush and Cheney. And write and call your local media. We have to get the media involved on a much bigger level. Forget the election for one second. Impeachment is dramatically more important. The presidency had become a pack of lies.
Cohn calls for ending the war, in addition to constantly calling on our leaders to impeach Bush and Dick.
Wolf calls for impeaching and prosecuting B&C. "The only way to save this country." Word up.
Goodman talks about the FCC ending regulations that restrain a few big companies from owning all the major media. Upside, DemocracyNow! has grown quite a bit. And the internet. Don't forget the internet. Please post and repost our videos and articles; comment; send us new leads. Contact your Congresspeople. Show them the videos.
Oh, we're not done. Buchman comes on to remind us that we're going to pursue this issue all year. I think Jackon Browne is going to sing...
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Article V Panel
Denis Moynihan again moderates. Nation writer John Nichols runs on stage, fields an immediately Moynihan question: Where are we, on impeachment, right now?
Nichols said things are as good as they've ever been, and as bad. He notes that Congress is finally moving: Florida rep. Bob Wexler is holding hearings for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. GO TO HIS WEBSITE, http://wexlerwantshearings.com/, and sing up. This is the best way to get the ball rolling, right now.
Holtzman puts the brakes on Nichols' and Wexler's vision by noting that, if the vision is partisan - if it consists of "Democrats hate Bush" - then it will fail. We need a bipartisan approach. "Let's go back to Watergate," she says. I wince. But her point is we don't need hearings. Watergate started with evidence. Bipartisan call for evidence.
Seems to me that we need something to happen, whether it's thanks to Wexler or not.
Cohn points out we need an independent prosecutor, a special investigator.
Nichols says Wexler and others have just now given us the opening to impeach Bush.
Holtzman and Nichols are getting into it a bit over the procedural differences between special prosecution and Congressional hearings. (Everyone agrees Bush should be impeached somehow, ASAP.)
Lindorff says that Republicans need to be shown that it was dumb and dangerous not to impeach Bush - that the next president probably will be a Democrat and almost definitely will not give up any power whatsoever that Bush gave the presidency.
Horton agrees. "This can only be checked effectively by the impeachment process."
Nichols: Impeachment, seriously pursued, usually succeeds in forcing leaders to step back from the brink. I love this idea. We need to impeach the sons of donkeys not simply because Hillary might win and continue to use the powers d'Bush, but because Bush and Hillary and the Republicans and Democrats need to be told, by the American people, by the voices of reason in Congress, that it is illegal to spy on Americans, to torture prisoners, to utterly ignore the poor of the South in times of crisis, to ignore laws, to start wars.
Holtzman calls it "inertia." We have to press [the Congress]. (She goes back to Watergate with each answer, each time losing some clarity on the matter: Bushiraqtorturegate simply isn't Watergate. This is a new era. Bush is a new terror. I'm sure Holtzman's suggestions are apt and her ideas useful as to how we can oust Bush. But if Bob Wexler gets it done his own way, props to Bob Wexler.)
Nichols tells us to contact our local Congresspeople and tell them to impeach Bush. Particularly Jerrold Nadler. Please do this.
Question from the audience that becomes an angry litany of Buhs's crimes.
New question asks what else we can do.
Nichols says the public is just as angry at Bush as they were at Nixon; the media has changed, however, and we have seen virtually nothing about impeachment on TV.
Cohn notes that Bush is lying about Iran, aggressive against Iran, and not going to be phased by news that Iran doesn't necessarily have nukes. Cohn says getting out of Iraq and stopping Bush before he can go into Iran should be our number one priorities.
Audience member asks/tells something amounting to, "people all over New York want to impeach Bush." Panel agrees; people everywhere want to impeach him.
Holtzman goes back to Watergate. General discussion of lack of media attention to impeachment. Where's the New York Times on this?
Horton (notice his sweet blog) says polls show people, when asked if Bush has committed serious crimes, over 60% of those polled say yes. In Jackson, Mississippi, prosperous white businessmen asked Horton why nobody was impeaching Bush's ass?
Nichols says now is the time to talk to Republicans about impeachment; they are ready; they are either sick of Bush or afraid of giving Bush-powers to Hillary.
Nichols says we can't let the upcoming election become any excuse for not holding Bush accountable.
Horton says for the last several years, the Republicans have been velociraptors; the Democrats, invertebrates. Democracts aren't challenging bad Republican laws. (Well, this has a lot to do with our two-party/arguably-one-class-based-party system. I yearn for a multi-party system.)
Lindorff tells us how Bush took over science programs to manufacture evidence for war against Iraq.
Holtzman reminds us that impeachment is a democratic process envisioned by the framers to be used in circumstances just such as these. We have the time. This will not divide the country; this will unify the country. Rule of law is more important than any one president or party.
Cohn says we have to elect a Democrat in 2008. Bush has done the most dangerous thing, aside from Iraq, by stacking the Supreme Court. Please vote for the Democrat.
And we're done with the articles of impeachment. I for one am convinced - my suspicions confirmed - that we need to get Bush and Cheney out.
Rebel Voices up next, then the big closing concert at 7:30.
Nichols said things are as good as they've ever been, and as bad. He notes that Congress is finally moving: Florida rep. Bob Wexler is holding hearings for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. GO TO HIS WEBSITE, http://wexlerwantshearings.com/, and sing up. This is the best way to get the ball rolling, right now.
Holtzman puts the brakes on Nichols' and Wexler's vision by noting that, if the vision is partisan - if it consists of "Democrats hate Bush" - then it will fail. We need a bipartisan approach. "Let's go back to Watergate," she says. I wince. But her point is we don't need hearings. Watergate started with evidence. Bipartisan call for evidence.
Seems to me that we need something to happen, whether it's thanks to Wexler or not.
Cohn points out we need an independent prosecutor, a special investigator.
Nichols says Wexler and others have just now given us the opening to impeach Bush.
Holtzman and Nichols are getting into it a bit over the procedural differences between special prosecution and Congressional hearings. (Everyone agrees Bush should be impeached somehow, ASAP.)
Lindorff says that Republicans need to be shown that it was dumb and dangerous not to impeach Bush - that the next president probably will be a Democrat and almost definitely will not give up any power whatsoever that Bush gave the presidency.
Horton agrees. "This can only be checked effectively by the impeachment process."
Nichols: Impeachment, seriously pursued, usually succeeds in forcing leaders to step back from the brink. I love this idea. We need to impeach the sons of donkeys not simply because Hillary might win and continue to use the powers d'Bush, but because Bush and Hillary and the Republicans and Democrats need to be told, by the American people, by the voices of reason in Congress, that it is illegal to spy on Americans, to torture prisoners, to utterly ignore the poor of the South in times of crisis, to ignore laws, to start wars.
Holtzman calls it "inertia." We have to press [the Congress]. (She goes back to Watergate with each answer, each time losing some clarity on the matter: Bushiraqtorturegate simply isn't Watergate. This is a new era. Bush is a new terror. I'm sure Holtzman's suggestions are apt and her ideas useful as to how we can oust Bush. But if Bob Wexler gets it done his own way, props to Bob Wexler.)
Nichols tells us to contact our local Congresspeople and tell them to impeach Bush. Particularly Jerrold Nadler. Please do this.
Question from the audience that becomes an angry litany of Buhs's crimes.
New question asks what else we can do.
Nichols says the public is just as angry at Bush as they were at Nixon; the media has changed, however, and we have seen virtually nothing about impeachment on TV.
Cohn notes that Bush is lying about Iran, aggressive against Iran, and not going to be phased by news that Iran doesn't necessarily have nukes. Cohn says getting out of Iraq and stopping Bush before he can go into Iran should be our number one priorities.
Audience member asks/tells something amounting to, "people all over New York want to impeach Bush." Panel agrees; people everywhere want to impeach him.
Holtzman goes back to Watergate. General discussion of lack of media attention to impeachment. Where's the New York Times on this?
Horton (notice his sweet blog) says polls show people, when asked if Bush has committed serious crimes, over 60% of those polled say yes. In Jackson, Mississippi, prosperous white businessmen asked Horton why nobody was impeaching Bush's ass?
Nichols says now is the time to talk to Republicans about impeachment; they are ready; they are either sick of Bush or afraid of giving Bush-powers to Hillary.
Nichols says we can't let the upcoming election become any excuse for not holding Bush accountable.
Horton says for the last several years, the Republicans have been velociraptors; the Democrats, invertebrates. Democracts aren't challenging bad Republican laws. (Well, this has a lot to do with our two-party/arguably-one-class-based-party system. I yearn for a multi-party system.)
Lindorff tells us how Bush took over science programs to manufacture evidence for war against Iraq.
Holtzman reminds us that impeachment is a democratic process envisioned by the framers to be used in circumstances just such as these. We have the time. This will not divide the country; this will unify the country. Rule of law is more important than any one president or party.
Cohn says we have to elect a Democrat in 2008. Bush has done the most dangerous thing, aside from Iraq, by stacking the Supreme Court. Please vote for the Democrat.
And we're done with the articles of impeachment. I for one am convinced - my suspicions confirmed - that we need to get Bush and Cheney out.
Rebel Voices up next, then the big closing concert at 7:30.
More on the Bush Takeover
For more on signing statements, check out this book by Pulitzer Prize-winner Charlie Savage.
And Al Gore rocks the mic legti on this topic:
Also, read articles by tonight's Marjorie Cohn, CP Impeach-y alum Elizabeth De La Vega (and another one), and George F. Will.
And Al Gore rocks the mic legti on this topic:
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."
An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Also, read articles by tonight's Marjorie Cohn, CP Impeach-y alum Elizabeth De La Vega (and another one), and George F. Will.
David Lindorff and the Uni-Exec
Has an awesome white beard and speaks eloquently on the topic of the "unitary executive," the very scary idea that, because we are "at war with terror" (nonsense), the American executive should have legislative and judiciary power - over the world. After one of Bush's Justice Dept. cronies used the term, Bush started using it regularly in his signing statements.
Lindorff notes that Bush wants the president to be the person who can make war, instead of Congress. (Because of "terror," everywhere, invisible, visible, we are always at war; Bush never gives up power...)
The signing statements are Bush's worst trespasses, according to Lindorff.
Lindorff notes that Bush wants the president to be the person who can make war, instead of Congress. (Because of "terror," everywhere, invisible, visible, we are always at war; Bush never gives up power...)
The signing statements are Bush's worst trespasses, according to Lindorff.
Closing Day - Article V: Expansion of Executive Power
What's going on:
2:00 p.m. Participants include Harper's contributor and human rights attorney Scott Horton, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, author David Lindorff, National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohn, and Denis Moynihan of DemocracyNow!.
Performers include Josh Hamilton, Tracie Thoms, Ned Eisenberg, Grace Zandarski, and Tom Bower. (One of these performers is wearing a Revolutionary War-style tricorner hat. I'll have to investigate this.)
7:30 p.m. Closing celebration includes performance and commentary from John Nichols, Jackson Browne, Naomi Wolf, Duncan Sheik, Steven Sater, Holly Hunter, Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow!, Peter Matthiessen, Kathleen Chalfant, Aasif Mandvi, and others.
***
Right now, Marjorie Cohn (author of Cowboy Republic) and Elizabeth Holtzman (MVP from Article IV) are recapping why Nixon was impeached and what signing statements are. In Holtzman's view, Bush's signing statements are unprecedented, and his not following the law is an impeachable offense. She gets big claps (one standing).
***
Scott Horton takes the stand. Horton explains what certain of Bush's signing statements mean ("flagrant affronts to the Constitution"). The problem is, the statements - little codas that say "Well, as George Bush, I don't have to obey this law I'm signing - are supposed to be used to clarify, not change laws and how laws are executed. Congress makes laws; the executive must enforce them. Cohn asks what Congress could do to challenge Bush. Horton says there aren't many tools available - besides impeachment.
We hear a laundry list of Bush statements. Wow. Bush has pretty much exempted himself from having to tell anyone anything. Horton adds that Bush exempted himself from having to ask permission to use torture techniques like waterboarding on Gitmo detainees. Signing statements give Bush the power to override U.S. law and just torture mothertruckers.
We hear CIA torture-master John Kiriakou in his own words: The CIA didn't torture anyone "willy-nilly;" the orders came from Bush. Period.
Horton points out that even kings have been tried successfully for allowing torture. And we don't like no stinkin kings, right?
2:00 p.m. Participants include Harper's contributor and human rights attorney Scott Horton, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, author David Lindorff, National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohn, and Denis Moynihan of DemocracyNow!.
Performers include Josh Hamilton, Tracie Thoms, Ned Eisenberg, Grace Zandarski, and Tom Bower. (One of these performers is wearing a Revolutionary War-style tricorner hat. I'll have to investigate this.)
7:30 p.m. Closing celebration includes performance and commentary from John Nichols, Jackson Browne, Naomi Wolf, Duncan Sheik, Steven Sater, Holly Hunter, Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow!, Peter Matthiessen, Kathleen Chalfant, Aasif Mandvi, and others.
***
Right now, Marjorie Cohn (author of Cowboy Republic) and Elizabeth Holtzman (MVP from Article IV) are recapping why Nixon was impeached and what signing statements are. In Holtzman's view, Bush's signing statements are unprecedented, and his not following the law is an impeachable offense. She gets big claps (one standing).
***
Scott Horton takes the stand. Horton explains what certain of Bush's signing statements mean ("flagrant affronts to the Constitution"). The problem is, the statements - little codas that say "Well, as George Bush, I don't have to obey this law I'm signing - are supposed to be used to clarify, not change laws and how laws are executed. Congress makes laws; the executive must enforce them. Cohn asks what Congress could do to challenge Bush. Horton says there aren't many tools available - besides impeachment.
We hear a laundry list of Bush statements. Wow. Bush has pretty much exempted himself from having to tell anyone anything. Horton adds that Bush exempted himself from having to ask permission to use torture techniques like waterboarding on Gitmo detainees. Signing statements give Bush the power to override U.S. law and just torture mothertruckers.
We hear CIA torture-master John Kiriakou in his own words: The CIA didn't torture anyone "willy-nilly;" the orders came from Bush. Period.
Horton points out that even kings have been tried successfully for allowing torture. And we don't like no stinkin kings, right?
Monday, December 10, 2007
Surveillance Panel
Okay, Denis Moynihan of Democracy Now(!) is filling in for Amy Goodman as moderator; that's fine, we'll roll with it.
Holtzman fields a question about the nature/balance/ease of impeachment. Nixon's was bipartisan, Clinton's partisan.
Kadidal fields a question... (I miss most of it, reading about Moynihan and Goodman and Hustler magazine. Interesting but sort of psycho. Seems like Moynihan and Goodman are against exploitation, so, go them.)
Now we go to Valeriani, who says Nixon, if alive, would ask, regarding Bush's surveillance and its extraordinary success, "Why the hell didn't I do it?"
(Some thoughts on this very humorous older fellow - Valeriani in a Huffington Post blog post: "Bin Laden tape rants against capitalism. Yo, Osama, where did you get your millions? Tape also urges Americans to convert to Islam. No thanks, we prefer the 21st Century."
Huq quite ably defends Muslim-Americans in another H.F. post.
But don't worry, V. skewers everybody: "Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego announces $198 million settlement with plaintiffs who claimed they were sexually abused by priests. Big Bucks for Buggery.")
Valeriani is a journalist. He contacted Russians and worked in Cuba, back in the Cold War days, and had his phones tapped. The FBI called him routinely to ask him to help get Russians to give away sensitive information. When he didn't respond to FBI phone messages for two days, they showed up in front of buildings where he was headed. He had his records with the FBI checked - he was listed as "turned," a friendly informant. Lol.
Holtzman gets a round of vigorous applause for defending the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, no matter how hard such a process would be. (She's responding to V. and his assertion that - because, in the event of a successful B&C impeachment, Nancy Pelosi would become president - some might see an impeachment as an attempt at a "Democrat coup," which does sound silly, typing it.
She points out that a successful impeachment must be bipartisan; if Republicans don't want to impeach Bush, Democrats won't be able to do it alone.
Huq very smartly brings the whole question around to what will happen with the next president, regardless of her party? Will the next president not only abandon but help dismantle and prevent from being reinstated the illegal, warrantless surveillance programs? The extraordinary renditions to secret jails in Syria and Egypt? He defines the "Cheney version of the Constitution," which is that whenever the executive feels it needs to extend its powers in the name of national security, it simply can, no questions.
Don't think, Huq counsels, that a Pres. Obama or a Pres. Hillary won't use the Republican programs of domestic terror that Culture Project, Democracy Now(!), the CCR, the ACLU, and so many others are fighting against.
Valeriani speaks on "scar tissue," how we're no longer shocked by Bush's evils.
Audience Q1: Pressures on the election...
Holtzman says we need the president to be brought to justice, to show that Congress can do its thing(s) - pass laws and remove tyrants from office.
Audience Q2: If Pelosi hadn't taken impeachment off the table...
Kadidal, Holtzman, and Valeriani note that the American people and Dennis Kucinich want to impeach Bush; keep the pressure on, Pelosi will have to. It wasn't a problem (for the Speaker of the House - third in line for pres. after pres. and VP - to bring the pres. to justice) during Watergate.
Audience Q3: Cheney = brains of operation...
Valeriani: He lied about WMDs.
Huq: There's a great deal of public evidence about Cheney's aide's roles in setting aside FISA, torture laws, and the Geneva Conventions. You'd subpoena [Cheney's aides].
Audience Q4: How would ordinary people get Congress to listen, seriously...?
Holtzman: When was the last time you contacted your Congressperson? Get a meeting. Email. Get your block to sign a petition.
Moynihan has a show of hands for who gets the "Saturday Night Massacre" reference. (The audience, educated and in many cases old enough, gets it.)
Holtzman: The tapes were critical. Elliot Richardson appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who looked for the tapes. The tapes got Nixon impeached. (People got fired, hence the massacre.) "We would have seen a similar event" - Ashcroft would have resigned. It's not clear what they changed to make their program compliant with FISA.
Audience Q5: 200,000 phone calls, that night, Saturday Night Massacre, to the Congress. We had 200,000 phone calls. You heard from us.
Audience Q6: Should we impeach Cheney first, because people seem to favor that, in polls? Then impeach Bush?
Holtzman (again): It will take a while to do two. It took a while for us to do one. We had to hire lawyers. The Democrats hired a Republican lawyer, and the Republicans hired a Republican lawyer. It hadn't been done in a hundred years - these things had to be studied. It took about nine months. So there's really enough time, to do it still. But there's not enough time to do Cheney and Bush. We have Bush's fingerprints on it. My whole view is to start the proceedings against Bush; we will accumulate evidence against Cheney.
One of the articles against Nixon was that he stonewalled us for information, and that was voted on by a bipartisan base. So there's a precedent. There's a lot of sentiment around the country for impeachment.
(Have any Congresspeople - Dems or Reps, candidates or not - seen our videos, site, blog? Do they know about this event? Shouldn't we, CP, tell them? Shouldn't we all?)
Huq: The Congress can hold court on its own. (Holtzman: We have our own jail!) The Congress can specifically subpoena the president and hold him in contempt if he doesn't show.
Qs-Final, there's a short storm of them.
Kadidal notes that other forms of government have Justice Departments that can go after corrupt executives. We do not have this. Certainly not in Mukasey...
Holtzman: What happened not only to Congress, but to the ACLU? I still believe it can be done, has to be done. With all the defects in the impeachment process, this is what the framers had exactly in mind. They were freaked about the misuse of power. They knew there was gonna be a Richard Nixon, a George Bush. There's too much misunderstanding about it. Even Obama said it's not democratic - it's in our Constitution, it's exactly democratic. What's the shape of our country going to be? No one else can make that decision for us?
***
This has been live blogging on surveillance; I'm back for one more live-blog-impeachy event on Sunday... (And, yes, for those who have read some of my earlier posts, I still like Obama but disagree with Obama on impeachment and wish Kucinich was as popular.)
Holtzman fields a question about the nature/balance/ease of impeachment. Nixon's was bipartisan, Clinton's partisan.
Kadidal fields a question... (I miss most of it, reading about Moynihan and Goodman and Hustler magazine. Interesting but sort of psycho. Seems like Moynihan and Goodman are against exploitation, so, go them.)
Now we go to Valeriani, who says Nixon, if alive, would ask, regarding Bush's surveillance and its extraordinary success, "Why the hell didn't I do it?"
(Some thoughts on this very humorous older fellow - Valeriani in a Huffington Post blog post: "Bin Laden tape rants against capitalism. Yo, Osama, where did you get your millions? Tape also urges Americans to convert to Islam. No thanks, we prefer the 21st Century."
Huq quite ably defends Muslim-Americans in another H.F. post.
But don't worry, V. skewers everybody: "Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego announces $198 million settlement with plaintiffs who claimed they were sexually abused by priests. Big Bucks for Buggery.")
Valeriani is a journalist. He contacted Russians and worked in Cuba, back in the Cold War days, and had his phones tapped. The FBI called him routinely to ask him to help get Russians to give away sensitive information. When he didn't respond to FBI phone messages for two days, they showed up in front of buildings where he was headed. He had his records with the FBI checked - he was listed as "turned," a friendly informant. Lol.
Holtzman gets a round of vigorous applause for defending the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, no matter how hard such a process would be. (She's responding to V. and his assertion that - because, in the event of a successful B&C impeachment, Nancy Pelosi would become president - some might see an impeachment as an attempt at a "Democrat coup," which does sound silly, typing it.
She points out that a successful impeachment must be bipartisan; if Republicans don't want to impeach Bush, Democrats won't be able to do it alone.
Huq very smartly brings the whole question around to what will happen with the next president, regardless of her party? Will the next president not only abandon but help dismantle and prevent from being reinstated the illegal, warrantless surveillance programs? The extraordinary renditions to secret jails in Syria and Egypt? He defines the "Cheney version of the Constitution," which is that whenever the executive feels it needs to extend its powers in the name of national security, it simply can, no questions.
Don't think, Huq counsels, that a Pres. Obama or a Pres. Hillary won't use the Republican programs of domestic terror that Culture Project, Democracy Now(!), the CCR, the ACLU, and so many others are fighting against.
Valeriani speaks on "scar tissue," how we're no longer shocked by Bush's evils.
Audience Q1: Pressures on the election...
Holtzman says we need the president to be brought to justice, to show that Congress can do its thing(s) - pass laws and remove tyrants from office.
Audience Q2: If Pelosi hadn't taken impeachment off the table...
Kadidal, Holtzman, and Valeriani note that the American people and Dennis Kucinich want to impeach Bush; keep the pressure on, Pelosi will have to. It wasn't a problem (for the Speaker of the House - third in line for pres. after pres. and VP - to bring the pres. to justice) during Watergate.
Audience Q3: Cheney = brains of operation...
Valeriani: He lied about WMDs.
Huq: There's a great deal of public evidence about Cheney's aide's roles in setting aside FISA, torture laws, and the Geneva Conventions. You'd subpoena [Cheney's aides].
Audience Q4: How would ordinary people get Congress to listen, seriously...?
Holtzman: When was the last time you contacted your Congressperson? Get a meeting. Email. Get your block to sign a petition.
Moynihan has a show of hands for who gets the "Saturday Night Massacre" reference. (The audience, educated and in many cases old enough, gets it.)
Holtzman: The tapes were critical. Elliot Richardson appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who looked for the tapes. The tapes got Nixon impeached. (People got fired, hence the massacre.) "We would have seen a similar event" - Ashcroft would have resigned. It's not clear what they changed to make their program compliant with FISA.
Audience Q5: 200,000 phone calls, that night, Saturday Night Massacre, to the Congress. We had 200,000 phone calls. You heard from us.
Audience Q6: Should we impeach Cheney first, because people seem to favor that, in polls? Then impeach Bush?
Holtzman (again): It will take a while to do two. It took a while for us to do one. We had to hire lawyers. The Democrats hired a Republican lawyer, and the Republicans hired a Republican lawyer. It hadn't been done in a hundred years - these things had to be studied. It took about nine months. So there's really enough time, to do it still. But there's not enough time to do Cheney and Bush. We have Bush's fingerprints on it. My whole view is to start the proceedings against Bush; we will accumulate evidence against Cheney.
One of the articles against Nixon was that he stonewalled us for information, and that was voted on by a bipartisan base. So there's a precedent. There's a lot of sentiment around the country for impeachment.
(Have any Congresspeople - Dems or Reps, candidates or not - seen our videos, site, blog? Do they know about this event? Shouldn't we, CP, tell them? Shouldn't we all?)
Huq: The Congress can hold court on its own. (Holtzman: We have our own jail!) The Congress can specifically subpoena the president and hold him in contempt if he doesn't show.
Qs-Final, there's a short storm of them.
Kadidal notes that other forms of government have Justice Departments that can go after corrupt executives. We do not have this. Certainly not in Mukasey...
Holtzman: What happened not only to Congress, but to the ACLU? I still believe it can be done, has to be done. With all the defects in the impeachment process, this is what the framers had exactly in mind. They were freaked about the misuse of power. They knew there was gonna be a Richard Nixon, a George Bush. There's too much misunderstanding about it. Even Obama said it's not democratic - it's in our Constitution, it's exactly democratic. What's the shape of our country going to be? No one else can make that decision for us?
***
This has been live blogging on surveillance; I'm back for one more live-blog-impeachy event on Sunday... (And, yes, for those who have read some of my earlier posts, I still like Obama but disagree with Obama on impeachment and wish Kucinich was as popular.)
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Sean Penn Rocks the Mic
For serious. Give this speech, delivered last night at San Francisco State, a read.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Alec Baldwin moderates the Katrina Panel (long)
Alec Baldwin notes that, if you care, you think about "why" and "how it [everything Bush] got to this level" all the time. You have to train yourself to stop asking why, how...
At a dinner party, Alec Baldwin asked Bill Clinton about how spending by the government is prioritized. Clinton just gave him a look as if to say, "Don't go there." Baldwin discusses in general how we are all tied to the idea that government just gets to spend tons of money, gets to hire nepotistically... Very disturbing, discussed much by Lapham in books (why we are always at war).
Baldwin wonders what impeaching Bush with only one year left.
Baldwin to Cynthia Cooper: Can Bush be impeached for Katrina?
Cynthia Cooper and a prominent Watergate lawyer looked intensely at the question. Cooper says the president is supposed to uphold the law and take care. She says the Stafford Act very clearly is Bush's purview; he failed to uphold his duty to mobilize the government according to the Stafford Act. The president was specifically told that lives were on the line. He did nothing, prayed for a good outcome. He failed to live up to a presidential standard of upholding the law and Constitution.
Baldwin to Gardner: What do you think Bush should have done? What could have been done in two days?
Gardner: He could have stopped his vacation. He was on vacation. He could have show, on a basic level, compassion. Should have evacuated right away - helped those with no transportation get away from the [ginormous] hurricane. Judith Browne-Dianis says the administration just didn't care, figured the hurricane would literally blow over; people would forget that some citizens had been screwed over. The city's evacuation plan relied on buses, and the bus drivers left.
Erica Hunt points out that there was a yard full of buses only blocks from the Super Dome, unused...
Baldwin: Were there any heroes, of Katrina?
Cooper: National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield. He tried to personally motivate Bush.
Lapham: The government behaved exactly how it was supposed to, according to Republican ideologues - who want the smallest possible government. Two nations, divisible by magnitude. The more poor that can be eliminated, the better. The government has no purpose for the rich. They don't need the government. (More privatized cops now than public.)
Baldwin: The fraud and waste of the welfare system is minuscule compared to the fraud and waste of the defense system. Do you think Republicans hate the poor more because of what they cost the system, or more because they vote for Democrats?
Lapham: It's George Bernard Shaw. If you're poor, you deserve to be punished.
Baldwin: Do you think Bush should be literally impeached?
Browne-Dianis: I don't think it would happen now. We're going into an election year. I think he has done enough to show that he should be impeached.
Cooper: Absolutely. Even if on his last day in office. He has many more months to screw up this country.
Gardner: Totally. There was a growing movement to impeach him; the Dems won Congress; Pelosi took it off the table. Kucinich introduced it again.
Jackson: Yes. Bush has continued Reagan's campaign against the poor.
Hunt: Yes, impeachment may be in order, but she's concerned about the symbolism of impeachment and how it might obscure the root causes (of the crimes that led to impeachment). Off course Pelosi took it off the table - she doesn't believe in a common wealth, a common good, any more than most Republicans.
Lapham: Yes, on two grounds - Iraq, a criminal fraud. Second, it's the Constitutional task of the Congress to preserve the balance of power, to assert the legislative authority - unless it does that, it destroys the principle on which this country was set up. (I.e., not just Bush, but any president will be too powerful.)
Baldwin: What happened with Pelosi?
Lapham: Conyers made the grounds for impeachment clear; Pelosi didn't see it as politically useful and abandoned it.
Baldwin: Most people don't want to impeach a president at war, whether or not the war was just to start. Baldwin goes into a long story about Reagan - old-school, against taxes, in favor of letting people admit that they'd rather have a new swimming pool than social programs elsewhere - and how different Bush is. Bush sees Iraq as money to be made. The economy has to be in perpetual debt in order to cut useful social programs. He goes into the racket of war. (You can and should read the book War Is A Racket.)
Baldwin: Lewis, are these people [B&C] the same as we've seen before, and they've just been emboldened by Clinton-fatigue and 9/11? Or are they the worst you've ever seen?
Lapham: These guys are the worst I've ever seen. I see Bush the way I see Britney Spears. Spoiled rich kid adolescents. How do spoiled rich kids show their power? They break things. They spend money.
Baldwin: Goes off about how empty the Texas governorship was, even under Bush. He was a ribbon-cutter.
Baldwin: What can people do now? I don't want people to come into this room and have the "awareness orgasm" where they learn some facts, go home, and have completion. What should they do?
Browne-Dianis: I represent N.O. residents in class-action suits. People are getting kicked out of FEMA trailers. Rents are going up all over. Bulldozing public housing. The federal government runs the housing authority of New Orleans. They're demolishing brick public housing built to survive hurricanes (that did survive hurricanes - they just need new flooring and mold removal). But the plan is to keep the poor out. The right to return does not exist. We have tried ever legal way to stop the bulldozers. We have been denied. Local authorities don't want to be on the side of their constituents, the developers, in case the poor come back and vote somehow. But they don't want to be on the side of the poor. December 15th, let's do something to stop the bulldozers. (She leaves the stage to massive applause.)
Cooper: Let's get major media to look at impeachment. Call the public editor of the NYTimes.
Gardner: We have to stop the assault on the poor; public housing is being demolished all over. The Gulf Coast Recovery Act is being held up by a Republican senator from Louisiana, this jerk. We have to contact Sen. Charles Schumer and get him to pass the bill.
Jackson: December 10th, come to New Orleans. Get organized to stop the bulldozing on the 15th. Contact Jackson at jackson-action@hotmail.com. Help us get the GCRA bill passed. Fight that jerk Vitter; call Schumer.
Gardner: Go to http://www.peopleshurricane.org/.
Baldwin: Have a banner on the website to list everything. (Okay, note to self - I think I've just had my first freelance job request from Alec Baldwin.)
Hunt: Two great sites that can help you keep up with news and events are: Color of Change and Katrina Information Networkth.
Audience1: There's a rally in New York on the 10th. (Send CP info on this, please.)
Audience2: How/why can anyone respect the U.S. if it lets its president defraud us? We must impeach Bush.
Cooper: Bush won't turn over emails; his staff refuse to testify. Same as Watergate (but worse). The people have to stand up in larger and larger numbers and demand impeachment.
Audience3: During the 70s, we had more alternative news, a free press. How do we get the average Joe to know about the impeachment movement?
Cooper: Demanding it can only help; media activism is necessary.
Audience4: Barbara Jordan pointed out that unless we use impeachment, we might as well shred the Constitution. We have to make sacrifice to make change - stop shopping, go down to New Orleans. Buy a ticket, go down there, stand with the residents against bulldozers.
Audience5: I'm not really so sure whether Bush should be impeached. If we impeach Bush and the Dems win the next presidential election, the Reps will use impeachment against the Dems. (?) (Murmuring of dissatisfaction with question.)
Baldwin: Impeachment is a very difficult thing, on purpose. Long aside about Tom Delay. (More murmurs.)
Lapham: (Too quiet to hear, I think he said "it's necessary.")
Audience6: If you don't have time to go to New Orleans, I'm sure one of us displaced New Orleanians (sp?) would be willing to go in your place. (Applause.) If culture is demolished, what is the future of New Orleans?
Jackson: We had doctors, lawyers, musicians in public housing, not just drug-dealers. Really, public housing in New Orleans was not like they said (the media?).
Gardner: Now they're asking for expensive funeral permits. More about the destruction of culture in N.O.
Baldwin thanks everyone; we're out of time.
Cue zydeco. Cue applause.
At a dinner party, Alec Baldwin asked Bill Clinton about how spending by the government is prioritized. Clinton just gave him a look as if to say, "Don't go there." Baldwin discusses in general how we are all tied to the idea that government just gets to spend tons of money, gets to hire nepotistically... Very disturbing, discussed much by Lapham in books (why we are always at war).
Baldwin wonders what impeaching Bush with only one year left.
Baldwin to Cynthia Cooper: Can Bush be impeached for Katrina?
Cynthia Cooper and a prominent Watergate lawyer looked intensely at the question. Cooper says the president is supposed to uphold the law and take care. She says the Stafford Act very clearly is Bush's purview; he failed to uphold his duty to mobilize the government according to the Stafford Act. The president was specifically told that lives were on the line. He did nothing, prayed for a good outcome. He failed to live up to a presidential standard of upholding the law and Constitution.
Baldwin to Gardner: What do you think Bush should have done? What could have been done in two days?
Gardner: He could have stopped his vacation. He was on vacation. He could have show, on a basic level, compassion. Should have evacuated right away - helped those with no transportation get away from the [ginormous] hurricane. Judith Browne-Dianis says the administration just didn't care, figured the hurricane would literally blow over; people would forget that some citizens had been screwed over. The city's evacuation plan relied on buses, and the bus drivers left.
Erica Hunt points out that there was a yard full of buses only blocks from the Super Dome, unused...
Baldwin: Were there any heroes, of Katrina?
Cooper: National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield. He tried to personally motivate Bush.
Lapham: The government behaved exactly how it was supposed to, according to Republican ideologues - who want the smallest possible government. Two nations, divisible by magnitude. The more poor that can be eliminated, the better. The government has no purpose for the rich. They don't need the government. (More privatized cops now than public.)
Baldwin: The fraud and waste of the welfare system is minuscule compared to the fraud and waste of the defense system. Do you think Republicans hate the poor more because of what they cost the system, or more because they vote for Democrats?
Lapham: It's George Bernard Shaw. If you're poor, you deserve to be punished.
Baldwin: Do you think Bush should be literally impeached?
Browne-Dianis: I don't think it would happen now. We're going into an election year. I think he has done enough to show that he should be impeached.
Cooper: Absolutely. Even if on his last day in office. He has many more months to screw up this country.
Gardner: Totally. There was a growing movement to impeach him; the Dems won Congress; Pelosi took it off the table. Kucinich introduced it again.
Jackson: Yes. Bush has continued Reagan's campaign against the poor.
Hunt: Yes, impeachment may be in order, but she's concerned about the symbolism of impeachment and how it might obscure the root causes (of the crimes that led to impeachment). Off course Pelosi took it off the table - she doesn't believe in a common wealth, a common good, any more than most Republicans.
Lapham: Yes, on two grounds - Iraq, a criminal fraud. Second, it's the Constitutional task of the Congress to preserve the balance of power, to assert the legislative authority - unless it does that, it destroys the principle on which this country was set up. (I.e., not just Bush, but any president will be too powerful.)
Baldwin: What happened with Pelosi?
Lapham: Conyers made the grounds for impeachment clear; Pelosi didn't see it as politically useful and abandoned it.
Baldwin: Most people don't want to impeach a president at war, whether or not the war was just to start. Baldwin goes into a long story about Reagan - old-school, against taxes, in favor of letting people admit that they'd rather have a new swimming pool than social programs elsewhere - and how different Bush is. Bush sees Iraq as money to be made. The economy has to be in perpetual debt in order to cut useful social programs. He goes into the racket of war. (You can and should read the book War Is A Racket.)
Baldwin: Lewis, are these people [B&C] the same as we've seen before, and they've just been emboldened by Clinton-fatigue and 9/11? Or are they the worst you've ever seen?
Lapham: These guys are the worst I've ever seen. I see Bush the way I see Britney Spears. Spoiled rich kid adolescents. How do spoiled rich kids show their power? They break things. They spend money.
Baldwin: Goes off about how empty the Texas governorship was, even under Bush. He was a ribbon-cutter.
Baldwin: What can people do now? I don't want people to come into this room and have the "awareness orgasm" where they learn some facts, go home, and have completion. What should they do?
Browne-Dianis: I represent N.O. residents in class-action suits. People are getting kicked out of FEMA trailers. Rents are going up all over. Bulldozing public housing. The federal government runs the housing authority of New Orleans. They're demolishing brick public housing built to survive hurricanes (that did survive hurricanes - they just need new flooring and mold removal). But the plan is to keep the poor out. The right to return does not exist. We have tried ever legal way to stop the bulldozers. We have been denied. Local authorities don't want to be on the side of their constituents, the developers, in case the poor come back and vote somehow. But they don't want to be on the side of the poor. December 15th, let's do something to stop the bulldozers. (She leaves the stage to massive applause.)
Cooper: Let's get major media to look at impeachment. Call the public editor of the NYTimes.
Gardner: We have to stop the assault on the poor; public housing is being demolished all over. The Gulf Coast Recovery Act is being held up by a Republican senator from Louisiana, this jerk. We have to contact Sen. Charles Schumer and get him to pass the bill.
Jackson: December 10th, come to New Orleans. Get organized to stop the bulldozing on the 15th. Contact Jackson at jackson-action@hotmail.com. Help us get the GCRA bill passed. Fight that jerk Vitter; call Schumer.
Gardner: Go to http://www.peopleshurricane.org/.
Baldwin: Have a banner on the website to list everything. (Okay, note to self - I think I've just had my first freelance job request from Alec Baldwin.)
Hunt: Two great sites that can help you keep up with news and events are: Color of Change and Katrina Information Networkth.
Audience1: There's a rally in New York on the 10th. (Send CP info on this, please.)
Audience2: How/why can anyone respect the U.S. if it lets its president defraud us? We must impeach Bush.
Cooper: Bush won't turn over emails; his staff refuse to testify. Same as Watergate (but worse). The people have to stand up in larger and larger numbers and demand impeachment.
Audience3: During the 70s, we had more alternative news, a free press. How do we get the average Joe to know about the impeachment movement?
Cooper: Demanding it can only help; media activism is necessary.
Audience4: Barbara Jordan pointed out that unless we use impeachment, we might as well shred the Constitution. We have to make sacrifice to make change - stop shopping, go down to New Orleans. Buy a ticket, go down there, stand with the residents against bulldozers.
Audience5: I'm not really so sure whether Bush should be impeached. If we impeach Bush and the Dems win the next presidential election, the Reps will use impeachment against the Dems. (?) (Murmuring of dissatisfaction with question.)
Baldwin: Impeachment is a very difficult thing, on purpose. Long aside about Tom Delay. (More murmurs.)
Lapham: (Too quiet to hear, I think he said "it's necessary.")
Audience6: If you don't have time to go to New Orleans, I'm sure one of us displaced New Orleanians (sp?) would be willing to go in your place. (Applause.) If culture is demolished, what is the future of New Orleans?
Jackson: We had doctors, lawyers, musicians in public housing, not just drug-dealers. Really, public housing in New Orleans was not like they said (the media?).
Gardner: Now they're asking for expensive funeral permits. More about the destruction of culture in N.O.
Baldwin thanks everyone; we're out of time.
Cue zydeco. Cue applause.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Panel: Madness & Fear & Strikes & Great, Great Ideas
De la Vega explains that you can't charge a sitting president, but you can impeach the hell outta him.
Great to see all these various luminaries - a retired colonel, a lawyer, writers, David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.com, who seems to be moderating - sitting side by side.
Theater as a medium for an impeachment hearing - seems to work.
People still mill in the lobby. I like the lobby. I met some college students who complained that they couldn't go to all the shows because each costs twenty bucks per student, and that adds up. I said I'd try to help them out. (We'll see where/how that goes.)
Ann Wright gets applause, raising her voice that the Dems aren't doin' anythang right now anyways, so why don't they hold B/C accountable? So what if it takes a month? We have to.
McGovern says he swore in the Army to defend America from enemies foreign and domestic, and he never heard an expiration date for that. He points out, as was pointed out last night, that the founders intended impeachment to be used in case any president "started acting like a king," that it is an orderly process.
He also interestingly points out that we all have "outrage fatigue - every week there's a new outrage!" that makes it hard for us keep up the heat. But we have to. We have to keep trying to make our own Congress do its job and reign in the executive.
He also points out that the Constitution is imperative: It doesn't ask you to consider impeaching a bad president. It tells you to.
OH SHITE--
"There's gonna be a war against Iran, folks. You don't believe it? Sure its crazy, sure it's crazy... But most of my colleagues [in national intelligence] agree."
He is serious--McGovern is telling us--you, me, everybody--that Bush and Cheney are going to go to war with Iran. Unless we tie him up with impeachment. Unless we literally prevent the Congress from authorizing war funds, prevent Bush from doing anything, he will go to war with Iran.
Swanson asks something... McGovern points out that we would lose the war with Iran.
Hendrik Hertzberg points out that the Constitution's flaws have got us into this mess, and that while impeachment is great for theater, it's not great for "grown-up politics." Zero chance. Of actually happening.
Everest notes that war with Iran will lead to martial law here (of course). "Impeachment is not now on the political landscape," he says. We, the millions and millions, have to act. We all have to write and protest and (I add) break some shit. "The people themselves have to take it upon themselves." What if three million people wore orange? What about a general strike? (I love his ideas.) The stakes aren't stopping the war on Iraq - not any more - but stopping the institution of torture, the police state, escalation of nuclear weapons since we won't get troops on the ground in Iran. The gap between what the people want and what the imperialists want is so huge... We have to organize (each of us in the room). [Well, I'm in the lobby...]
Swanson brings the audience in, reminding us that over a third of Americans want to impeach and remove Bush.
Wait, no audience yet. De la Vega reminds us that impeachment is a process, not necessarily one that will result in removal. She asks, do we think both B & C have committed impeachable offenses? The majority think so. She disagrees with Hertzberg that impeachment is a "political fantasy." We don't know what the outcome is going to be. It doesn't matter. We can't accept defeat. "We are all politicians." (The idea that we are all part of this, not just politicized, party-liner DC types.)
Audience Q1: "I'm a librarian... I'm not an American citizen." (She's Canadian.) She reminds us that impeachment is a national civics lesson, not a trial. She says (as others have said) we have to impeach Bush or throw out the Constitution.
Swanson clarifies points about Dems in Congress wanting to pass resolutions and fearing the process; I don't really get it, but I'll check "Let's Try Democracy" later; he's mainly talking about Pelosi.
McGovern... orates. (He's sort of like Rip Torn meets George Carlin meets Indiana Jones. I imagine he could wield a whip or khukri.) His point: The Dems want to wait just one more year, then get a Dem president, then beat the Republicans, which is the wrong way to think about it.
Q2: Something about Nazis. Okay. A question to Hertzberg. The questioner is LIVID. Sort of voice-cracking woman, comparing Bush and Hitler, asking what the process would have been to remove Hitler? Now McGovern and Hertzberg are arguing about "they" versus "we." "They, they, they."
Swanson fields it: Tell the other Republicans, the ones who don't want to impeach, that it's not a partisan question: What does it matter who the next president is if the next pres. doesn't have to obey laws? (He's with the "it's not political" camp.)
Hertzberg disagrees. Everest points out that Hilter did come in through political power, same as Bush; torture was approved, made part of the institution. "People just have to be refused to be bound by the terms of what the Democrats or Republicans are saying." "What the Democrats are doing is poison because it's paralyzing - just wait till 2008..." I agree. We don't need to stay at home and watch TV.
Q3: Angry about Hillary. Okay... These microphone-users are newish, I'm guessing. lot of loud cracking.
Q4: Clinton was impeached for a blowjob! Anger. Now yelling about 9/11 inside job Afghanistan domino theory - so what I want to know is, what are people going to do, to get the American people out of...?
Swanson politely cuts him off, pointing out that if we agree that B/C have committed 2999 impeachable offenses -- the man cuts him off -- Swanson regains, moves on.
De la Vega reminds us that the approval rating of Congress is less than that of the pres. (This is lively theater.) We need to send the message that --> Congress does more = Congress gets more support.
Q5: Nixon. Why is it different?
McGovern fields; Everest points out that the social upheaval across the board (anti-war, women's movement, etc.) helped oust Nixon.
Swanson brings it back to the calculus of wait-and-see versus act-now-in-accordance-with-the-people's-wishes. Historical precedents. People liked Clinton, so he didn't get impeached.
Q6: Can't hear it. It's long, rambling, and about lowering the bar for something. No mic. "Raise the standards for the people, we're intelligent," doubt that voting alone will effect chain.
Q7: Leapfrog past Tim Russert. What new ways will help us reach Facebook kids (uh, they're better organized that you, largely).
Q8: The marketplace of ideas is closed. There is no free press. Church and state. Police state. Again, not a question, rambling. But great in that, for the third time, the emphasis is against Pelosi-world D.C. General strike challenged, generally.
Swanson holds up fliers that list specific things we can do. CALL THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. Yo, I'm going to do that, get my coworkers to do that, and do it a lot.
Angry surprise Q9, something hard to hear about war. McGovern takes his closing remarks to address. The supreme international crime, the war of aggression. McGovern gives an awesome quote, I'll try to find it. He points out that all five major articles of impeachment, all the crimes, are part of a general war of aggression. Jail, as Thoreau said, the only decent place to be in such times.
Ann Wright thanks Culture Project.
Allan Buchman starts to speak, as the host: Mentions our play Guantanamo, back in 2004. The Constitution was out of print. The White House didn't know when they'd start printing it again...
He fields the question of Facebook very well: The whole point is to do art, theater, and to blog about it, get the video up immediately on blip.tv and on our site and on our blogs, etc. Figure out what works. Just figure it out. That's the whole point of the show. I agree.
Ann Wright: "Let's close that mother down" (D.C.) Defends theater as an attempt, a good attempt, one of many. (It seems audience is angry panel isn't mentioning Blackwater. I mean, fuck those guys, but we have a lot of stuff to go through, over five weeks, including Blackwater. We'll get there.)
Everest: Change the discourse - Bush's actions not mistakes, but crimes. Insist on morality - refusing to resist war crimes is a crime. Refuse to wait on Dems or Reps or anyone. Don't think a Dem in 08 will save everything. It won't, because that Dem will have infinite power. (And Bush won't go, anyway.)
Hertzberg: Don't just vote (he stresses voting and was yelled at by audience for it). Remember that Bush did not win the presidency but was put in place by a judicial coup de tat. Get out and get interested in the idea of getting rid of the electoral college. IT DON'T WORK. (That much seems self explanatory, but I'll add links to explain.) We should have a general election. Political activity is pointless if your vote doesn't count. General strike = fantasy; impeachment = fantasy. (He says. He is not a revolutionary. We could do both. He don't have to get out there and strike - I can not-work enough for two.)
Swanson claps. Everyone claps. Lights up in lobby as De la Vega adds very last word (maybe). Lights down in lobby. She thinks the only way we can not impeach Bush is to continue as if we're in a fantasy. To see reality is to impeach.
Swanson adds last-last word: Fourteen more months for Bush is faaar too long. He will go to war, or whatever. We will all die horribly (my maudlin phrasing).
Exeunt.
Great to see all these various luminaries - a retired colonel, a lawyer, writers, David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.com, who seems to be moderating - sitting side by side.
Theater as a medium for an impeachment hearing - seems to work.
People still mill in the lobby. I like the lobby. I met some college students who complained that they couldn't go to all the shows because each costs twenty bucks per student, and that adds up. I said I'd try to help them out. (We'll see where/how that goes.)
Ann Wright gets applause, raising her voice that the Dems aren't doin' anythang right now anyways, so why don't they hold B/C accountable? So what if it takes a month? We have to.
McGovern says he swore in the Army to defend America from enemies foreign and domestic, and he never heard an expiration date for that. He points out, as was pointed out last night, that the founders intended impeachment to be used in case any president "started acting like a king," that it is an orderly process.
He also interestingly points out that we all have "outrage fatigue - every week there's a new outrage!" that makes it hard for us keep up the heat. But we have to. We have to keep trying to make our own Congress do its job and reign in the executive.
He also points out that the Constitution is imperative: It doesn't ask you to consider impeaching a bad president. It tells you to.
OH SHITE--
"There's gonna be a war against Iran, folks. You don't believe it? Sure its crazy, sure it's crazy... But most of my colleagues [in national intelligence] agree."
He is serious--McGovern is telling us--you, me, everybody--that Bush and Cheney are going to go to war with Iran. Unless we tie him up with impeachment. Unless we literally prevent the Congress from authorizing war funds, prevent Bush from doing anything, he will go to war with Iran.
Swanson asks something... McGovern points out that we would lose the war with Iran.
Hendrik Hertzberg points out that the Constitution's flaws have got us into this mess, and that while impeachment is great for theater, it's not great for "grown-up politics." Zero chance. Of actually happening.
Everest notes that war with Iran will lead to martial law here (of course). "Impeachment is not now on the political landscape," he says. We, the millions and millions, have to act. We all have to write and protest and (I add) break some shit. "The people themselves have to take it upon themselves." What if three million people wore orange? What about a general strike? (I love his ideas.) The stakes aren't stopping the war on Iraq - not any more - but stopping the institution of torture, the police state, escalation of nuclear weapons since we won't get troops on the ground in Iran. The gap between what the people want and what the imperialists want is so huge... We have to organize (each of us in the room). [Well, I'm in the lobby...]
Swanson brings the audience in, reminding us that over a third of Americans want to impeach and remove Bush.
Wait, no audience yet. De la Vega reminds us that impeachment is a process, not necessarily one that will result in removal. She asks, do we think both B & C have committed impeachable offenses? The majority think so. She disagrees with Hertzberg that impeachment is a "political fantasy." We don't know what the outcome is going to be. It doesn't matter. We can't accept defeat. "We are all politicians." (The idea that we are all part of this, not just politicized, party-liner DC types.)
Audience Q1: "I'm a librarian... I'm not an American citizen." (She's Canadian.) She reminds us that impeachment is a national civics lesson, not a trial. She says (as others have said) we have to impeach Bush or throw out the Constitution.
Swanson clarifies points about Dems in Congress wanting to pass resolutions and fearing the process; I don't really get it, but I'll check "Let's Try Democracy" later; he's mainly talking about Pelosi.
McGovern... orates. (He's sort of like Rip Torn meets George Carlin meets Indiana Jones. I imagine he could wield a whip or khukri.) His point: The Dems want to wait just one more year, then get a Dem president, then beat the Republicans, which is the wrong way to think about it.
Q2: Something about Nazis. Okay. A question to Hertzberg. The questioner is LIVID. Sort of voice-cracking woman, comparing Bush and Hitler, asking what the process would have been to remove Hitler? Now McGovern and Hertzberg are arguing about "they" versus "we." "They, they, they."
Swanson fields it: Tell the other Republicans, the ones who don't want to impeach, that it's not a partisan question: What does it matter who the next president is if the next pres. doesn't have to obey laws? (He's with the "it's not political" camp.)
Hertzberg disagrees. Everest points out that Hilter did come in through political power, same as Bush; torture was approved, made part of the institution. "People just have to be refused to be bound by the terms of what the Democrats or Republicans are saying." "What the Democrats are doing is poison because it's paralyzing - just wait till 2008..." I agree. We don't need to stay at home and watch TV.
Q3: Angry about Hillary. Okay... These microphone-users are newish, I'm guessing. lot of loud cracking.
Q4: Clinton was impeached for a blowjob! Anger. Now yelling about 9/11 inside job Afghanistan domino theory - so what I want to know is, what are people going to do, to get the American people out of...?
Swanson politely cuts him off, pointing out that if we agree that B/C have committed 2999 impeachable offenses -- the man cuts him off -- Swanson regains, moves on.
De la Vega reminds us that the approval rating of Congress is less than that of the pres. (This is lively theater.) We need to send the message that --> Congress does more = Congress gets more support.
Q5: Nixon. Why is it different?
McGovern fields; Everest points out that the social upheaval across the board (anti-war, women's movement, etc.) helped oust Nixon.
Swanson brings it back to the calculus of wait-and-see versus act-now-in-accordance-with-the-people's-wishes. Historical precedents. People liked Clinton, so he didn't get impeached.
Q6: Can't hear it. It's long, rambling, and about lowering the bar for something. No mic. "Raise the standards for the people, we're intelligent," doubt that voting alone will effect chain.
Q7: Leapfrog past Tim Russert. What new ways will help us reach Facebook kids (uh, they're better organized that you, largely).
Q8: The marketplace of ideas is closed. There is no free press. Church and state. Police state. Again, not a question, rambling. But great in that, for the third time, the emphasis is against Pelosi-world D.C. General strike challenged, generally.
Swanson holds up fliers that list specific things we can do. CALL THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. Yo, I'm going to do that, get my coworkers to do that, and do it a lot.
Angry surprise Q9, something hard to hear about war. McGovern takes his closing remarks to address. The supreme international crime, the war of aggression. McGovern gives an awesome quote, I'll try to find it. He points out that all five major articles of impeachment, all the crimes, are part of a general war of aggression. Jail, as Thoreau said, the only decent place to be in such times.
Ann Wright thanks Culture Project.
Allan Buchman starts to speak, as the host: Mentions our play Guantanamo, back in 2004. The Constitution was out of print. The White House didn't know when they'd start printing it again...
He fields the question of Facebook very well: The whole point is to do art, theater, and to blog about it, get the video up immediately on blip.tv and on our site and on our blogs, etc. Figure out what works. Just figure it out. That's the whole point of the show. I agree.
Ann Wright: "Let's close that mother down" (D.C.) Defends theater as an attempt, a good attempt, one of many. (It seems audience is angry panel isn't mentioning Blackwater. I mean, fuck those guys, but we have a lot of stuff to go through, over five weeks, including Blackwater. We'll get there.)
Everest: Change the discourse - Bush's actions not mistakes, but crimes. Insist on morality - refusing to resist war crimes is a crime. Refuse to wait on Dems or Reps or anyone. Don't think a Dem in 08 will save everything. It won't, because that Dem will have infinite power. (And Bush won't go, anyway.)
Hertzberg: Don't just vote (he stresses voting and was yelled at by audience for it). Remember that Bush did not win the presidency but was put in place by a judicial coup de tat. Get out and get interested in the idea of getting rid of the electoral college. IT DON'T WORK. (That much seems self explanatory, but I'll add links to explain.) We should have a general election. Political activity is pointless if your vote doesn't count. General strike = fantasy; impeachment = fantasy. (He says. He is not a revolutionary. We could do both. He don't have to get out there and strike - I can not-work enough for two.)
Swanson claps. Everyone claps. Lights up in lobby as De la Vega adds very last word (maybe). Lights down in lobby. She thinks the only way we can not impeach Bush is to continue as if we're in a fantasy. To see reality is to impeach.
Swanson adds last-last word: Fourteen more months for Bush is faaar too long. He will go to war, or whatever. We will all die horribly (my maudlin phrasing).
Exeunt.
The Articles Of Impeachment
The stage darkens. Spot on the double–platform.
Actors take the stage. On the screen in the back, a mix of quotes from the country's founders, Howard Zinn, the Constitution, and various congress-people. Actors begin to read the quotes, in full, in actorly voices. The images and sound merge, and we the audience begin to ponder impeachment in a slightly less incantatory, more historical-legal way...
"Bind him down from mischief," reads a quote from T. "No Joke" Jefferson, referring to what the Congress should be able to do to/with/about an unruly, tyrannical chief executive.
Most of the opening quotes expound upon the ease and point of impeachment - i.e., that it can and should be used liberally in cases such as Bush's (wherein almost half of America is pretty sure the man did something treasonous, or several things, and is thus not fit to continue serving as president).
Again and again, references are made to the idea that the president and other executives serve the people, not the other way around, and that any merest whiff of king-dom (king-hood? -ness?) from the pres. is grounds for immediate impeachment. After all, the founders and their later writers-about seem to say, isn't it easier to occasionally go through a big messy trial and impeach a guy than to even once allow a guy to take over our democracy and proclaim himself Emperor?
But first some background. The word "impeach" comes to us from Latin and means "to fetter." The modern idea of a legislative body's right to remove from office an executive who commits treason or other high crimes comes from fourteenth-cent. England, when a guy named Peter De la Mare first moved to oust Lord William Latimer, a corrupt official, a crony of the king.
The quotes are becoming more dry and less and less surprising. I'm detecting a theme.
And yet, every few seconds, a gem shines out: We learn that the founders were very specific about the impeachment of the executive (two sections of the Constitution explain how to go about it), but weren't specific at all about its election. They trusted Congress to figure out a way to elect people, but they wanted to make quite sure that everyone in America knew how to remove people, the kind of people who go to war needlessly...
Teddy Roosevelt gets a round of applause for: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public." Actually, I think every Roosevelt quote gets a round. (Go on wichya bad rough-ridin' moustache self, T.)
War is, rightfully I think, the major concern of the quotes. T. Jeff. again: "Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition
from peace to war."
"The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object." - Lincoln.
But the biggest responses from the crowd follow words by Barbara Jordan and a Republican ex-Senator from Kentucky named Marlow Cook.
M.C. has this to add:
This makes me wonder, again, if any conservatives are in the room.
The question comes up often between my older brother and me: Shouldn't conservatives want a leader to be proud of? A competent, popular, effective, not-scary, not-bumbling, not-Napoleonic leader? We're not conservatives, but our grandfather is, and I think he'd agree with Sen. Cook that Bush is the wrong man for the job of President of the United States.
When we finally push through thirty minutes or so of quotes, we arrive at a list of articles of impeachment. Let me simply plop them into this post, so that you can refer to them later, if interested
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush and Richard Cheney
I'd just like to toss in one more quote, this one by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia:
Whoa. For me, that statement summarizes so well how America has changed in the eyes of its friends (and enemies) abroad.
The actors finish, and the stage goes dark.
Actors take the stage. On the screen in the back, a mix of quotes from the country's founders, Howard Zinn, the Constitution, and various congress-people. Actors begin to read the quotes, in full, in actorly voices. The images and sound merge, and we the audience begin to ponder impeachment in a slightly less incantatory, more historical-legal way...
"Bind him down from mischief," reads a quote from T. "No Joke" Jefferson, referring to what the Congress should be able to do to/with/about an unruly, tyrannical chief executive.
Most of the opening quotes expound upon the ease and point of impeachment - i.e., that it can and should be used liberally in cases such as Bush's (wherein almost half of America is pretty sure the man did something treasonous, or several things, and is thus not fit to continue serving as president).
Again and again, references are made to the idea that the president and other executives serve the people, not the other way around, and that any merest whiff of king-dom (king-hood? -ness?) from the pres. is grounds for immediate impeachment. After all, the founders and their later writers-about seem to say, isn't it easier to occasionally go through a big messy trial and impeach a guy than to even once allow a guy to take over our democracy and proclaim himself Emperor?
But first some background. The word "impeach" comes to us from Latin and means "to fetter." The modern idea of a legislative body's right to remove from office an executive who commits treason or other high crimes comes from fourteenth-cent. England, when a guy named Peter De la Mare first moved to oust Lord William Latimer, a corrupt official, a crony of the king.
The quotes are becoming more dry and less and less surprising. I'm detecting a theme.
And yet, every few seconds, a gem shines out: We learn that the founders were very specific about the impeachment of the executive (two sections of the Constitution explain how to go about it), but weren't specific at all about its election. They trusted Congress to figure out a way to elect people, but they wanted to make quite sure that everyone in America knew how to remove people, the kind of people who go to war needlessly...
Teddy Roosevelt gets a round of applause for: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public." Actually, I think every Roosevelt quote gets a round. (Go on wichya bad rough-ridin' moustache self, T.)
War is, rightfully I think, the major concern of the quotes. T. Jeff. again: "Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition
from peace to war."
"The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object." - Lincoln.
But the biggest responses from the crowd follow words by Barbara Jordan and a Republican ex-Senator from Kentucky named Marlow Cook.
M.C. has this to add:
I am frightened to death of George Bush. I fear a secret government. I abhor a government that refuses to supply the Congress with the requested information... For me as a Republican, I feel that when my party gives me a dangerous leader who flouts the truth, takes the country into an undeclared war, and then adds a war on terrorism to it without a debate by the Congress, we have a duty to rid ourselves of those who are taking our country on a perilous ride in the wrong direction.
This makes me wonder, again, if any conservatives are in the room.
The question comes up often between my older brother and me: Shouldn't conservatives want a leader to be proud of? A competent, popular, effective, not-scary, not-bumbling, not-Napoleonic leader? We're not conservatives, but our grandfather is, and I think he'd agree with Sen. Cook that Bush is the wrong man for the job of President of the United States.
When we finally push through thirty minutes or so of quotes, we arrive at a list of articles of impeachment. Let me simply plop them into this post, so that you can refer to them later, if interested
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush and Richard Cheney
Article I: Initiation and Continuation of Illegal War
George W. Bush’s and Richard Cheney’s initiation and continuation of the Iraq war
constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. In undertaking that aggressive war, George
W. Bush and Richard Cheney have subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a
republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers, by
undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations. They did so by justifying the war with false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States as well as Congress.
Article II: Torture and Extraordinary Renditions
George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have allowed their administration to condone
torture, failed to prosecute those responsible for torture, refused to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and violated international treaties by implementing “extraordinary renditions” of prisoners to countries that endorse torture.
Article III: Criminal Negligence in Response to Hurricane Katrina
George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have demonstrated criminal negligence in their
slow and insufficient response to the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when clear evidence warranted immediate and massive action on the following counts: 1) New
Orleans was under-funded prior to the storms, when it was clearly at risk; 2) two years after the storms, 50,000 people remain displaced, and the majority of promised
government aid has not found its way to the people who need it most.
Article IV: Warrantless Surveillance
George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have abused their power by violating the
constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice, by directing or authorizing the National Security Administration and various other agencies within the intelligence community to conduct electronic surveillance outside of the statutes Congress has prescribed in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Article V: Executive Power
Signing Statements and Habeas Corpus George W. Bush has formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a “signing statement” to legislation that asserts his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby arrogating to himself legislative powers reserved solely for Congress. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have violated the constitutional and international rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, and trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus by denying prisoners due process, detaining them without charges, and with limited – if any – access to counsel or courts.
I'd just like to toss in one more quote, this one by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia:
No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. We proclaim a doctrine that is preemption which is understood by few and feared by many... As a result, the world had become a much more dangerous place.
Whoa. For me, that statement summarizes so well how America has changed in the eyes of its friends (and enemies) abroad.
The actors finish, and the stage goes dark.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The Health of the Doctor
The next surgeon general might be a gay-hater.
The candidate, a self-described Christian conservative named Dr. James Holsinger, supports research into cloning, has backed lesbian issues in the past, and is anti-big tobacco.
Yet, as a lay leader of the United Methodist Church, Dr. Holsinger opposes gay membership in his congregation and believes that homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching."
Worse, Holsinger wrote a paper for a church committee that outlines the various ways in which male homosexuality is abnormal and unhealthy.
I propose a counter-nominee for Surgeon General - Atlanta's own Dr. A. Verras, M.D.
Verras was my doctor as a kid. He's a tiny Greek man with a perma-smile and the most whimsical, non-threatening accent on the planet. All of his medicinal metaphors involve Mickey and/or Minney Mouse (sometimes an ear infection is worthy of a Donald Duck).
I never specifically asked Verras about his views on gay rights, since I am not gay and was not as interested in social justice when I was twelve as I am presently.
However, Verras' bipartisan approach to solving tummyaches and constant references to Disney characters [isn't Disney is one of the gayest-friendly {gay-friendly-est?} companies on the planet?] make him an obvious choice to bridge the pro-anal sex/anti-anal sex divide (or crack) and unite this sad country.
The candidate, a self-described Christian conservative named Dr. James Holsinger, supports research into cloning, has backed lesbian issues in the past, and is anti-big tobacco.
Yet, as a lay leader of the United Methodist Church, Dr. Holsinger opposes gay membership in his congregation and believes that homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching."
Worse, Holsinger wrote a paper for a church committee that outlines the various ways in which male homosexuality is abnormal and unhealthy.
I propose a counter-nominee for Surgeon General - Atlanta's own Dr. A. Verras, M.D.
Verras was my doctor as a kid. He's a tiny Greek man with a perma-smile and the most whimsical, non-threatening accent on the planet. All of his medicinal metaphors involve Mickey and/or Minney Mouse (sometimes an ear infection is worthy of a Donald Duck).
I never specifically asked Verras about his views on gay rights, since I am not gay and was not as interested in social justice when I was twelve as I am presently.
However, Verras' bipartisan approach to solving tummyaches and constant references to Disney characters [isn't Disney is one of the gayest-friendly {gay-friendly-est?} companies on the planet?] make him an obvious choice to bridge the pro-anal sex/anti-anal sex divide (or crack) and unite this sad country.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Denver, 2008
Washington Monthly asked Theodore C. Sorensen, President Kennedy's speechwriter, to pen his 'speech of his dreams' for the Democratic nominee to deliver at the Democratic Convention in Denver next year. They asked him not to think about any one candidate, but to simply write the speech he would like to hear the nominee give. I suggest you read it outloud to fully appreciate the rhythm and cadence, but it's quite inspiring no matter what. Enjoy!
My fellow Democrats: With high resolve and deep gratitude, I accept your nomination.
It has been a long campaign—too long, too expensive, with too much media attention on matters irrelevant to our nation’s future. I salute each of my worthy opponents for conducting a clean fifty-state campaign focusing on the real issues facing our nation, including health care, the public debt burden, energy independence, and national security, a campaign testing not merely which of us could raise and spend the most money but who among us could best lead our country; a campaign not ignoring controversial issues like taxation, immigration, fuel conservation, and the Middle East, but conducting, in essence, a great debate—because our party, unlike our opposition, believes that a free country is strengthened by debate.There will be more debates this fall. I hereby notify my Republican opponent that I have purchased ninety minutes of national network television time for each of the six Sunday evenings preceding the presidential election, and here and now invite and challenge him to share that time with me to debate the most serious issues facing the country, under rules to be agreed upon by our respective designees meeting this week with a neutral jointly selected statesman.
Let me assure all those who may disagree with my positions that I shall hear and respect their views, not denounce them as unpatriotic as has so often happened in recent years. I will wage a campaign that relies not on the usual fear, smear, and greed but on the hopes and pride of all our citizens in a nationwide effort to restore comity, common sense, and competence to the White House.
In this campaign, I will make no promises I cannot fulfill, pledge no spending we cannot afford, offer no posts to cronies you cannot trust, and propose no foreign commitment we should not keep. I will not shrink from opposing any party faction, any special interest group, or any major donor whose demands are contrary to the national interest. Nor will I shrink from calling myself a liberal, in the same sense that Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt, John and Robert Kennedy, and Harry Truman were liberals—liberals who proved that government is not a necessary evil, but rather the best means of creating a healthier, more educated, and more prosperous America.
They are the giants on whose shoulders I now stand, giants who made this a better, fairer, safer, stronger, more united America.
By making me your nominee, you have placed your trust in the American people to put aside irrelevant considerations and judge me solely on my qualifications to lead the nation. You have opened the stairway to what Teddy Roosevelt called the “bully pulpit.” With the help of dedicated Americans from our party, every party, and no party at all, I intend to mount that stairway to preach peace for our nation and world.
My campaign will be based on my search for the perfect political consensus, not the perfect political consultant. My chief political consultant will be my conscience.
Thank you for your applause, but I need more than your applause and approval. I need your prayers, your votes, your help, your heart, and your hand. The challenge is enormous, the obstacles are many. Our nation is emerging from eight years of misrule, a dark and difficult period in which our national honor and pride have been bruised and battered. But we are neither beaten nor broken. We are not helpless or afraid; because in this country the people rule, and the people want change.
True, some of us have been sleeping for these eight long years, while our nation’s values have been traduced, our liberties reduced, and our moral authority around the world trampled and shattered by a nightmare of ideological incompetence. But now we are awakening and taking our country back. Now people all across America are starting to believe in America again. We are coming back, back to the heights of greatness, back to America’s proud role as a temple of justice and a champion of peace.
The American people are tired of politics as usual, and I intend to offer them, in this campaign, something unusual in recent American politics: the truth. Neither bureaucracies nor nations function well when their actions are hidden from public view and accountability. From now on, whatever mistakes I make, whatever dangers we face, the people shall know the truth—and the truth shall make them free. After eight years of secrecy and mendacity, here are some truths the people deserve to hear:
We remain essentially a nation under siege. The threat of another terrorist attack upon our homeland has not been reduced by all the new layers of porous bureaucracy that proved their ineptitude in New Orleans; nor by all the needless, mindless curbs on our personal liberties and privacy; nor by expensive new weaponry that is utterly useless in stopping a fanatic willing to blow himself up for his cause. Indeed, our vulnerability to another attack has only been worsened in the years since the attacks of September 11th—worsened by our government convincing more than 1 billion Muslims that we are prejudiced against their faith, dismissive of international law, and indifferent to the deaths of their innocent children; worsened by our failure to understand their culture or to provide a safe haven for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees displaced by a war we started; worsened by our failure to continue our indispensable role in the Middle East peace process.
We have adopted some of the most indefensible tactics of our enemies, including torture and indefinite detention.
We have degraded our military.
We have treated our most serious adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea, in the most juvenile manner—by giving them the silent treatment. In so doing, we have weakened, not strengthened, our bargaining position and our leadership.
At home, as health care costs have grown and coverage disappeared, we have done nothing but coddle the insurance, pharmaceutical, and health care industries that feed the problem.
As global warming worsens, we have done nothing but deny the obvious and give regulatory favors to polluters.
As growing economic inequality tarnishes our democracy, we have done nothing but carve out more tax breaks for the rich.
During these last several years, our nation has been bitterly divided and deceived by illicit actions in high places, by violations of federal, constitutional, and international law. I do not favor further widening the nation’s wounds, now or next year, through continuous investigations, indictments, and impeachments. I am confident that history will hold these malefactors accountable for their deeds, and the country will move on.
Instead, I shall seek a renewal of unity among all Americans, an unprecedented unity we will need for years to come in order to face unprecedented danger.
We will be safer from terrorist attack only when we have earned the respect of all other nations instead of their fear, respect for our values and not merely our weapons.
If I am elected president, my vow for this country can be summarized in one short, simple word: change. This November 2008 election—the first since 1952 in which neither the incumbent president’s nor the incumbent vice president’s name will appear on the national ballot, indeed the first since 1976 in which the name of neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush will appear on the national ballot—is destined to bring about the most profound change in the direction of this country since the election of 1932.
To meet the threats we face and restore our place of leadership in the free world, I pledge to do the following:
First, working with a representative Iraqi parliament, I shall set a timetable for an orderly, systematic redeployment and withdrawal of all our troops in Iraq, including the recall of all members of the National Guard to their primary responsibility of guarding our nation and its individual states.
Second, this redeployment shall be only the first step in a comprehensive regional economic and diplomatic stabilization plan for the entire Middle East, building a just and enduring peace between Israel and Palestine, halting the killing and maiming of innocent civilians on both sides, and establishing two independent sovereign states, each behind peacefully negotiated and mutually recognized borders.
Third, I shall as soon as possible transfer all inmates out of the Guantanamo Bay prison and close down that hideous symbol of injustice.
Fourth, I shall fly to New York City to pledge in person to the United Nations, in the September 2009 General Assembly, that the United States is returning to its role as a leader in international law, as a supporter of international tribunals, and as a full-fledged member of the United Nations which will pay its dues in full, on time, and without conditions, renouncing any American empire; that we shall work more intensively with other countries to eliminate global scourges, including AIDS, malaria, and other contagious diseases, massive refugee flows, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and that we will support the early dispatch of United Nations peacekeepers to halt the atrocities in Darfur. I shall make it clear that we do not covet the land of other countries for our military bases or the control of their natural resources for our factories. I shall make it clear that our country is not bound by any policies or pronouncements of my predecessor that violate international law or threaten international peace.
Fifth, I shall personally sign the Kyoto Protocol, and seek its ratification by the United States Senate, in order to stop global warming before it endangers all species on earth, including our own; and I shall call upon the Congress to take action dramatically reducing our nation’s reliance on the carbon fuels that are steadily contributing to the degradation of our environment.
Sixth, I shall demonstrate sufficient confidence in the strength of our values and the wisdom and skill of our diplomats to favor communications, negotiations, and full relations with every country on earth, including Cuba, North Korea, Palestine, and Iran.
Finally, I shall restore the constitutional right of habeas corpus, abolish the unconstitutional tapping of private phones, and once again show the world the traditional American values that distinguish us from those who attacked us on 9/11.
We need not renounce the use of conventional force. We will be ready to repel any clear and present danger that poses a genuine threat to our national security and survival. But it will be as a last resort, never a first; in cooperation with our allies, never alone; out of necessity, never by choice; proportionate, never heedless of civilian lives or international law; as the best alternative considered, never the only. We will always apply the same principles of collective security, prudent caution, and superior weaponry that enabled us to peacefully prevail in the long cold war against the Soviet Union. Above all, we shall wage no more unilateral, ill-planned, ill-considered, and ill-prepared invasions of foreign countries that pose no actual threat to our security. No more wars in which the American Congress is not told in advance and throughout their duration the true cost, consequences, and terms of commitment. No more wars waged by leaders blinded by ideology who have no legal basis to start them and no plan to end them. We shall oppose no peaceful religion or culture, insult or demonize no peace-minded foreign leader, and spare no effort in meeting those obligations of leadership and assistance that our comparative economic strength has thrust upon us. We shall listen, not lecture; learn, not threaten. We will enhance our safety by earning the respect of others and showing respect for them. In short, our foreign policy will rest on the traditional American values of restraint and empathy, not on military might.
In the final analysis, our nation cannot be secure around the world unless our citizens are secure at home—secure not only from external attack, but secure as well from the rising tide of national debt, secure from the financial and physical ravages of uninsured disease, secure from discrimination in our schools and neighborhoods, secure from the bitter unrest generated by a widening gap between our richest and poorest citizens. They are not secure in a country lacking reasonable limitations on the sale of handguns to criminals, the mentally disturbed, and prospective terrorists. And our citizens are not secure when some of their fellow citizens, loyal Islamic Americans, are made to feel they are the targets of hysteria or bigotry.
I believe in an America in which the fruits of productivity and prosperity are shared by all, by workers as well as owners, by those at the bottom as well as those at the top; an America in which the sacrifices required by national security are shared by all, by profiteers in the back offices as well as volunteers on the front lines.
In my administration, I shall restore balance and fairness to the national tax system. I shall level the playing field for organized labor. I shall end the unseemly favors to corporations that allow them to profit without competing, for it is through competition that we innovate, and it is through innovation that we raise the wages of our workers. It shames our nation that profits for corporations have soared even as wages for average Americans have fallen. It shames us still more that so many African American men must struggle to find jobs.
We will make sure that no American citizen, from the youngest child to the oldest retiree, and especially no returning serviceman or military veteran, will be denied fully funded medical care of the highest quality.
To pay for these domestic programs, my administration will make sure that subsidies and tax breaks go only to those who need them most, not those who need them least, and that we fund only those weapons systems we need to meet the threats of today and tomorrow, not those of yesterday.
The purpose of public office is to do good, not harm; to change lives, help lives, and save lives, not destroy them. I look upon the presidency not as an opportunity to rule, but as an opportunity to serve. I intend to serve all the people, regardless of party, race, region, or religion.
Let us all, here assembled in this hall, or watching at home, constitute ourselves, rededicate ourselves, as soldiers in a new army. Not an army of death and destruction, but a new army of voters and volunteers, in a new wave of workers for peace and justice at home and abroad, new missionaries for the moral rebirth of our country. I ask for every citizen’s help, not merely those who live in the red states or those who live in the blue states, but every citizen in every state. Although we may be called fools and dreamers, although we will find the going uphill, in the words of the poet: “Say not the struggle naught availeth.” We will change our country’s direction, and hand to the generation that follows a nation that is safer, cleaner, less divided, and less fearful than the nation we will inherit next January.
I’m told that John F. Kennedy was fond of quoting Archimedes, who explained the principle of the lever by declaring: “Give me a place to stand, and I can move the world.” My fellow Americans—here I stand. Come join me, and together we will move the world to a new era of a just and lasting peace.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Failure Of The Democrats To Live Up To Their Mandate, Plain And Simple
As Julianne notes, there are few great pundits left in the world of televised news. (And perhaps, I add, there weren't that many to begin with.) But, in the spirit of Murrow and the fictional but all too realistically mad-as-hell newsman from Network, this Keith fellow has his heart and tongue in exactly the right spot. You should watch the video or, if not, read the transcript. Many of us at Culture Project strongly agree with Keith's view that the Democrats had no task other than to extract America from Iraq, and by extension from all the corruption of Bushismology, and that any compromise on this point is a sort of betrayal. We await the day true power--the power to make change--in politics returns to those on the side of the irenic, the rational, the anti-imperial.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Survival of America's Democracy
Al Gore has a book coming out. It's called The Assault on Reason. You can read an excerpt here. It's an intensely thoughtful look at the current state of Democracy in America. What a different world it would be if the Senator had taken the reins on January 20, 2001. It's almost too painful to think about.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Lessons from The Exonerated
DNA evidence continues to land the guilty in the slammer (for better or for worse) and to set the innocent free (though often after years of incarceration). We applaud Governor Spitzer's foresight, determination, and plain good thinking regarding such evidence and its collection.
NYTimes, May 14, 2007, "New York Plan for DNA Data in Most Crimes," By PATRICK McGEEHAN:
NYTimes, May 14, 2007, "New York Plan for DNA Data in Most Crimes," By PATRICK McGEEHAN:
Gov. Eliot Spitzer is proposing a major expansion of New York’s database of DNA samples to include people convicted of most crimes, while making it easier for prisoners to use DNA to try to establish their innocence.
Currently, New York State collects DNA from those convicted of about half of all crimes, typically the most serious.
The governor’s proposal would order DNA taken from those found guilty of any misdemeanor, including minor drug offenses, harassment or unauthorized use of a credit card, according to a draft of his bill. It would not cover offenses considered violations, like disorderly conduct.
In expanding its database to include all felonies and misdemeanors, New York would be nearly alone, although a handful of states collect DNA from some defendants upon arrest, even before conviction.
Mr. Spitzer is also seeking mandatory sampling of all prisoners in the state, as well as all of those on parole, on probation or registered as sex offenders.
That expansion alone would add about 50,000 samples to the database, at a cost of about $1.75 million, his office said. It did not provide an estimate of the cost of taking DNA samples in all future convictions.
“This legislation will help us bring the guilty to justice and exonerate those who have been wrongly accused,” Mr. Spitzer said in a statement. He plans to introduce his bill this week.
The bill would make it easier for prisoners and defendants to obtain court orders to have their DNA tested against evidence collected in their cases and to have that evidence tested against the entire database of DNA, aides to the governor said.
It also would allow prisoners who have pleaded guilty to seek DNA testing that might prove them innocent, the aides said; some judges now decline such requests.
Police officials and prosecutors nationwide have trumpeted DNA collection as one of the most effective tools in law enforcement. New York’s database, for example, now contains almost 250,000 samples and has produced matches in almost 4,000 cases, according to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services.
At the same time, DNA has become a useful tool for defense lawyers whose clients proclaim their innocence long after their convictions.
According to the Innocence Project, a legal clinic affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University in Manhattan, DNA testing has led to the exoneration of 23 people in New York who had been convicted of crimes, and more than 200 nationwide.
By addressing concerns about access for the wrongly convicted, Mr. Spitzer may have a better chance of gaining support among state lawmakers for an expansion of DNA collection, said Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat who is chairman of the Codes Committee, which deals with criminal justice.
“I’ve always been in favor of the expansion of the database to all crimes, but I want these protections to be put in place so that there’s a balance between protecting the innocent as well as prosecuting the guilty,” Mr. Lentol said. “I think the governor is on the right track doing it this way.”
Mr. Lentol acknowledged that his support for DNA testing in all convictions was not in line with his colleagues in the Democratic majority in the Assembly, who have repeatedly blocked bills passed by the Republican-controlled State Senate that would have expanded DNA collection. The Senate passed such a bill again this month.
Charles Carrier, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, said he could not yet comment on Mr. Spitzer’s proposal.
He said that in the past, Assembly Democrats have been reluctant to approve wider DNA testing because of concerns about “the way evidence was cataloged and stored, handled and controlled and processed.”
Some civil liberties groups oppose broader collection of DNA samples, out of concerns about how they might be used beyond the justice system.
“Because DNA, unlike fingerprints, provides an enormous amount of personal information, burgeoning government DNA databases pose a serious threat to privacy,” said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “They must include strict protections to assure that DNA is collected and used only for legitimate law enforcement purposes, such as exonerating the innocent or convicting the guilty.”
John McArdle, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, said that Mr. Bruno had not seen the governor’s bill and would not comment on it until he had.
But Mr. McArdle said that Mr. Bruno supported the expansion of DNA collection to the perpetrators of all crimes, as well as another proposal Mr. Spitzer has included in his bill: giving prosecutors up to five more years to bring charges in cases where DNA evidence has been collected but not yet matched to a particular person.
New York has had a DNA database since 2000. Originally, it included samples from people convicted of sex offenses and only certain felonies.
But it has been expanded twice in the last three years to include all felonies and some misdemeanors, aides to the governor said.
Still, only about 46 percent of people convicted of crimes in the state are required to submit to the collection of a DNA sample, which now is usually done by swabbing the inside of the mouth.
Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat in his first year as governor, is not the first political leader in the state to call for such an expansion. His predecessor, George E. Pataki, a Republican, pushed for an “all crimes” bill.
Last year, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a Republican, also campaigned for the testing of everyone who is convicted, saying that murderers and rapists also commit petty crimes and that mandatory DNA collection could lead to their convictions for the more serious offenses.
But Mr. Spitzer is wrapping his proposal for expanding the database together with ideas that are more likely to appeal to those who believe many defendants are wrongly convicted.
He is seeking to require that prosecutors notify the court if they learn that there may be DNA evidence that could exonerate a prisoner. Currently, state law does not obligate prosecutors to volunteer that information, a lawyer in the governor’s office said.
Mr. Spitzer’s proposal also calls for the creation of a state office that would be responsible for studying all cases that resulted in exonerations and looking for flaws in the system that led to those wrongful convictions. That office would not be an independent body, often referred to as an “innocence commission,” but a part of the Division of Criminal Justice Services.
Assemblyman Michael N. Gianaris, a Queens Democrat, is sponsoring a bill to create an “innocence commission,” which is part of a package of legislation relating to DNA testing that was introduced this month. The package includes a bill proposed by Mr. Lentol that would expand prisoners’ access to the DNA database.
Barry Scheck, the co-director of the Innocence Project, said that many of the people his organization had helped to exonerate would have been freed much sooner, or would not have been convicted at all, if the changes sought by Mr. Lentol and his colleagues had been in place.
Mr. Scheck and his co-director, Peter Neufeld, were not prepared to comment on Mr. Spitzer’s bill.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
We should just draft him.
Everyone wants Gore. Chris Rock endorsed him on "Saturday Night Live" a couple of weeks ago. I endorse him every chance I get. Now the Republican Mayor of New York City has seen the light:
“I hope Al Gore enters the race; I think it would be good for the country,” the mayor said.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Oh. My. God.
This is Michelle Malkin. Neocon who believed in (and wrote the book defending) the Japanese internment. This is simply....... amazing.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Overt Memetic Warfare
Well, the witches don't believe in you, Mr. President.
(Neither do Luminists such as myself, for that matter.)
In any event, we are heartened by the news that America's fastest-growing religion (don't believe Scientology's reports on itself, but look into CUNY's recent study of American faiths, and into this amazing book), Wicca, is now grave-safe, according to our ethics-meting G.I. spokespersons. Bravo, USofA. Bravo.
From the Times,"Use of Wiccan Symbol on Veterans’ Headstones Is Approved," by NEELA BANERJEE:
(Neither do Luminists such as myself, for that matter.)
In any event, we are heartened by the news that America's fastest-growing religion (don't believe Scientology's reports on itself, but look into CUNY's recent study of American faiths, and into this amazing book), Wicca, is now grave-safe, according to our ethics-meting G.I. spokespersons. Bravo, USofA. Bravo.
From the Times,"Use of Wiccan Symbol on Veterans’ Headstones Is Approved," by NEELA BANERJEE:
WASHINGTON, April 23 — To settle a lawsuit, the Department of Veterans Affairs has agreed to add the Wiccan pentacle to a list of approved religious symbols that it will engrave on veterans’ headstones.
The settlement, which was reached on Friday, was announced on Monday by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the plaintiffs in the case...
It normally takes a few months for a petition by a faith group to win the department’s approval, but the effort on behalf of the Wiccan symbol took about 10 years and a lawsuit, said Richard B. Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United.
The group attributed the delay to religious discrimination. Many Americans do not consider Wicca a religion, or hold the mistaken belief that Wiccans are devil worshipers.
“The Wiccan families we represented were in no way asking for special treatment,” the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said at a news conference Monday...
There are 1,800 Wiccans in the armed forces, according to a Pentagon survey cited in the suit, and Wiccans have their faith mentioned in official handbooks for military chaplains and noted on their dog tags...
In reviewing 30,000 pages of documents from Veterans Affairs, Americans United said, it found e-mail and memorandums referring to negative comments President Bush made about Wicca in an interview with “Good Morning America” in 1999, when he was governor of Texas. The interview had to do with a controversy at the time about Wiccan soldiers’ being allowed to worship at Fort Hood, Tex.
“I don’t think witchcraft is a religion,” Mr. Bush said at the time, according to a transcript. “I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made...”
“I was just aghast that someone who would fight for their country and die for their country would not get the symbol he wanted on his gravestone,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which litigates many First Amendment cases. “It’s just overt religious discrimination.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
