Bush’s Cohorts indicted and Forced to Resign

Rachel Maddow lists all the Bush’s cohorts who have already been forced to resigned or who have been indicted. It’s a long list and it’s only the beginning, Bush is going to try and pardon most.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Advertisements

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

The Legal Framework for the Prosecution

That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution. -Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765

No living Homo sapiens is above the law. -(Notwithstanding our good friends and legal ancestors across the water, this is a fact that requires no citation.)

With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I’ve been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for “the little guy”), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain’s run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I’m giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That’s almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That’s just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he’d still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.

Let’s look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush’s cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about “the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war.” Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn’t Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?

Al Franken on the David Letterman show said, “Bush lied to us to take us to war” and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying “Bush lied to us in his budget.”

Senator Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that “Bush’s distortions misled Congress in its war vote” and “No President of the United States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war.” But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what? Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual sexual affair. What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more than 100,000 deaths? Nothing? He shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions? If one were to listen to you talk, that is the only conclusion one could come to. But why, Senator Kennedy, do you, like everyone else, want to give Bush this complete free ride?

The New York Times, in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, “the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/ 11, . . . inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans.” But gentlemen, if this is so, then what? The New York Times didn’t say, just going on, like everyone else, to the next paragraph, talking about something else.

In a November 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that “the president and his top advisers . . . did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It’s obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein’s weapons and his terrorist connections.” But if it’s “obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans” in taking them to a war that tens of thousands of people have paid for with their lives, now what? No punishment? If not, under what theory? Again, you’re just going to go on to the next paragraph?

I’m not going to go on to the next unrelated paragraph.

In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush “intentionally misled” the nation to promote a war in Iraq. A December 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush’s position on global warming or immigration. Didn’t the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One would never know this by reading the article.

If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren’t speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.

On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it ten times that “someone should put a bullet in his head.” That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty.

Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting — that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom — many have argued that “Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes” (mostly for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. But for all intents and purposes this cannot be done.

*Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction.

**Indeed, Bush himself, ironically, would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life (“Please don’t kill me,” Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis “Scooter” Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers.

In Bush’s two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom only killed one single person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of. Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper. So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Bush’s perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order governors.

The above is an excerpt from the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi Published by Vanguard Press; May 2008;$26.95US/$28.95CAN; 978-159315-481-3
Copyright © 2008 Vincent Bugliosi

On the edge of a long night

By Charlie Reese

By Charlie Reese

Have you ever wondered how human beings can be so cruel? And how cruelty crosses all the bound­aries — national, racial and ethnic? I have. Rereading an autobiog­raphy published in 1941 by a communist agent re­minded me of the dark side of human nature.

The book, “Out of the Night,” was written -under the pseudonym “Jan Valtin” — by a Ger­man who lived through the chaos of the collapse of the Weimar Republic ~ and the rise of Nazism. Broken by Gestapo torture, he ended up being pursued by both the Nazi and the communist man hunters and killers. Murders by these two forms of so­cialism are measured in the mil­lions during the 20th century. That alone should warn all people off any form of collectivism, because all of those millions, in the minds of their killers, were sacrificed “for the greater good.” They — flesh-and-blood individual human beings — were all murdered in the name of an abstraction, a stupid theory of how society should be organized. I doubt if the head thugs on both sides actually believed the theories. What they really believed in was power over their fellow man.

If you look at the French Revolu­tion and the Bolshevik Revolution, the message is clear: Intellectuals and the common people can pro­duce a blood bath. Latching on to some “ism” for justification, their greed for power and de­sire for revenge can run amok. Butchering women and children be­cause they were born into the “wrong” class is surely insane.

In our time, when peo­ple are saying we must sacrifice liberty for secu­rity, that scrapping the Constitution is necessary to win the “war” against terrorism, I would suggest “that you take your choice of genocides in the past 100 years and remind yourself what happens when people buy into the false proposition that the end justifies the means. People who preach that are always more interested in the means than in any end.

The only safe environment for a human being is under a weak gov­ernment with very restricted pow­ers. Normal people don’t need much to be happy — food, shelter, dignity and freedom from maraud­ers. They need a rule of law that ap­plies to everyone equally and at all times and in all circumstances. In established societies, legislators should meet rarely—perhaps once every two or three years—because a continuing cascade of new laws will eventually drown freedom.

The Founding Fathers, whether through luck, wisdom or divine guidance, gave us an almost perfect form of government, and we’ve been busy ever since trying to take it apart. Human beings are .danger­ous predators and cannot be trusted with power over their fellows. Many Americans have forgotten that the power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun. Governments coerce; they don’t persuade.

There are people living among us at this very moment capable of the cruelty so evident in the Holocaust All they are waiting for is the op­portunity. No greater opportunity exists than when a government en­lists such people and says whatever you do is now justified for the sake of the “greater good.”

Who would have guessed that George W Bush, who seemed to be a genial good old boy, would turn out to be a tyrant, launching wars of aggres­sion, arresting and confining people without charges or access to a lawyer, condoning torture and lying to the American people? A government that can without trial destroy you by sim­ply putting on a list your name or the name of an organization with which you are associated is a tyranny. A government that invades other countries and that feels free to murder people in any country it chooses is a tyranny.

Americans are on the edge of a long night. We had better wake up and step back before it’s too late.

Impeachment Now or Apocalypse Later?

By Bernard Weiner

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

The political noose seems to be tightening on the key members of the remaining miscreants down in the White House bunker — mainly Bush, Cheney, Rice, Addington and Mukasey. (Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Powell and Tenet were pushed out the door earlier.) But will the Democrats, having been provided with smoking gun-type evidence of these officials’ high crimes and misdemeanors, take the next logical step to end this continuing nightmare of law-breaking at the highest levels? Consider:

TORTURE AUTHORIZED FROM ON HIGH

After eight years, the multiple examples of ethical and felonious crimes of the Bush Administration are now abundantly clear and beyond rational dispute. Most compelling among them is the crime of authorizing torture as state policy.

In recent days, we’ve learned that Geoge W. Bush signed orders authorizing torture, ( click here ) and admitted that he approved of ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/blog/2008/04/14/BL2008041401428.html ) the deliberations by his National Security Council’s Principals Committee on the torture regime being set up for a few high-value prisoners. (Which, of course, filtered down to how thousands of suspected terrorists were maltreated.)

Bush has conceded that his Principals (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Powell, Tenet) kept him apprised of their deliberations on which suspected terrorists would undergo which forms of torture, according to ABC News’ recent blockbuster story. (
click here )

The meetings of the Principals, according to ABC, took place in early 2002 at least four months before the Administration’s famous Bybee/Yoo memos were issued that retroactively sought to provide legal justification for the torture. (Short version of those memoranda: The President is above all U.S. laws and international treaties.)

During those Principals’ meetings, Dick Cheney was a driving force behind the use of “harsh interrogations” of the prisoners in U.S. care. Other members were more worried about what they were doing. In the ABC story, according to a top official, John Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

Condoleezza Rice, then National Security Advisor, aggressively chaired the Principals’ torture meetings. Despite some occasional misgivings voiced by Ashcroft and Colin Powell about the “enhanced interrogation” techniques being employed, Rice told the CIA: “This is your baby. Go do it.” ( click here )

TRYING TO MAKE TORTURE “LEGAL”

Torture, as commonly understood and defined, is illegal under both U.S. law and international treaties that American governments have ratified over the decades. Bush&Co. had to come up with a way to torture suspects but not to appear to be doing so. Here’s how it worked: Officials felt they could honestly assert that the Administration didn’t approve of or authorize torture because under the new definition supplied in the Bybee/Yoo memos, it was torture only if the prisoners were near-death or their internal organs were about to fail as a result of their treatment. In other words, the Administration simply made everything else legal: beatings, near-drownings, electroshocks to the genitals, stress positions, sexual abuse, etc. Only if the interrogators killed the prisoners or were thisclose to doing so would they have crossed over the line. See my “Control the Dictionary, Control the World.” ( http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6w/dictionary.htm )

It turns out that David Addington, Cheney’s then-Legal Counsel who has since replaced Scooter Libby as Cheney’s chief of staff, was at the locus of the cockamamie reasoning behind both the Bybee/Yoo torture memos and the “unitary executive” theory of governance. The latter asserts that the President is in charge of basically everything governmental and can’t be touched; further, the Bybee/Yoo memos assert, the President cannot be second-guessed when he claims to be acting as “commander in chief” during “wartime.”

Of course, there has been no Congressional Declaration of War, as the Constitution requires; the “war” — at an estimated cost of several trillions(!) of dollars — is the “War on Terror,” which, since it’s being waged against a tactic, can never be completely won and thus is never-ending. In short, the President, under this asserted legal cover, can act more or less as a dictator forever, including declaring martial law whenever he deems an “emergency” situation prevails. (Suppose, for example, the ballot-counting books are cooked in November and the Democratic candidate once again has a victory stolen away. There could be mass protests, perhaps even riots, in the streets. A potential “civic emergency” right there.)

MUKASEY’S FALSE TESTIMONY

Michael Mukasey, who promised he would be an independent Attorney General, has turned out to be just as much of a lackey for the Administration as his predecessor Alberto Gonzales. Mukasey seems to feel, as Gonzales did, that he doesn’t work for the public but is there to ensure that his bosses stay out of jail. (Interesting side-note: Barack Obama says that, if elected, he would ask his attorney general to investigate whether Bush and Cheney might have committed indictable crimes while in office. ( http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041508B.shtml )

But what really got Mukasey into hot water in recent days was his assertion that the U.S. knew that a terrorist in Afghanistan was calling someone inside the U.S. prior to the 9/11 attack but the supposedly “outdated” FISA laws wouldn’t permit the Administration to tap that phone call and thus prevent the 9/11 events from happening. Mukasey was using that fallacious argument in 2008 as a scare reason for why the Bush Administration needed Congressional re-authorization immediately of the NSA’s domestic-spying program, complete with built-in amnesty for the big telecom companies working in cahoots with the Administration.

But Mukasey’s explanation is total B.S.

As Glenn Greenwald ( http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/18/mukasey/print.html ) and others have made clear, under then-existing FISA law the Bush Administration could have eavesdropped on the pre-9/11 call and didn’t really need any more draconian spying programs. (Mukasey has since tried to tapdance away from having misled Congress.)

The whole object of the Bush Administration, in this and every other matter, has been to amass total control of information and intelligence in the White House, cutting out the courts (in this case, specifically the FISA Court) and Congress. They want full freedom to operate outside the law, with nobody — no judges, no legislators, no media reporters — looking over their shoulders at what they might be up to, and telling them what they can or cannot do. It’s possible that at least one aim of the domestic-spying programs is to learn from secret phone-taps and emails what their political enemies are thinking.

THINGS ON AND OFF THE TABLE

OK, so Cheney, Bush, Rice, Mukasey, Addington (and no doubt others not quite as prominent) are dirty, involved in activities beyond and outside the law. In other words, they have engaged, and are still engaged, in high crimes and misdemeanors. What’s to be done? (www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1485/135 )

There’s more than enough documented evidence to justify, at the very least, an impeachment hearing in the House. Potentially, if the committee voted to go forward, there could well be enough support to convict in the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans worried about their electoral chances in 2008.

But nothing can happen unless or until the majority Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate make the collective decision to begin the impeachment process with hearings in the House Judiciary Committee.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers are sticking to their guns that impeachment is “off the table.”

THEIR REASONS FOR AVOIDING ACTION

Let’s examine the main reasons why the Congressional Democratic leaders refuse to budge from this policy, and how they might be made to change their minds. Their arguments appear to rest on four basic premises:

1. Breaking the impeachment cycle. The Democrats moved to impeach Republican President Richard Nixon (who resigned before the Senate could try him), then the Republicans impeached Democratic President Bill Clinton and tried him in the Senate (not for treason or malfeasance in office but for lying about a sexual dalliance. He was acquitted). Putting Cheney and Bush on trial in the Senate, according to this reasoning, might be seen as tit-for-tat partisan vengeance.

In this argument, the impeachment option is being over-used for political reasons and risks becoming cyclical each time one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House.

A Democrat may win the Presidency in 2008. Unless the impeachment cycle is broken now, this reasoning goes, a future Democratic President might become the object of a vendetta by forces of the Republican rightwing, anxious for some payback.

2. Impeachment would hamper getting essential Congressional business done. The Democratic leadership says that preparing and conducting impeachment hearings would use up all the political oxygen and energy in Congress, making it virtually impossible to deal legislatively with important matters.

The question is whether the Democrats are having any success right now dealing with these important legislative matters. Looking at the situation realistically, it’s obvious that not much essential business is being conducted, let alone completed.

The Republicans filibuster, or threaten to, at which point the Dems back off their legislation; if a bill by the Democratic majority does manage to sneak through, Bush either vetoes it or issues a “signing statement” saying he won’t obey the new law. Virtually all matters of import are being postponed until after the new President is installed next January.

3. Why rock the boat? Why risk the opprobium of Independent and moderate-Republican voters in November, who might think the Democrats are “piling on” for partisan, electoral reasons, and thus decide to vote for the Republican nominee?

The Democratic leadership’s argument goes: “Look, the Republicans are on the ropes as a result of this incompetent, corrupt, greedy, war-mongering Administration. As a result, we’re well positioned to enlarge our electoral gains in the House and the Senate, maybe to the point of being able to prevent obstructionist Republicans from filibustering needed legislation. And we may well take back the White House. So why rock the boat?

“Let’s just last out CheneyBush’s final months in office [the Dem argument continues]. Since we know that this unpopular pair will continue to earn the disdain and anger of the American public by continuing their extremist ways until Inauguration Day in January, it’s better they remain in office rather than risk firing-up GOP-base passions during the election campaign by putting Bush and Cheney in the impeachment dock. Besides, if we impeached them, the public’s focus would fasten on Bush and Cheney rather than on the Republican nominee and the dangers of a possible McCain presidency.”

In short, the American people, this reasoning goes, want to quickly move away from thinking about the godawful CheneyBush Administration of the past eight years and head to a more optimistic, hopeful future.

4. The fear of being slimed. The Democrats don’t want to be accused of being “unpatriotic” by putting a “wartime” President into the impeachment dock. Even though Bush is the most unpopular president in history, and though more than three-quarters of American citizens think under his leadership the country is “on the wrong track,” the Democrats, anxious for a re-election sweep in the House and Senate, remain terrified of Rovian-type Swiftboating smears that could possibly cost them some votes in November and in the 2010 midterm election.

Realizing that the Bushistas still control the mainstream, corporate-owned media, and thus have all sorts of TV/radio/newspaper organizations that could dump on them big time, the Democrats continue to roll over and make nice to the shrinking but noisy Republican base and their TV/radio pundits. In other words, the Dems are perennial wimps and haven’t yet figured out how best to confront the smash-mouth, take-no-prisoners politics of Rove & Co.

I strongly disagree with these four rationales for inaction, but at least I can understand where they’re coming from. But the Democrats, especially their leaders, are simply ignoring some essential arguments.

REBUTTAL: WHY NOT IMPEACHMENT?

1. Nine months is a longnnnnnnnnnnnnng time. Between now and January 2009, a full nine months from now, CheneyBush are capable of doing a hell of a lot of further damage to the body politic, to the economy, to the Constitution, to the reputation of the U.S. abroad, to the armed forces, to the “enemy” countries in their crosshairs. The propaganda campaign being catapulted against Iran, for example, is nearly a carbon copy of what took place before the U.S. bombed, invaded and occupied Iraq. The neo-cons in the Administration, especially Cheney and Bush, are salivating at the prospect of an enormous air assault on Iran’s military establishment and laboratories, have positioned attack forces near and around Iran, and are ready to rumble. All they need is an acceptable causus belli.

A cornered CheneyBush&Co. down in the bunker may decide, what the hell, to unleash the dogs of war again, even though their two previous unleashings have been disasters. Iraq is a catastrophic quagmire of epic proportions, and a somewhat ignored Afghanistan is heating up again with the Taliban re-asserting control of larger and larger portions of the country.

In addition, John McCain is making it clear that he will be continuing the Administration’s foreign and domestic policies if he were to win in November. He’s said it would be fine for America to stay in Iraq for a hundred years or more, he’s indicated that he’s quite amenable (maybe even eager) to “bomb, bomb, bomb” Iran, he won’t do much to help deal with the consequences of global warming, he has little to offer in the way of solutions for the financial mess the country is in — we’re talking a possible foreign policy/economic/environmental apocalypse here!

2. The danger of a green light. Impeachment is an important and necessary step Americans can take to rein in an out-of-control administration that is endangering the country’s national security with its reckless, extreme misadventures.

Taking the possibility of impeachment “off the table” is to fight the CheneyBush Administration with one hand tied behind the back. Bush&Co. have demonstrated over the past eight years that they understand, and respond to, only one thing: countervailing power that refuses to give in. The ultimate effective weapon in the Legislative Branch’s arsenal is the fear of impeachment and conviction and removal from power, to be followed either by “war crimes” charges internationally and felony and civil-suit prosecutions inside the U.S.

Absent the possibility of impeachment, Cheney and Bush feel they have a green light to do whatever they wish in the time remaining of their tenure. Waxman and Leahy can try to humiliate and embarrass them in their Congresssional one-day hearings, but they will face no real accountability or punishment for their actions. So why not continue the corruption, attack Iran, appoint more ideologues to the courts and into high administrative positions, postpone any global-warming solutions, etc. etc.?

3. The precedent of respecting the law. Whenever leaders are not punished for their unethical policies or criminal misdeeds, the rule of law suffers. Impeachment is mentioned numerous times in the Constitution as the legal and required remedy for extreme misrule. It’s the last option for citizens, through their legislators, to discipline errant leaders.

If the Congress does not impeach this president and vice president, who have nearly taken the country down as a result of their reckless, dangerous, incompetent, authoritarian behavior, then the rule of law stands for nothing. And future elected leaders can legitimately believe that they more or less can also get away with anything they wish to do.

Putting Cheney and Bush into the impeachment dock is to assert the primacy of the rule of law under our system of governance, and would serve as a clear warning shot across the bow of future presidents.

4. Force CheneyBush to play defense. There is one other advantage to initiating impeachment hearings ASAP for Bush and Cheney. The Bush&Co. juggernaut is most effective when on the offensive and their opponents are put on the defensive. The Bushistas don’t like, and don’t do well, when they’re forced to play defense. Tying them up in defending themselves in impeachment hearings and/or impeachment trials might well prevent them from doing more mischief before they give up the reins of power. (Many Republicans were convinced they would never convict Bill Clinton in the Senate but figured the trial was worth doing anyway because it would hog-tie Clinton’s agenda for the rest of his presidency — and they were correct.)

A final side-benefit ( http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/32869 ) of impeaching Bush and Cheney: John McCain would find himself on the campaign trail being forced to take positions on torture and signing statements at the heart of the impeachment hearings, and, more often than not, would wind up either defending those unpopular policies or promising never to repeat them.

WILL THE DEMS SURPRISE US ALL?

Will the Congressional Democratic leaders change their attitude toward impeachment?

I think the answer is a clear No unless their constituencies loudly and unwaveringly tell them they have to or risk the consequences at the ballot box, or in the possible establishment of a new, grassroots-engendered party after the November election that will demonstrate the courage and passion for ethical and reality-based government that is so lacking in today’s timid, Bush-enabling Democratic Party.

That, unfortunately, is where we are politically in the Spring of 2008. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor at the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). To comment: crisispapers@comcast.net .

First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 4/22/08.
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays8w/apocalypse.htm

Copyright 2008 by Bernard Weiner.

Authors Website: http://www.crisispapers.org

Authors Bio: Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). ..

911 FOREKNOWLEDGE

THE WHITE TEXT ARE HYPERLINKS, CLICK ON IT.The Bush administration had foreknowledge of 911 and did nothing to stop it, the Israel MOSSAD actually assisted the Arabs (UNBEKNOWNST TO THEM) in bringing down the Twin Towers (the owner of which just happens to be Jewish) by planting the explosives that brought down the towers, the implosion. Cheney was put into command of NORAD; the first time in history a non-military ran NORAD. Bush is on tape saying that just before he went into that classroom to read to the kids he watched the first plane hit the tower! THERE WAS NO COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING THE TOWER UNTIL THE NEXT DAY, UNLESS BUSH HAD HIS OWN PRIVATE TAPING OF THEIR HEINOUS CRIME. The towers had many floors that were vacant and that had activity continually for two months going on before their downfall. Anyone who has ever been in a skyrise knows that there are all kinds of service entrances, elevators, and workplaces for the maintenance people; these are the facilities the MOSSAD used in order to plant the thermite that brought down the towers. THERE ARE NUMEROUS WITNESSES WHO HEARD THE INDIVIDUAL EXPLOSIONS THAT BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS. The day of 911 the media was spoon fed the news releases of the day and the people that fed them the feeds actually screwed up. It is on tape when Building 7 was brought down that there are newscasters saying it has collapsed when you can see it still standing in their background coverage! The Jew who owned the Towers is on tape telling them to pull it on building 7, something that can’t be done instantly, implosions take months to plan and implement. WHO WOULD BENEFIT THE MOST FROM OUR DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST? THE ISRAELIS AND THE OIL COMPANIES! OVER 6700 AMERICANS HAVE DIED SO FAR, HOW LONG DO YOU WANT IT TO CONTINUE? TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK NOW! IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH FOR HIGH TREASON! THEN TERM LIMITS AND SHITCAN LOBBYISTS!

In the time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act!

–George Orwell

The people involved with this site are NOT radicals, are NOT nuts, are NOT liberals, are NOT Democrats, are NOT Republicans, they ARE AMERICANS who didn’t believe most of what is on this site, UNTIL they discovered for themselves, be brave LEARN FOR YOURSELF! The gist of this website is to show how the Bushes (and OTHERS), through the auspices of the CIA and the Military-Industrial Complex have been orchestrating diabolical events around the world and in our country in order to promote their agenda of World Domination through Corporate rule, creating an oligarchy, while dismantling our Democracy. Some of these planned events were the Assassination of John Kennedy (44 years ago) and 911 (Sept 1, 2001). There is no Kennedy Curse, except the curse of the Bush family who have systemically removed any potential Kennedy who might prove to be a threat to their plans. Beware, anyone who would have a voice for the people, you are treading on dangerous water. THE EVIDENCE IS HERE, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TO TAKE THE TIME TO EXAMINE IT AND ACT!!

How the U.S. won the WAR, AND LOST THE PEACE

The United States and it’s allies were successful in winning the second World War by organizing a huge industrial-military complex that, along with our brave men and women of the Nation were able to eventually defeat the War Machine of Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. Unfortunately the by product of this Great Victory was the creation of an immense military-industrial complex that showed the business entrepreneurs the profitability of major conflicts in the world. They reaped huge fortunes in such short periods of time, more money than they ever thought possible. More money that could be made during the course of normal business operations over twenty years! So when the peace began it was apparent to them that they were not going to making the huge sums of money that they had been, so they set about on coming up with ideas to promote more conflicts that would result in their continuing to prosper as they had during the course of the war. A conflict closer to home would definitely be more profitable, what better place than a little island ninety miles off the shore of Florida! But how could we justify the invasion of Cuba to the American people? Project NorthWood.

He wanted to fit in, in much the same way a handicapped person tries to fit in, be just a regular guy, his was a large family that traveled a great deal. They really were quite well off, not wanting for anything. At supper time the family would gather round the table and discuss the daily news, offering different points of views, not always their own, but for argument sake only. And sometimes the conversations would turn boisterous and argumentative, but at the end of the meal each of them would return to their endeavors, none the less for wear, for expressing their points of view and discovering how father and mother reacted to them. His schooling was both domestic and abroad, and after completion, he set about upon writing a Pulitzer’s prize winning book, that outlined the lives of ordinary but extraordinary individuals. On the one hand they were ordinary in that they achieved status by the usual methods, but they were extraordinary by standing by their principles that were not shared, at the time, by the majority, yet were fundamentals that our country was built upon. These were principles that he believed in and was striving to fulfill within his own life; then he was gone.

She was a beautiful little 4 year old reddish-blond hair girl. Her Daddy was a slightly older man and her mommy was vibrant and full of life anticipating their coming vacation with her best friend. Young daughter and mother had been on numerous shopping sprees to get all the necessities for their upcoming vacation, after all, California was a far cry from Connecticut, as far as their wardrobe was concerned, and needless to say, their swim suits had to definitely be upgraded! Mommy and her best friends were always economizing when possible and wanted to use their frequent flier miles, so they went on separate planes; then they were gone.

The eyes in the shadow view world events as money making opportunities to profit from and to manipulate to increase their profits and long range goals. They have absolutely no regard for anyone or anything. When people’s hatred ignite independently of their influence they are happy, and if it’s not quite what they want or to the extent to what they want, they step in. People who get in the way are eliminated and the rest are used as pawns in their grand scheme of things.

excepts from the forthcoming book, “EYES IN THE SHADOW” By Liberty Gregory

ETHNOCENTRISM

Remember that word! The German people after WWI were in dire need, they were forced to make reparations to the Victors of the War and the Great Depression was beginning. Adolf Hitler, a little know member of the Nazi party had tried to overthrow the government and had been sentenced to nine months in prison, during which time he wrote, Mein Kemp. After being released from prison he realized that trying to overthrow the DEMOCRATIC government of Germany by violent means would not be possible without the help of the military and that was not going to happen. So he formulated the plan to join the political machine and take over the country from the inside. “…Instead of working to achieve power by an armed coup we shall have to hold our noses and enter the Reich-stag against the Catholic and Marxist deputies. If outvoting them takes longer than out-shooting them, at least the results will be guaranteed by their own Constitution! Any lawful process is slow. But sooner or later we shall have a majority – and after that Germany.” – Hitler stated while in prison.

Things got somewhat better because of big business from the United States that had granted loans to Germany and had gotten their reprerations lowered, so many Germans became content with the status-quo. While this was going on the Nazi organization became so big that it organized itself into a National organization that would run the country when the Democracy was dissolved.

Cutting to the chase, Hitler and the Nazi party took power through the electoral process and soon began to dismantle the democracy. Here’s where the word Ethnocentrism comes into play, most Germans were content, they had elected the Nazis into power and the Great Germany of years past was once again on it’s way to becoming the greatest country in the World! Some had heard rumors of the Jewish death camps, but surely that couldn’t be true, after all, theirs country would never be involved in anything like that, no those were lies that misfits and poor losers were spreading. Remember the media is in the control of the Nazi party. The country is building up it’s war machine and the economy becomes robust. What a great future! We know how this story comes out, so when you read the entries further down, don’t lose sight of the word, ethnocentrism and what it can hid.

BLACK HEARTED BASTARDS

Those individuals who conspired to kill and killed President Kennedy, had to be such BLACK HEARTED BASTARDS, TO HAVE KILL A MAN IN HIS WIFE’S ARMS, inches away from her own head, the cruelest of individuals, who had no qualms about doing something so dastardly. They felt they were immune from justice (they may well have been), but they don’t need be today. For any who conspired who are still alive today, America must demand that the National Archives be opened immediately, before the rest of the evidence is tampered with, it may be too late, we can only hope. Why keep this information under wraps unless it is to preserve the continuing conspiracy of our shadow government, and the black hearted bastards who run it?

1. Understand

Understand that nations have public persona; some are totalitarian, some democracies, and others, in-between. There is however, a sometimes secret, and or, not so secret underbelly that each government has, that usually stays out of public view, it raises it’s ugly head to orchestrate dastardly deeds, and then hides in the shadows, our eyes in the shadow government.

2. Unraveling The Truth

I was 13 when John F Kennedy was assassinated, mostly in my own little world that is typical of 13 year olds. I had watched my Mother get involved the the election of 1960 that put Mr. Kennedy in office and my mother’s enthusiasm was contagious. Staying up most of the night, when I was ten, watching the election returns, we were holding our breath because the election was so close. Sometime after the election but before John took office, President Eisenhower gave his farewell address and I remember President Eisenhower giving some kind of warning to us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. At the time I had no idea what on earth he was talking about! Reading my Weekly Reader in grade school. every so often an article would appear with respect to President Eisenhower (while he was still in office) and it seemed to me that it felt old and not very exciting. But when John took office the news of the Nation and the world was so much more invigorating, we were alive as a people, we were going places, we had all sorts of adventures to explore. 

President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

President Eisenhower warns us of things to come, he probably never guessed this dark, hideous behavior would manifest itself so quickly.