Hearings on Bush's Crimes Will Unite Nation By David Swanson

[Demeter]

OpEdNews.com

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_061130_hearings_on_bush_s_c.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 30, 2006

Hearings on Bush's Crimes Will Unite Nation



By David Swanson

An astonishing 44 percent of Americans do not want President Bush impeached (Newsweek), 36 percent approve of the job he's doing (AP-Ipsos), 33 percent support the Iraq War (CNN). What, you may ask, is the matter with these people? Well, primarily this: they get their news by watching television and occasionally glancing at a magazine or newspaper. They don't know the things you know if you listen to progressive radio or search out news on the internet or read the ends of articles that begin on page 18.

What could change their minds? Well, picture this. Close your eyes and imagine it, and I think you will find it truly beautiful: for months the celebrity stories and corporate video news releases and pseudo-journalistic sycophants who saturate American living rooms with the stench of apathy and satisfaction will be displaced. In their stead will be an endless dramatic parade of the overwhelming evidence of crimes and abuses of power committed by Bush, Cheney, and their immediate subordinates. Picture heated interrogations and recitation of evidence all morning, followed by endless commentary and chatter all afternoon. For months. Picture every man, woman, and child in America knowing in intimate detail the Downing Street Memos, the purpose of Cheney's energy meetings, the unconstitutionality of signing statements, and the history of habeas corpus from 1215 to 2006. OK, maybe not the whole history of habeas corpus, but what it is and who took it away.

What you're picturing is a shift of political power that will make the recent election look like a warm-up. What you're picturing is the key to passing legislation that will not be vetoed or signing statemented. What you are picturing is impeachment by Spring. And what can make it happen are Congressional "investigations."

I put "investigations" in quotation marks because the primary purpose of these "investigations" will be to communicate what is already public knowledge to the third of the public that's never heard of it. Much more may be uncovered, but no more is needed to completely remake American politics if people are only informed of it..... MORE!

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

Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.

[Mark E. Smith]

1. Pure Poetry

[HereSince1628]

2. We can at least dream...

Of course this is a reasonable scenario-if-the investigations actually take place. But you know that Cheney is going to have the DOJ and the justices of the USSC as a firewall. It'll take until next year this time just to get compliance with some of the subpoenaes. Don't you think?

[mom cat]

9. Depends a lot on John Conyers and he looks well organized to me.

He is like a steam rolled with the key in the ignition and his foot on the gas. We must keep pressuring ALL of our representatives to support him. Even some of the Republicans can be approached with the truth that they are history if they do not distance themselves from the cancer ous administration.

[petgoat]

14. Non-compliance may take up time, but it can be part of the story.

Then the story gets to be "Why won't the FBI let agents talk
about their frustrations in trying to convey warnings of the
upcoming attacks." "Why won't the CIA let Larry Mitchell
talk about his meeting with Osama in Dubai two months before
9/11? What are they trying to hide?" "Why can't the DoD tell
us whether or not the Mohammed Atta they trained to fly was the
same guy as the alleged 9/11 hijacker?"

[conscious evolution]

21. Cheney stonewalling won't work

Conyers,Waxman,Leahy and others already have the evidence needed to destroy cheney.It's now just a matter of presenting it to the American people.
I have a feeling it might never get to the impeachment stage.Cheney will be forced to resign.

[Catchawave]

3. Nice article, thanks for posting....

He's right. If one only reads the local paper and watches network news, you get nothing, nada, zilch for information. Unless it's a sexytime story about a congressman.

I prefer investigations rather than impeachment, I think the public will learn the truth better that way.

[KoKo]

4. I wonder if anyone but C-Span will even cover more than snips...We have

to hope.

[cascadiance]

5. I think this is about intelligence and will of the Democrats...

If they plot their strategy correctly, and they have the will and courage to take the appropriate risks at times when needed to get these investigations done and make their end game plan getting these guys out of office, I think it can happen. But I think it starts there.

Now, I don't want them going in half cocked and not give a serious effort of planning to maximize the chances of conviction, which I've debated with other posters on other threads who think we should go for the throat right now.

As this article aptly points out, we still haven't made the case to the people that can apply more pressure to the Senators we still need votes from in the Senate. Some of these investigations will be rehashing and more formally presenting the evidence many of us already know, but will hopefully reach a wider audience. Some of the evidence will be newer evidence that has been held back from us through the lack of effort of oversight either from our judiciary (overuse of State Secrets Privilege to block court cases) or our legislative branch (no investigations). That will take a little time, but there will be a point in the coming months where we've maximized that information flow to the public and what we can realistically get from untapped sources. That will be the time to pull the gloves off and serve impeachment articles! It can happen, but we need to be dillgent now at pushing our congress critters to doing the appropriate investigations. Encourage folks like Waxman and Conyers to stand more out from the crowd and tell those folks that we got their back for them if they get criticized by those that are gutless.

I still remember that when I cam home from high school in the 70's not being able to watch TV unless I wanted to watch Watergate Hearings. In those days, we didn't have the mound of cable/satellite channels, videos or video games that we could alternatively get distracted with. We either had to put on the cassette/phonograph music we had, or go outside to do something else for fun if we wanted to avoid hearing about Watergate. We were a lot more of a captive audience then. We really need to force the media's hand this time in more creative ways to get those not tuned in to get interested. That is the challenge this time around. And the corporate media isn't going to lead the way unless we indicate that's the way that they will make money if they do do what we want.

[Senator]

6. "Impeachment Hearings" will succeed, while "investigations" will fail

Because there really is nothing to "investigate" when it comes to Geneva violations and illegal spying. The regime admits and "defends" these clearly impeachable offenses -- in direct contradiction to rulings by the USSC and the FISA court. An emperor doesn't get more naked than this. The "investigations" question is whether to hold "impeachment hearings" or "open-ended fact-finding hearings" on specific matters (that may or may not lead to impeachment charges).

Doing the former (while not even "required") could well be helpful to bringing more of the public (already a majority) and even Republicans back into the reality-based community where impeachment is imperative to defend the Constitution and begin to Redeem Our National Soul.

Doing the latter displays weakness and sends the message that there is some uncertainty about the ongoing reality that is staring us in the face. That is why the "off the table" comment is so damaging. It is a self-defeating prophesy regardless of whether or not there's some "strategery" behind it. If you don't broach the accusation, you garner zero attention or moral support for the activity.

(Oh, and since we're strategerizing, only one of these options GETS ON TV. The other remains on page A26 twice a week, until something non-somnambulistic happens -- or a "Worse Than 9/11" event makes it all a waste of time and effort.)

The public is already way ahead of the LieberDem "leadership" on this. Only 44% oppose because they're not being totally gaslighted by the DC/Euphemedia Wurlitzer. And 1/4 of that "opposition" are Dems following their craven "leadership." The rest don't need to be "educated," they just need to see action.

The public already knows that the never-elected, never-legitimate regime is the biggest obstacle to improvement in any situation, foreign or domestic. If the DC Dems ever screw up the will to fulfill their oaths of office, the bulk of the remaining public will be offered the black and white choice they want (need). Support for impeachment will reach 70% nearly overnight. All that remains is to pull the trigger.

But inaction has its own risks. If the LieberDems fail to act, they'll rightly (and permanently) be perceived to be too weak to fight for our nation or to stand up to special interests. It may already be too late, as the "off the table" comment was a slap in the face to a cautiously-hopeful electorate and a finally-energized Dem Party base.

Sadly, many continue to Rationalize This Inaction.

If they don't "get it" that this was about "get bush" and not about "get your faded wish list filled" it will be their last fleeting hurrah, as Rove is already claiming. And they may eventually "get it" another way as they become actively complicit with the ongoing war crimes themselves.

As for what we can do, "Violence" is Still the Answer.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

===

[cascadiance]

7. For the record, I didn't like the "off the table" description either...

I know I've had discussions with you on other threads. I think there are a lot we really agree upon. I DO think there's a lot of evidence already out there, though not formally presented yet. And from many of our perspectives, it should be enough to convict him with too. But you and I are the choir. We need to get those that will persuade those 16 Republicans to join with ALL of the Democrats and independents in voting for impeachment.

Right now, it is mostly about doing a sales job. Something we are currently behind the eight ball with with a late start.

The mainstream media won't help us without being sold to sell it to those that aren't well informed yet on these issues.

The Republicans we need in a conviction need to be SOLD that it is in their best interests to impeach.

Some of these Democrats need to be sold too that they aren't overstepping the line. If anything, even if it is just for show and is done quickly, some "investigations" (named such) might be enough for those Democrats in more battleground districts to come on board, as once those "investigations" are in place, they then have in place the excuse to come over to impeachment side and not seem to inconsistent with their earlier "hesitant statements" about having "impeachment off the table". They aren't going to totally switch gears at the drop of a hat because you want them to. I'm all for applying pressure, and perhaps ask for more up front than what you likely will get (which is perhaps what you are doing), as a negotiating ploy. But we have to recognize that realistically, we still have a big sales job to make sure that everyone else sees and agrees that there is evidence to impeach and convict them.

Part of that is making available what is known to these folks. Part of it is trying to find even more compelling information to erase doubts of those that aren't as certain as we are, even if we're convinced that there is already a slam dunk case from our perspective.

Now there might be some of the more "corporate" Democrats that are intractable, because their "money bosses" are telling them to not do the impeachment and they know where they get their power from with the current system in place. Those I'm all for joining you in making their life hell. The DLC, if involved in any such arm twisting, needs to be told to kiss off if they want ANY support for their "Democrats" in coming elections.

[PATRICK]

8. I mentioned before the "two other tables"

One being the national consciousness domain permanently fogged over by MSM gas machines. The other being the hapless captive GOP shackled to the Bush dynasty makeover show. The former could "force" the hands of legislative process, the latter legitimize bi-partisanship. The GOP hopefully will be in no position to bargain away full disclosure(at least)for resignations and an acceptable placekeeping substitute for Cheney a la Ford since alone they likely have zero influence on forcing out their fearless leaders.

The optimistic tone of the writer is probably not going to be brought to a test, forcing the media to glut themselves on real news for a change. The purpose of investigations is to restore the nature and work of Congress and advance inexorably to accomplish this public perception. With disarray, Rove in the doghouse and other internecine chaos inside the administration, it would seem this could be prudent and possible. Had it not been for GOP self mutilation this caution in the last election might have been disastrous. Our continued slow march through the present WH pudding between the stuttering crossfire of MSM obstacles is possible.

It is more hair-raising for sustained anxiety over a longer period of time. A rush to impeachment might prove all this stoic slowness a miscalculation. Both might work, either or neither. the point is of course the real anxiety is in gaging our own defenders of the Constitution. As with so many other vital issues, say election tampering just to name one, where are they, what are their thoughts, and what in God's name do they think they are doing by ignoring it? Every time one thought of leaving it to the professionals, those babies on the doormat starved to death. there were no devilish strategies. Bush foes went down like ten pins or exhibited strange fear of looking bad on Nightline.

People and groups must continue to lobby strongly and with real intelligence(so as not to get fixed into a niche) for immediate impeachment and release of information. The media has to be bombarded with the job they refuse to do and stopped in the propaganda for El Residente that occupies their every thought. This might speed the turtle process- if the turtles even think they ARE moving in that direction. The only people in the country sure this is the devilish plan of Dems are RW delusionists.

The point of this is true. IF the populace is informed the table is set for carved turkey. Getting behind the Dems and shoving them toward THAT goal is the fuzzy headed area that should not be in doubt.
The justification that the bad behavior of the impeachment GOP over marital infidelity of Clinton means the Dems dare not remove a mad dictator to save the nation is lunacy. But in getting from point A to point B we don't even have assurance that any Dems INTEND ever to get to point B in the first place. And for too many we know it is more off the table than what Pelosi intended.

[bvar22]

10. Impeachment without investigations will fail.

YOU already KNOW that the Bush* admn and the NeoCons are criminals, and can probably cite several LAWS that have been violated. Much of DU can do likewise. Most of America cannot.

The INVESTIGATIONS are necessary to present the compiled evidence, Chapter & Verse, to the American People in a clear, limited, and simple to understand way focusing on SPECIFIC Crimes. Once this is done, and presented to the American People on a 5th Grade level, the PEOPLE will demand Impeachment, NOT the Democratic Party.

At THAT point, the Democratic Party will simply be doing the Will of the People. The Democratic Party is playing this SMART by "Taking Impeachment Off the Table". (What does that really mean?)

Going for impeachment before compiling an AIRTIGHT case that can be presented to the PEOPLE would alienate many, and would be presented by the MEDIA as blind partisanship and vindictiveness.

First things First, and Keep It SIMPLE.

*Investigate

*Collect and Organize the Evidence

*Compile Testimony (Under Oath)(Everyone on same page)

*Limit to Specific Crimes (Sharp Point)

*Convene Grand Jury

*Indict

*THEN start Impeachment Hearings

Once the head has been cut off, go after the rest of the criminals like a Pit Bull, especially EVERYONE who has Profited from this Criminal War and Cheney's "Energy Policy".


My only fear at this point is that the Democratic Party Power Brokers will close ranks with the Republic Party Power Brokers to Protect their Money Machine, like they did after Clinton was elected, and let the RICH, WHITE Criminals off the hook.

[Senator]

13. No, it's past that -- Courts have already ruled -- USSC, FISA, et. al.

And "most Americans" already know, and disapprove, and want impeachment as a priority.

An investigation does not "present the compiled evidence." An Impeachment Hearing does that.

As for what the "off the table" statement "really means," it means what it says. It means no impeachment. It echoes Feingold's statement that impeachable offenses have been committed but impeachment should not happen.

Yes, this sounds like lunacy everywhere except inside the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy. But that's their "position." There is no secret strategy. No clever maneuvering. No cargo plane on the way to bring us what we need. Simply dereliction of their duty -- easily rationalizable at Georgetown cocktail parties.

The rest of your post about grand juries, indictments, etc just misconstrues impeachment. It is entirely a political process. Nothing "legal" is required and the courts have already ruled.

You are correct to keep it simple.

The Dems can impeach at the first opportunity or they can become complicit with the ongoing war crimes and torture.

It doesn't get much simpler.

----

[bvar22]

16. Please cite examples.....

You say that the Supreme Court, and the Fisa Court have issued rulings that George Bush* is guilty of High Crimes and misdemeanors. Please list these verdicts.

(BTW, FISA does not find anyone guilty of anything. They merely approve search warrants.)


You say:
"An investigation does not "present the compiled evidence." An Impeachment Hearing does that."

NO. An investigation COMPILES and ORGANIZES the evidence. The evidence is PRESENTED during an impeachment. You MUST have the evidence BEFORE the impeachment. Just because you know bush did something wrong is not grounds for impeachment.

If done properly, the American People will demand impeachment as a result of the investigations.
Done improperly without an airtight case as a result of investigations, evidence, testimony, and indictments, an impeachment WILL become a directionless witch hunt that will alienate many.
SEE: The impeachment of Bill Clinton

[Senator]

18. As I said, you misconstrue impeachment...

...as some kind of legal proceeding -- requiring evidence, grand juries, and/or verdicts. It is not so in any way. An act becomes a high crime or misdemeanor on the day an article of impeachment passes by a majority vote in the House. And even then no one is "guilty" of anything. They are "formally accused" by the American People through their representatives in the House.

Yes, those courts have ruled. The USSC ruled in Hamdan that Geneva protections apply to "unlawful combatants" (i.e., 3 years of war crimes have already been committed by denying those protections) and the FISA court ruled in 2002 that warrantless wiretaps are not lawful evidence in their court. The Geneva violations are ongoing at Gitmo and the regime has not complied with FISA court ruling. And 2 other federal courts have since ruled against the lawfulness of their continued spying actions.

The "evidence" is already compiled and organized. In fact the regime admits to the actions. There is nothing to "prove." Either to the Senate in a trial or to the public.

There is no need for an "airtight case," because no one is trying to let the air out. This is a Naked Emporer making a public power grab. He'll either succeed or be impeached.

They simply claim their acts are neither unlawful nor impeachable. They claim "inherent" authority from the Constitution and they claim "authorization" from Congress's approval of the "use of force" regarding Iraq. (They do not explain why they would need authorization if they already had inherent authority -- or vice versa.)

You are free to agree with the bush regime that these acts are not impeachable offenses. And there is no court or authority other than the Congress that can determine them "legally" to be so, unless and until Articles of Impeachment are presented in the House.

But there is nothing "directionless" about these charges and nothing left to be "found out" in any investigation.


---

[datadiva]

11. I have a dream! n/t

[cassiepriam]

12. We shall see. Unless there are lots of sex crimes the public

will not be too interested.

[Independent_Liberal]

17. Oh there are some sex crimes for sure.

I mean, there's Foley, Gannon, Hookergate, those Republicans having sex in Abramoff's Safe Houses, child prostitution rings and sex predator operations in the Northern Marianas, etc. Should definitely keep the public busy. :)

[cassiepriam]

19. If the sex scandals are a part of the ethics issues, then it is a go...

the public will stay tuned for sure...

[progressoid]

15. He must be smokin some good shit.

[leveymg]

20. Before the Watergate hearings, less than half of the American people thought

thought Nixon should be removed - 37/55, afterwards it was about sixty percent. But, the public never quite caught up with the Congressional Joint Committee, which voted to refer the matter by far more than the 2/3 majority required.

Congress was ahead of the American people on this. That's when our Senators and Representatives were real leaders, and willing to take chances to do the right thing.