War Is Hell!

While My Guitar Gently Weeps

2010-09-11T00:03:00.000-07:00

Eric Clapton & Friends - White Room

2010-09-10T23:58:00.000-07:00

Cream - Sunshine Of Your Love (Live 1968)

2010-09-10T23:52:00.000-07:00

Cream - Tales of Brave Ulysses LIVE!

2010-09-10T23:45:00.000-07:00

YouTube - The Emperor's Clothes (Invincible)

2010-09-09T08:35:00.000-07:00

YouTube - The Emperor's Clothes (Invincible)

The Emperor's Clothes (Detroit, San Francisco, Palestine, 4 mins)
Directed by Maha Bazzy and Wesley Taylor
Score by K-Salaam and Beatnick
Footage by Vanessa Huang and Al Jazeera Creative Commons Depository
Poster artwork by Melanie Cervantes, Faviana Rodriguez, and Jesus Barraza
Produced by EMERGENCE

http://emergencetravel.net/
http://emergencemusic.net/

In January 2009, Israel launched an assault on the Gaza Strip, causing massive damage to civilian infrastructure, killing more than 1,300 Palestinians and wounding 5,300. Israel has held Gaza under siege, controlling the borders, air and water space, preventing even the most basic humanitarian goods from entering.

The Emperors Clothes is a call to action. One of the most effective strategies we can pursue right now is boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns (http://bdsmovement.net/)against Israel, as we demand an end to Israel's 60-plus years of occupation and war on Palestinian life.

Viddler.com - Collapse ! Part One - Uploaded by josephwouk

2010-09-07T21:07:00.000-07:00

Viddler.com - Collapse ! Part One - Uploaded by josephwouk I have no way of assuring you that the bleak version of the future outlined by Michael Ruppert in Chris Smith's "Collapse" is accurate. I can only tell you I have a pretty good built-in B.S. detector, and its needle never bounced off zero while I watched this film. There is controversy over Ruppert, and he has many critics. But one simple fact at the center of his argument is obviously true, and it terrifies me. http://collapsenet.com/

Movie Review: NFLer and U.S. Army Soldier Pat Tillman's Real Story Told - Salem-News.Com

2010-09-05T15:55:00.000-07:00

Movie Review: NFLer and U.S. Army Soldier Pat Tillman's Real Story Told - Salem-News.Com

The Tillman Story Sets the Record Straight - Page 1 - Movies - New York - Village Voice

2010-09-05T15:54:00.000-07:00

The Tillman Story Sets the Record Straight - Page 1 - Movies - New York - Village Voice

t r u t h o u t | Slick Operator: The BP I've Known Too Well

2010-05-05T14:16:00.000-07:00

t r u t h o u t | Slick Operator: The BP I've Known Too Well

Afghan Peace Activist Malalai Joya Speaks on “Crisis and Resistance”

2009-11-13T11:37:00.000-08:00

Malalai Joya is one of Afghanistan’s leading democracy activists. In 2005, she became the youngest person ever elected to the Afghan parliament. She was suspended in 2007 for her denunciation of warlords and their cronies in government. She has just written her memoir, “A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Woman Who Dared to Speak Out.”

She spoke in New York at the Northeast Socialist Conference on October 23, 2009.

2009-09-16T16:10:00.000-07:00

"Hey there,

Have you seen the media reports that the crazy hecklers who equate insurance reform with Socialism and death panels and call our first African-American president all kinds of names are getting their way by killing the public option? Well that's not the whole story.

The public option is alive and well with the support of over 70% of Americans, powerful members of the House and tons of opinion leaders. The only place the public option is in danger, is in the US Senate.

I just told my Senators that reform won't wait for the crazy people - and that they should get behind the Public Option and real healthcare reform or get out of the way. Can you do the same thing?

This website makes it really easy:
http://act.truemajorityaction.org/t/120/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=35"

The VoiceAmerica™ Talk Radio Network - VoiceAmerica Variety

2009-09-16T15:21:00.000-07:00

The VoiceAmerica™ Talk Radio Network - VoiceAmerica Variety: "Waking Up in America
Go beyond rhetoric and tune into America’s premiere experts; scientists, athletes, celebrities and world leaders in public and spiritual realms as they discuss the issues of today. A veteran interviewer, Dr. Kirkgaard brings you knowledgeable, entertaining and unpredictable guests like Deepak Chopra, Jean Houston, John Denver and US Ambassador for Nuclear Disarmament Thomas Graham. No matter what happens, Dr. Kirkgaard keeps her cool and shows you a side of her guests that you've never More »"

Hearing on Limits of Executive Power: Vincent Bugliosi

2008-08-01T20:14:00.000-07:00

Impeach Bush For Peace » Feedburner

2008-07-31T22:38:00.000-07:00

Impeach Bush For Peace » Feedburner
Watch it HERE

Rep. Wexler responds to AG's refusal to enforce contempt

2008-04-05T04:41:00.000-07:00

How Many Child Prostitutes Is Bush Responsible for?

2008-03-19T02:09:00.000-07:00

How Many Child Prostitutes Is Bush Responsible for?

By Bob Fertik Democrats.com. Posted March 18, 2008.
March 18, 2008 George Bush has been tied to a prostitution ring involving as many as 50,000 women and girls. The prostitutes, some as young as 13, are among the 1.2 million desperate Iraqis who fled to Syria after Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the U.K. Independent.
Bush's invasion destroyed the Iraqi government and unleashed a wave of political and sectarian violence that has killed over 1 million Iraqis and forced 4 million to become refugees, according to the UN.
Facing starvation, as many as 50,000 women and girls have been forced into prostitution in Syria alone, according to Hana Ibrahim of the Women's Will Association.
"70 percent to 80 percent of the girls working this business in Damascus today are Iraqis," 23-year-old Abeer told the New York Times. "The rents here in Syria are too expensive for their families. If they go back to Iraq they'll be slaughtered, and this is the only work available."
According to the Times, "inexpensive Iraqi prostitutes have helped to make Syria a popular destination for sex tourists from wealthier countries in the Middle East. In the club's parking lot, nearly half of the cars had Saudi license plates."
Driving women and girls into prostitution violates numerous human rights agreements, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children. George Bush himself denounced sex trafficking at the United Nations in 2003.
Bush's invasion of a country that posed no threat to the U.S. was illegal under both U.S. and international law, according to legal experts. Bush has been convicted of war crimes by citizen tribunals around the world, including New York, Paris, Tokyo, and Istanbul. Just las week, the towns of Brattleboro and Marlboro Vermont voted to indict and arrest Bush and Cheney.
In 2002 and 2003, Bush led a propaganda campaign to defraud Congress, the American people, and key allies into believing Iraq was a threat. Bush claimed Iraq had stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to use against the U.S., and was sharing them with Al Qaeda.
Speaking near Rochester NY, Bush later admitted, "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
According to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity, top Bush Administration officials told at least 935 lies about Iraq on 532 separate occasions. These included 259 lies by Bush, 254 lies by Secretary of State Colin Powell, 109 lies by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 109 lies by Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, 56 lies by National Security Advisor Condi Rice, and 48 lies by Vice President Cheney.
The lies about Iraqi WMD's were manufactured by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which included the most senior White House staff: White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, Condi Rice, Stephen Hadley, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Jim Wilkinson, Nick Calio, Michael Gerson, and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby.
After the invasion, 1,400 experts in the Iraq Survey Group scoured Iraq for WMD's but found none. Charles Duelfer wrote the ISG's final report in September 2004 and concluded Iraq ended its WMD program in 1991.
This publicly confirmed what the CIA had privately known since 1995, when Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel, defected to Jordan and told the CIA he had personally overseen the complete destruction of Iraq's WMD after 1991 Gulf War.
In May 2005, the Times of London published the "Downing Street Memo " which revealed Bush's pre-war intelligence was a deliberate fraud, according to Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's MI6 spy agency, who met with George Tenet in July 2002. "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq, Dearlove told a secret meeting of Tony Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002, eight months before Bush invaded Iraq.
This publication of the "Downing Street Memo" led to widespread calls for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. John Conyers and other Democrats held preliminary impeachment hearings in the basement of the Capitol on June 16, 2005. In 2006, Conyers published his explosive findings in "George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying."
In 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced three Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney for his role in the Iraq War lies. Kucinich's bill, H.Res. 333, has 26 co-sponsors.
more: www.alternet.org/waroniraq/79770/?page=entire

Democracy Now! | Winter Soldier: Hundreds of Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Gather to Testify in Echo of 1971 Vietnam Hearings

2008-03-15T05:20:00.000-07:00

Democracy Now! Winter Soldier: Hundreds of Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Gather to Testify in Echo of 1971 Vietnam Hearings: "Winter Soldier: Hundreds of Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Gather to Testify in Echo of 1971 Vietnam Hearings"
Hundreds of veterans and active-duty soldiers of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are gathering today for the Winter Soldier hearings. The soldiers plan to give eyewitness accounts of the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Organized by Iraq Veterans Against the War, the gathering is modeled after the 1971 Winter Solider hearings organized by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. [includes rush transcript]

Why Dennis Kucinich Still Matters - AlterNet: Election 2008

2008-02-29T18:08:00.000-08:00

Why Dennis Kucinich Still Matters - AlterNet: Election 2008
By Deborah Emin, Huffington Post. Posted February 29, 2008.

Dennis Kucinich does not treat politics like a popularity contest. He is a voice for the people and ideas that we need to repair this country

Several months ago I wrote an article that appeared on the Huffington Post called "Why Not Dennis?" and received an email from his campaign staff to thank me for the posting and for the sentiments expressed in the article. They also offered me work and I took it, gladly.
Now after spending several months thinking about and writing about the things that Kucinich ran on, we are looking at the choice we are left with between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee in the Democratic twosome ready and able, they assure us, to get to work on the first day in office. Well, I sure hope so or else why bother even getting into the race? I listened on the radio to their debate from Cleveland last night, the home of Dennis and Elizabeth Kucinich and where an awful fight is going on in the primary for Dennis' seat in Congress. He is up against a man who doesn't live in his district and is supported by the same moneyed interests that have always been opposed to Dennis because of his stand against them. Fair is fair, if you are not with us you are against us. But there are reasons on both sides and what gets lost in all these debates are the reasons for things.
While Hillary and Barack were going after each other about the ways in which they had campaigned against each other, one of the comments Barack made struck me. While defending his campaign's use of a smear against Hillary in his campaign literature, he said that this is the way he has learned things are done in a campaign and therefore it was okay for him to do it too. Oh really? Is that so? First of all, that no one called him on this blatantly disingenuous statement and that he is just given this free pass to say the most insipid things as if he had come here from Mars and never been involved in politics before this run for the presidency is just a laugh we should all share together because we can.
read more

JOIN WEXLER"S CALL FOR CHENEY HEARINGS

2008-02-09T17:38:00.000-08:00

JOIN WEXLER"S CALL FOR CHENEY HEARINGS

The charges are too serious to ignore. There is credible evidence that the Vice President abused the power of his office, and not only brought us into an unneccesary war but violated the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to hold impeachment hearings.
CLICK HERE to watch the Video and Join!

Randi Rhodes interview of Wexler regarding WexlerWantsHearings.com

2008-02-09T17:22:00.000-08:00

Randi Rhodes interview of Wexler regarding WexlerWantsHearings.com

Randi Rhodes interview of Wexler regarding WexlerWantsHearings.com
as well as the op-ed, and the media (non)response

Congressman Wexler spoke with Randi Rhodes Friday, December 14, on Air America Radio. Thank you to Randi and her producers for having Robert on.

CLICK HERE to listen

2008-02-04T11:11:00.001-08:00

HAVE A COOKIE

2008-01-31T05:10:00.000-08:00

Kucinich2008

2008-01-29T19:38:00.000-08:00

Battling big media to be heard in the debates. Breaking the silence on Democracy Now! Fighting for ballot access in Texas with a little help from music legend Willie Nelson. All that and an interview with Academy Award-nominee James Cromwell in this week's Kucinich Campaign Update -- your first source for news and information about Dennis Kucinich's race to the White House!

Help us fight Censorship and win the fight against Corporate controlled media, pass this video on to friends and family!
Click Favorite and Add us to your playlist. Together, we can make our own media and get Dennis Kucinich's message of not-for-profit healthcare, an immediate end to the Iraq War, ending U.S. involvement in NAFTA and the WTO, fixing the disasterous U.S. economy and banning Torture in all of it's forms.

Together, we can make a difference!

Kucinich for President, we will overcome!

Wexler delivers names to Congress

2008-01-29T01:06:00.000-08:00

Formally calls for impeachment hearings.

Last night, Congressman Wexler took the House floor, calling for hearings on Rep. Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Dick Cheney.

To watch the video, please click play on the player below.

The murdering of the Kucinich campaign

2008-01-28T02:56:00.000-08:00

The murdering of the Kucinich campaign
By Jack Balkwill
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jan 28, 2008, 00:48

Email this article
Printer friendly page

The Dennis Kucinich campaign was destroyed by the corporate media for trying to represent the public interest.

At the start of his campaign, corporate media did not cover Kucinich because he refused to take the bribes. The transnational investors who own corporate media, or represent its interests on corporate boards, or advertise in it for control, do not trust anyone to be president who does not take the bribes.

So at the start of our modern presidential campaigns, all of the talk is about who raised the most cash from transnational investors who don’t give a damn about this country or its people.

Next, corporate media cited the lack of campaign funding for Kucinich as the reason they did not cover him. “Hillary has more money from the nuclear mafia and Medical industrial complex than any other candidate” they recognized, “so we have to give her tens of millions of dollars of free coverage.” Same for all of the corporate CEOs; Clinton, Edwards, Obama.

All that free publicity for the CEOs moved their polling numbers up until, voila, corporate media could exclude Kucinich because he was not as well known. Finally, they simply refused to let him into the debates.

When Kucinich was allowed into debates and got brief chances to speak, the audiences went wild. It was a rare time when a candidate spoke to their issues, the public interest. This forced other Democrats to move toward Kucinich positions, at least in rhetoric, to win audience share.

Polling tells us that most Americans want cuts to that which euphemistically passes for “defense” spending, a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and a single-payer health care plan, as Kucinich advocates. The CEOs are all on the other side of these and many other of Kucinich’s issues, the only viewpoint corporate media allow.

So they had to kill the campaign from fear of a second opinion rising up to smite them with an outbreak of democracy. Ironically, on the day he announced, all of the mass media broadcast that he withdrew from the race. These are the same corporate media outlets which rarely let a whisper of his existence be known prior to this, except for an occasional slur from one of their talking heads.

It is probably best for Dennis that he does this. Corporate media had so blacked out the campaign anyhow that he was no longer influencing the message of CEOs Clinton, Edwards and Obama. More importantly, his Ohio congressional seat is being challenged and he needs to spend time working to keep the seat in order to provide a rare progressive voice in Congress.

The whole election process is rigged against the public interest in every important way. As an old man, I have watched this happen, with great frustration, for decades, feeling helpless.

When Kucinich declared his candidacy, I noticed attacks on him from everywhere, including the left, so I wrote a piece supporting him and published it at Online Journal, showing why it might be a good idea to send the campaign a few bucks.

Dennis’s wife Elizabeth posted the article on her web site, and I remember feeling that it was pathetic that the campaign couldn’t get help from someone more famous than a guy who has a name nobody can pronounce or spell.

In the piece I said it was important to have a candidate to bite at the heels of those promoted by corporate media as the frontrunners. He would force the frontrunners to accept his positions or lose the audiences, and Dennis did this so well that corporate media finally took him entirely out of the debates for fear the CEOs might consider exchanging corporate interests for public interests.

The American people don’t know what they’ve lost, because most are watching sitcoms as directed, zombie-like, learning from corporate news media that they should want a candidate who is for “change,” without any details of what this means.

Now that Kucinich is gone, platform particulars are unimportant. The CEO peace programs are Orwellian war programs, their health care is run lock stock and barrel by the same corporations that will run Republican health care, and they may drown in the campaign contributions they are given to toe the line.

The Kucinich campaign was a diamond shining briefly in the shit which passes for an election season here in the Land of the Free. Idealism just had a dagger plunged through its beautiful heart.

Jack Balkwill has written for publications as varied as the little-read English Honor Society’s Rectangle to the millions of readers USA Today. He does the web site Liberty Underground of Virginia (LUV). He can be reached at libertyuv@hotmail.com.

Breaking the Sound Barrier: Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him

2008-01-19T18:08:00.000-08:00

Breaking the Sound Barrier: Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich was missing from the stage at last night’s Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC in Las Vegas after he lost a last-minute legal fight with the network over his participation. Last week, NBC told Kucinich that he had met the criteria for the debate. Then, less than two days later, the network changed the criteria and declared that Kucinich was no longer qualified. On Monday, a Nevada judge ordered NBC to include Kucinich, but then NBC appealed the ruling and actively fought to keep him off the stage. On Tuesday night, less than an hour before the debate, the Nevada Supreme Court sided with NBC. Democracy Now! decided to break the sound barrier and give Kucinich a chance to take part. In an exclusive broadcast, we re-broadcast excerpts of the debate and give the Ohio Congressman a chance to answer the questions he might have faced if he hadn’t been silenced. more

A Conversation With Dennis Kucinich

2008-01-16T15:26:00.000-08:00

A Conversation With Dennis Kucinich

http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20080106_a_conversation_with_dennis_kucinich/

Posted on Jan 6, 2008

By Chris Hedges

This interview, originally published by The Philadelphia Inquirer, was conducted Dec. 19 in the Washington office of the Ohio Democrat.

The office is spare, with two sagging leather chairs, a brown leather couch and a desk. There are framed pictures of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the wall over the couch, all with accompanying quotes. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is on his poster-sized portrait. Kucinich keeps a white cloth from the Dalai Lama in his office. He has a bust of Gandhi and a picture representing “conscious light”—a gift from Brahma Kumaris nuns, as well as a Tibetan dragon washbowl. On his desk are two heavy crucifixes once worn by Catholic nuns who taught him; he says the nuns “saved my life.” Outside his office door in the small reception area are framed letters of support from George McGovern, Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey.

Chris Hedges: Why has the Democratic Party not done what it should do?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Lack of commitment to Democratic principles. No understanding of the period of history we’re in. Failure to appreciate the necessity of the coequality of Congress. Unwillingness to assert Congressional authority in key areas which makes the people’s House paramount to protecting democracy. The institutionalized influence of corporate America through the Democratic leadership council. Those are just a few.

Hedges: Have we evolved into a corporate state?

Kucinich: I Look at it as the political equivalent of genetic engineering. That we’ve taken the gene of corporate America and shot it into both political parties. So they both now are growing with that essence within. So what does that mean? It means oil runs our politics. Corrupt Wall Street interests run our politics. Insurance companies run our politics. Arms manufacturers run our politics. And the public interest is being strangled. Fulfilling the practical aspirations of people should be our mission. How do we measure up to providing people with jobs? It was a Democratic president that made it possible for NAFTA to be passed, causing millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs that help support the middle class. ...

NAFTA, GAT, the WTO, China Trade, and every other trade agreement that’s passed in Congress has been passed with the help of either the leadership of or with the help of the Democratic Party, knowing that each and every one of those agreements was devoid of protections for workers, knowing that if you don’t have workers’ rights put into a trade agreement then workers here in the United States are going to see their own bargaining position undermined because corporations can move jobs out of the country to places where workers don’t have any rights. They don’t have the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike. So what I see is that the Democratic Party abandoned working people, and paradoxically they’re the ones who hoist the flag of workers every two and four years only to engender excitement, and then to turn around and abandon their constituency. This is now on the level of a practiced ritual. At least a biannual ceremony, or every two years. So you can see how pernicious this becomes when the minimum wage increase was tied to funding the war. That, to me, says it all. Because it is inevitably the sons and daughters of working Americans that are the ones who are led to slaughter. Aspirations for health care.

So what I’ve done in my campaign is to advocate a full-employment economy. How do you do that? A new WPA-type program. We’ll rebuild America’s bridges, water systems, sewer systems, our libraries, our universities, our mass transit systems. And we do that with a program that I introduced legislation in repeated Congresses with the cosponsorship of a Republican from Ohio by the name of Steven LaTourette and the bill, HR 3400, provides for rebuilding America’s infrastructure. And I would put millions of people back to work in good-paying jobs. I would put millions more back to work in new energy policies where we would design, engineer, manufacture, install and maintain wind and solar microtechnologies which would be retrofitted into tens of millions of American homes and businesses, driving down our carbon footprint and dramatically reducing our cost of energy. This would be a major development in America to take us away from a condition where America is leading the way towards the destruction of our global climate. I call this part of it the WG: a Works Green Administration, where we turn government into an engine of sustainability, where the whole government becomes about moving towards green. The transportation plan, mass transit, housing and development—it’s about green housing, solar, natural lighting, using recycled material, the energy department stops incentivizing coal and oil and nuclear, and moves toward incentivizing wind and solar, bringing forward a whole generation of entrepreneurs just waiting to get into green energy solutions.

NAFTA becomes about the development of these new technologies at the alpha stage and then licensing them to the beta stage to encourage that entrepreneurial spirit. I mean we could create millions of jobs to prime the pump of the economy—that’s the way I think about this. Prime the pump of the economy, get people back to work rebuilding America and creating a transition economy and making us more green in all of our policies. Agriculture, for example: Bring back the concept of parity, work for sustainable practices in agriculture and help protect small farmers, get their products to market, get their price, get a fair price, protect them with local markets, help organic farmers. I could go through every department, and that’s what Works Green is about.

Addressing the practical aspirations of people, you’re looking for jobs, how to create jobs, how to create movement in the economy that benefits people. And our party just swings around the edges and always makes deals with the idea of protecting the status quo, which is war.

Hedges: Because the working class has suffered so grievously, why is it that the only mass movement essentially comes from the right, let’s say the Christian Right, in terms of grassroots level? Why aren’t we seeing a period like the 1930s, where there is a real kind of outrage on the part of the working class?

Kucinich: I think it’ll get to that but it’s not there yet. First of all, Eric Hoffer ... understood the power of dogmatism, in terms of mobilizing people. But one can come from a position of love and compassion in being able to mobilize people as well. On higher principles, not along the narrow path that some on the right have chosen.

Hedges: The corporations control the process of communication. I mean you just got shut out of a [Dec. 13] debate—

Kucinich: Yeah, right.

Hedges:—courtesy of Gannett—

Kucinich: Right, exactly.

Hedges:—and Ralph [Nader] talks a lot about how he believes that corporate interests were determined that his issues weren’t going to be heard. Eighty percent of newspapers are controlled by what? Six or eight corporations? How do you—they’ve in many ways shut down the ability, I mean they shut you down quite physically in Iowa.

Kucinich: Well, Iowa is a couple of factors that came into play. The American people—I never looked at it as being about me—I mean the American people are entitled to the fullness of the debate. It’s not democratic to try and shut one point of view out. And since it’s very obvious to anyone watching that my point of view is profoundly different from any other point of view being offered inside the party, what they’re actually doing is unwittingly contributing to the destruction of the Democratic Party itself by saying that “these are the only points of view that we will deem acceptable within the Democratic Party.” And those points of view are generally reinforcing the corporate mentality inside the party. And that’s very destructive of the democracy. It actually contributes to the undermining of the hope for legitimate debate within a democratic society. And one of the major issues that I feel is somehow somewhat linked to what’s going on in Iowa, is the issue of health care. I’m the only one in this race who’s talked about the necessity of a single-payer, not-for-profit health-care system, Medicare for all. Now this plan would bring health care to those 46 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance and the tens of millions of American who are underinsured, who would no longer have to worry about their economic position being undermined by the insurance companies. Insurance companies make money by not providing health care—we all understand that. When you consider that half the bankruptcies in this country are linked directly to people not being able to pay their medical bills, when we consider that the bankruptcy laws were changed so that people would be locked into a sort of debtors’ prison for a good part of their lives, you come to understand the imperative of HR 676, the bill that I coauthored, as being the path toward economic self-sufficiency. Many homes in this country are finding that their budgets are totally undermined by their health-care costs. And so my solution is apart from any other candidates. It’s very interesting how little, despite a real effort, how little coverage the not-for-profit health-care system receives, how little coverage this proposal receives.

Hedges: Did you see Russell Baker’s [note in the Dec. 18, 2003] New York Review of Books ... he said, [in effect,] “Let’s take away health-care coverage for all the reporters in the newspapers, so then we’ll get coverage of people who don’t get health care.”

Kucinich: I hadn’t seen that, but it’s probably true. And here’s the problem. If you were to look at all the debates, is it just coincidental that there’s been very little exploration of health care as an issue? Is it just coincidental that the only time that candidates were asked to put themselves on the line as to their position on health care was at the Ark debate in Iowa, where each and every candidate invited, promised, that they would not participate in a single-payer system. Ark being an insurance company, by the way. You know, think about this. An insurance company sponsoring a debate in Des Moines, Iowa. It’s no surprise that later on the Des Moines Register, sitting in the middle of a five-county area, where insurance is the main crop, that they would find some lame excuse to try and limit the debate.

Hedges: What’s been for you the most frustrating part of your campaign, especially looking at the Democratic Party itself?

Kucinich: You know, I don’t look at it as being frustrated, because I don’t think in those terms [loud buzzer sounds]. ... Um—that means there’s a vote on. ... I don’t think in terms like that.

[A voice announces over the loudspeaker: “This is the House Democratic cloakroom ... at 3:21 p.m. Advise members they have 15 minutes to record the vote on suspending the rules on passing the bill HR 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization act ... thank you.")

OK. So we got a few minutes before I have to go over, and then I’ll come back. So. I’ve written an autobiography of my first 21 years. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to see it yet. It’s called “Courage to Survive.” And what it makes clear is that perseverance is my strong suit. When I was elected to the House of Representatives I got elected on my fifth try. And my first attempt was in ’72. And I lost in ’72, and I lost in ’74, and I lost in ’88, and I lost in ’92. And I won in ’96 and in ’98, and 2000, and 2002, and in 2004, and in 2006. To me, what you do in life is you stand up and you fight for those things you believe in. And you do it without a question or a pause, to take a phrase from one of my favorite songs. And so I don’t have any complaints.

Hedges: Do you know John Ralston Saul? “The Unconscious Civilization”?

Kucinich: No.

Hedges: He’s a great philosopher. He writes about the corporate state; he’s Canadian. He talks about how the whole purpose of the corporate state is to disempower citizens. The government, once it’s turned over to corporations, what you then undergo essentially is a coup d’etat in slow motion. Which appears to be what we’re undergoing right now. ...

Kucinich: Are you familiar with what happened to me in Cleveland in 1978?

Hedges: Oh, yeah.

Kucinich: You know the story? I was 30 years old when I was elected mayor of Cleveland, 31 when I took office. And Dec. 15, 1978, I was given an ultimatum by the chairman of the largest bank in Ohio, the 33rd largest bank in the country. He told me that I had to sell our city’s municipal electrical system, which serviced a third of the city, provided electricity at anywhere from 20 to 30 percent less than private utility—I had to sell that system to the private utility, thereby giving them a monopoly, or the bank was not going to renew the city’s credit on loans I hadn’t even taken out, $15 million in loans, this was the lead bank. So I was basically being told what the conditions were of my continuing as mayor. I was the youngest person ever elected to be mayor of a big city. And people were predicting all kinds of things for me. I was mayor by the time that Bill Clinton was on his way to becoming governor of Arkansas, youngest governor. So basically they told me, “Look, you sell the system, you’re going to get $50 million worth of new credit, you can do anything you want with it. Get all these programs going. If you don’t, we’re going to put the city in default.” The bank, it turned out, and the next bank, owned two percent of the common stock. Which is a large percentage of common stock of utility. Utility had its deposits in a couple of these banks, and there were firm locking directorates between the banks and the utilities. And so I said, “No,” and this put the city into default. It was an amazing thing. It has never happened in American history. I lost the next election, and in the middle of that there were a couple of clear assassination attempts and a few other things that happened during this period. There is only one American political figure who came to my defense, and that was Ralph Nader. No one else. He was there. Ralph was able to get a subcommittee of the banking committee to do a staff report, which was pretty damning of the banks, and there was a perfunctory hearing about it.

Hedges: Do you share Nader’s pessimism?

Kucinich: I’m not pessimistic.

Hedges: Where is it going to come from? How is the state going to be wrested back?

Kucinich: There has to come a moment of awareness. Something will happen to cause people to become aware of what’s happening, of what’s happened to the government. This is why impeachment is so important. Impeachment would bring up the whole train of abuses that have caused our government to become less democratic. The lies to take us into wars, the eavesdropping, the wiretapping, the rendition, the torture, I mean it all becomes one piece. If people see the whole thing at once, it then creates a kind of awareness that will create some change. I have no doubt about that at all, none whatsoever. What’s happened is that people just see bits and pieces and it is never being tied together. I feel we are losing our democracy to lies that took us into war, lies that caused the destruction of essential civil liberties, lies that are driving us into debt, corruption on Wall Street and a Democratic Party that has lost its will to fight these people.

Hedges: Are we hostage to corporate dollars? Isn’t this the only way you can become president?

Kucinich: It would appear that way, although of course I have taken another path. Are they—whoever “they” are—hostage to corporate dollars? I think that’s fair. Who are they? Well, you have to get the scorecard. I used to go to baseball games when I was a kid. There was a guy who would run up and down the aisles waving scorecards, saying, “Scorecards, scorecards, can’t tell the players without a scorecard.” Each player had a number and you knew their position. In order to know people’s numbers here you have to go to Open Secrets and see who is contributing to them and study their votes. Then you know what position they are playing, and more important than that, you know whose team they are on. To me this is the kind of disclosure that is essential. But let’s go way over that and look at it from up here. This is why we need to change the Constitution and provide for public financing for elections. [Knock on the door.] ... I’ll be back.

[Leaves to cast a vote on the House floor. Returns.]

Kucinich: There is no other Democrat who is advocating a not-for-profit system. I am the only one, and I am the only one with a plan and I am the coauthor of the bill and I have been involved in this for years. In 2000 I took this plan to the Democratic Platform Committee with a group of people from California including Gloria Allred, Tom Hayden, Lila Garret. We offered it. But we were asked not to even offer it by the Gore campaign because that it would be a slap in the face to the interests that were helping the campaign. In 2004 I offered the same proposal to the platform committee and it was rejected again. Now, if there is any issue that the Democratic Party could establish itself on, in the same way FDR established the Democratic Party with the New Deal, the Democratic Party as a party could reestablish as a party of workers and small business in a single stroke by standing firmly as a party for single-payer, not-for-profit health care. The party refuses to do it. There are 83 members of the House that have signed onto the bill HR 676, but the fact that the Congress ... I was the coauthor of the bill. ... Here again this is one of those areas as president my positions run contrary to the rest of the Democratic field, but also my own party.

Hedges: What about the war? This is what gave the Democrats control again.

Kucinich: No question about it.

Hedges: And yet they have failed. That was their mandate.

Kucinich: Look at this: In October of 2002 the Democrats counseled in a telephone conference with our leaders in which we were told that the election of 2006 was about three things: Iraq, Iraq and Iraq. The ads attacking Republicans were replete with references to the war and the Democrats sensed from the polls indicating a shift in public opinion against the war, campaigned against the war, elected House and Senate because of the war, and yet it wasn’t one month after that victory was achieved because of the war that the Democrats gathered in a conference and declared that has a party we were going to continue to fund the war.

Hedges: Why?

Kucinich: The ostensible reason given was to support our troops, which is so transparent a dodge that it borders on the obscene. I walked out of that meeting and knew I had to run for president again. I knew it.

Hedges: When was that meeting?

Kucinich: The second week of December, maybe the 6th or the 8th, somewhere in there.

Hedges: To what do you attribute this decision? It has to be counterproductive to Democratic interests.

Kucinich: I think there has been a serious loss of confidence in the Democratic Party over the last year. It has been interpreted as a decline of confidence in Congress, but in truth, since the Democrats took control of Congress, it’s a decline of confidence in the Democratic Party itself.

Hedges: Why did they lose their nerve?

Kucinich: One of the things you have to remember, and this is where ... I don’t think anyone has done this research ... but it is my impression that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the Democratic primaries in 2006 more often than not opted to support candidates who were either neutral or supported the war. You have two waves here. You have the primary, of going for candidates who were either neutral or supported the war. Most of them won their primaries. And then you had the next wave, which was an anti-war wave. ... [T]he paradox was that a Democratic Congress was elected that was less congenial to ending the war than the Congress before it. Most people don’t understand that. How that could happen? Now, that doesn’t mean, however, that the leaders would have to follow that direction. The leaders could say, “Look, we are going in a new direction.” You have to remember what happened to the Democrats in 2002. It was Dick Gephardt who stood next to George Bush and gave him the OK for war. Most people thought the Democrats OK’d the war. Well, in the House they didn’t. Two-thirds of the Democrats in the House voted against the war. I know because I led the effort. In the Senate they could have stopped it because they controlled the Senate. They didn’t do it. You had Edwards and Clinton in the Senate at the time and Biden and Dodd. Any one of them could have held up the war. They didn’t do it. They all went in with it.

Hedges: Do you think it is because in a presidential election they do not want to appear weak on defense issues?

Kucinich: One does not want to appear weak. That’s true. But one should also not want to appear unintelligent. How intelligent was it to send our troops into a war without any proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, al-Qaeda’s role in 9/11, the anthrax attacks in the country ... that Iraq had no intention or capability of attacking the United States? There was no proof that Iraq had been involved in 9/11, had weapons of mass destruction. Why did we do this? So it was thoroughly unintelligent for these leaders—who made the choice to appear tough and turned out to be unintelligent. So now the American people are being given a choice and, really you have candidates who voted for the war when they could have stopped it, or to fund the war and reauthorize it. All of them have voted to fund the war or reauthorize it. The war, you get to the point, where the war in the debates actually was given four years’ life by having candidates Obama, Clinton and Edwards all agree that the war could continue to 2013.

Hedges: Why? What is the reason?

Kucinich: I think there is a mindset that comes from a complex of an implicit understanding of the power of those interests who profit from war and of the power of war as an idea and of being unwilling to challenge the status quo. A president has to represent the status quo, but what do you do if the status quo is corrupt? So they certainly know by now the war was wrong. If the war was based on lies, you tell the truth. You take the plan to get out. They are not talking about that. They are talking about a long-term occupation. There is no question about it: Everything speaks to a long-term occupation. If the Republicans win, we stay in Iraq. If the Democrats win, we stay in Iraq, unless I am the one who gets nominated. I put the plan out there to bring our troops home immediately, HR 4232. You have to keep in mind [that] if you want to know where people stand today, you have to look not at the broad brush of where the Democrats are, but at the individuals. Sen. Clinton took a hard-line position against Iraq, and she voted 100 percent of the time to fund the war until the last vote. Sen. Edwards took a hard-line position to attack Iraq. He voted all except one time to keep funding the war. Sen. Obama said he opposed the war before it started. He gave one, single speech, got elected—and his voting record is identical to Sen. Clinton’s in voting to support the war. How can you expect anything different? Even if Sen. Edwards says he made a mistake, if you look at the track of preparing for another war against Iran the same people—Sens. Clinton, Edwards and Obama—all said of Iran that “all options are on the table,” licensing George Bush’s aggressive rhetoric and preparations against Iran. They said that, each one of them.

Hedges: Can they use the Congressional authorization for Afghanistan and Iraq? Can the Bush White House interpret that in such a way that they can carry out a strike on Iran without going back to Congress?

Kucinich: Well, Congress actually had an opportunity to pass a resolution that would have forced the administration to come back in the form of an amendment. They rejected it. This Congress has, unfortunately, licensed the administration’s aggression, first by not holding them accountable for lying to Congress in the resolution that was brought before the Congress in October 2002. You may be familiar, Chris, with the dissection I did of that resolution, the Iraq war analysis of 2002. ... [Y]ou will see, what I did was dissect the thing draft by draft, statement by statement, and this was before Congress voted. If I can do this, why couldn’t have any of the others running for president today? This is when it counted. This the moment of maximum peril. This is the moment that America was about to go and launch a war of aggression against another nation. When I started challenging this, I was alone. Then there were six members, then 10 and then it grew to 125.

Hedges: How much is the reluctance on the part of the other candidates to address the Iran issue [as] an Israeli issue?

Kucinich: Sen. Edwards spoke [at the] Herzliya [conference, and] three times in one speech he said all options are on the table. Everyone understood what that meant. It is a metaphor for the use of nuclear weapons. It is unambiguous. Sens. Obama and Clinton at various times said the same thing. Anyone who is really supportive of Israel—and I consider myself supportive of Israel—would recoil in horror over the thought of the United States attacking Iran, because it is Israel that would end up paying the price. Anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that, which is why we have an obligation to move towards creating peace in the region, engaging Iran in diplomacy. I had an ongoing discussion with the Iranian ambassador [Javad] Zarif. I found out that an effort was made three years ago by the previous Iranian administration, [that of president Mohammad] Hatami, to settle the issues that were outstanding between Iran and the United States. It was thrown in the wastebasket by the Bush administration. There have been numerous efforts to try and build relations, and they all came from Iran. They were immediately, each and every one of them, rejected because the administration was determined to go on a course of action of aggression. [The November 2007] National Intelligence Estimate could have been much more severe in its judgment of the administration. It served a purpose in slowing down the movement towards war, but it does not totally stop it by any means because this administration is absolutely devoted to war as an instrument of policy.

Hedges: If this administration carried out a strike on Iran, would you predict that the Democratic leadership would support it?

Kucinich: I think you have to look at the sweep of legislation in the last year and a half. Anyone who looks at that could not conclude otherwise. It would just be a continuation of licensing of aggression against Iran. There is nothing that indicates they would do anything other than that because of the bills we have passed. I was often the only one, or one of two, who consistently challenged what we are doing with respect to Iran, voting against legislation that I knew was being used to lay the groundwork for war. It was very clear. There were maybe 14 different resolutions that were out there, and each time I went to the floor and I rose and I spoke against them. I said, “What are we doing?”

Hedges: What happens if we do not begin impeachment proceedings?

Kucinich: We haven’t proceeded with impeachment because the leadership says impeachment is off the table. Effectively, what they have done is to nullify the one provision of the Constitution that protects the American people from the presidency turning into a monarchy. Congress’ co-equality depends upon impeachment. Our democracy depends on the president and the vice-president being held accountable for the crimes they have committed against the American people. It is about lying, weapons of mass destruction, lying about Iraq’s so-called alleged connection to al-Qaeda and 9/11, trying to conflate Iraq with 9/11, trying to imply that Iraq had some ability to attack the United States or the intention to do so—in Cheney’s case, trying to build a similar case for a war against Iran based on lies again. But it is much more than that. It is responsibility for the deaths and injuries of thousands of American troops and over a million innocent Iraqis, the destruction of our domestic agenda by borrowing $1-2 trillion from China for the war, the ruining of America’s reputation, the wiretapping, the eavesdropping, the rendition, the torture, the suspension of habeas corpus—

Hedges: None of which the Democratic Party has rolled back.

Kucinich: None. Zero. I have to tell you, one of the things I was greatly concerned about is when I read that our Democratic leaders have been thoroughly briefed on torture, on waterboarding, as the Washington Post reported a few weeks ago. If you are silent, when you hear that, if you say nothing about it, silence becomes complicity.

Hedges: Is this because people like Hillary Clinton want to inherit an imperial presidency?

Kucinich: I don’t know about that. That becomes a consequence of not taking action. There might be something in that the American people would be so fed up with the Bush administration that they would once again take it out on the Republicans. But I frankly don’t think that will happen. I think what is more likely to happen is that people will become so disenchanted with the Democrats for not taking action that they won’t vote. People will just say there is no difference. They have not done what they said they would do. There is a loss of confidence. And so people will not vote. When we show up as a party with the full power of the Constitution behind us, the people will show us, too. They will show up.

Hedges: How do you feel about citizens’ movements, such as Code Pink, calling on people not to pay their taxes? It is built out of that frustration.

Kucinich: I understand that. That is a civil disobedience tactic. It also invites scrutiny by the IRS, which doesn’t really care about anyone’s politics. They just care about getting the money they are owed. It is a brave thing for people to do because there is a degree of risk in doing that. Why should people have to do this?

Hedges: Because the Democratic Party isn’t doing anything.

Kucinich: I understand. I am asking a rhetorical question. People are feeling they have to do something.

Hedges: When you confront the Democratic leadership, do they hear you?

Kucinich: They console themselves on the myth that they do not have the votes, when all they have to do is tell the president, “We are not going to give you any more money.” This is a basic civics lesson. The bill is made, introduced, it goes into committee, it comes back out, it goes to the floor, you know, eventually it can be passed. I will tell you how a bill isn’t made. It is not introduced. It doesn’t get to the floor. Since appropriations bills begin in the House, by the Constitution we can tell the president we are not going to give him any more money. He ... has to use the money he has that is available to take a new direction that will result in ending the war. We can box the president in on this. If he fails, if he refuses to bring the troops home, then we turn to impeachment. It isn’t as though the president has the right to just keep the troops there. You can’t blame the president. The Congress has the right to fund the war or not to fund the war. Every time you fund the war, you vote to authorize it all over again. The showdown that needs to happen—and this is the way Vietnam ended—we basically told the president we would stop the funding. You don’t need a vote to do that. The president would be similarly faced with having to then go to the nations of the region and say, “We are going to leave,” and that is the only responsible course of action we can take, and the course of action I recommend anyway. So why should we have to force him to do that? Why don’t we just go to him and say, “Look, this is the plan: We want the troops brought home, and we are not going to give you any more money. We will support you if you take these steps. If you don’t, it will be very tough”? They are refusing to confront him. Considering the fact that the whole war is based on lies, what are we doing here? History may well look back at this time and ask why was American sleeping while their leaders were engaging in aggressive war? They are going to know there was one person who was awake. I call it for what it is: a war crime.

Hedges: What happens if the Democratic nomination goes to someone who will not confront these issues?

Kucinich: Let me tell you what happens when it goes to me. We take steps not just to get out of Iraq, but to go to the nations of the region and put together an international security and peacekeeping force that moves in as our troops leave. I go to Syria. I go to Iran. I tell them it is a new day. I also start a process of peace in the Middle East ... bringing people together to get guarantees for the security of Israel. At the same time you work to provide for a true Palestinian homeland with full rights for the Palestinians. The door to peace in the world goes through Jerusalem. I would also work to change the U.S. policy with respect to arms manufacturing. We are the arms merchants of the world. We are fueling wars everywhere around the world. We have got to change direction. I would start to systematically pull back America’s presence from its global bases around the world. We don’t need to do that, not in today’s world. That is a throwback to the 19th century or maybe even the 18th century. It is not germane to a modern world. The problems today are non-state actors. I would move to make, as a matter of national security, a new energy policy that was carbon-free and nuclear-free. I would counsel the other nations of the world that the long-term economic and security interests will be to get away from nuclear power, which is the basis at some point, for not only the enrichment of uranium but the production of plutonium. We need to go away from that direction. We would have a strong military that would be mobilized to protect this country, but the policies of aggressive war would end. My doctrine would be strength through peace, the end of the neoconservative approach of unilateralism and first strike, and the beginning of the end of war as an instrument of policy, the beginning of transparency, open dialogue, direct contact, leader to leader, real diplomacy—the science of human relations, whatever you want to call it—it’s a new day. I will work to get rid of all nuclear weapons by enforcing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I will enforce the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Small Arms Treaty, the Land Mines Treaty. And America will join the International Criminal Court. Frankly, every official of the Bush administration who was involved in the execution of an aggressive war would be held accountable under the laws of this country. There are provisions within our current laws. The laws of the United States incorporate under article six of the Constitution all treaties. Our leaders do not have the right to make a war of aggression. They have to abide by the Geneva Convention and by international law. I see a different security posture and a different energy and economic policy for this country. The Patriot Act would be cancelled, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Homegrown Terrorism Act. I would send the justice department into federal court and knock down each and every provision of law that was put up during the time of the Bush administration, either with the help of Congress or through signing statements, that compromised First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, Eighth Amendment, 14th Amendment rights or any other amendment rights. Those are the one that immediately come to mind.

Hedges: Would you consider running as a third-party candidate?

Kucinich: I have been trying to make the Democrats an effective second party. This is my second effort at doing that. I am still in the process of doing that. My answer is that I am still in the process of trying to make the Democrats a credible second party.

Hedges: Nader felt the Democratic Party actively tried to sabotage his campaign. What about you? Do you feel the Democratic establishment is in any way undermining your campaign.

Kucinich: I don’t think about that. I would hope they have better things to do with their time. I can’t be intimidated. I can’t be bought. I can’t be bossed. It would be shame for them to waste their time doing that. It is not going to change; it’s not going to affect me one bit. They should spend their energy on the war, health care, creating jobs, trying to find a way to give people a reason to vote Democratic. I have been doing this for 40 years. I have more experience in politics than most people on the American political scene on so many different levels. I am sure there are some people who have been in local politics for 50 years and are just wonderful. My experience has been at a local, state and federal level in judicial and executive offices. I can tell you that we are at a moment in American history where we are in danger of losing our country. That is what causes me to defend the Constitution. It is what causes me to seek strength through peace, to propose peace for the violence in our own society, domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the schools. I do not only reject war as an instrument of policy. I reject the inevitability of war. I believe peace is inevitable if you are ready to work for it. If you examine the underlying structures in our society, they have not really challenged this notion of the inevitability of violence, whether it is domestic violence, child abuse, spousal abuse, violence in the schools, gun violence, gang violence, racial violence, violence against gays, police/community clashes. It is as if we don’t believe that our culture be non-violent. Violence is learned; so is nonviolence. I am looking at helping to create a social transformation here. This isn’t just about winning an election. Elections come and go. Where is the country? What happens to our nation? What happens to the people? Politics cannot just be an inside game between competing corporate interests. It amounts to the condition under which people live and survive. I see a much higher purpose to what it is we do. That is why I continue to participate.

Kucinich falls behind in 'corrupt system' - Opinions

2008-01-14T10:02:00.000-08:00

Kucinich falls behind in 'corrupt system' - Opinions

When the time came for the Nation magazine, the country's top liberal rag, to give a presidential endorsement, they responded decisively: "In his stands on the issues, Dennis Kucinich comes closest to embodying the ideals of this magazine. A vote for him would be a principled one."

That's unsurprising. Kucinich is the only one running who, not only voted against the war, but voted against funding it 100 percent of the time. He has a 100 percent pro-labor, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-fair trade voting record.

No candidate wins more blind-polls based on positions; no other candidate is proposing creating a European-style single-payer universal health care system - which 65 percent of Americans want.

Yet the Nation went on to write, "But for reasons that have to do with the corrupting influence of money and media on national elections," they cannot endorse Kucinich.

The Nation's concerns are valid. Kucinich received almost no press coverage from the corporate-run media which, according to a recent study, spent only 6 percent of this election's coverage actually talking about the issues and only 1 percent on candidates' records.

In debates, he already was never allowed to even speak. Since he has never taken corporate donations - he grew up homeless, watching his parents count coins to make ends meet and has vowed never to be bought off by wealthy interests - he has been unable to raise the money necessary to run a large campaign. Still, he raised millions of dollars from the grassroots and recruited thousands of volunteers.

Yet he can't compete with Sen. Barack Obama, who put $9 million dollars into Iowa and received constant media attention.

Don't get me wrong - I am as wowed by Obama's speeches as anyone else, and I find him to be a brilliant young Senator. Yet his presidential run is uninspiring.

He triumphs "change," yet his campaign takes more money from the insurance industry than any other candidate except Sen. Hillary Clinton. His health care plan is crafted with that in mind - it gives billions of taxpayer dollars to the HMOs and leaves millions of people uninsured to keep alive the for-profit beast.

While reminding us that he gave a speech calling the Iraq war "stupid" in 2002, he went silent on the issue when he reached the Senate - constantly voting to fund it and against withdrawal. When ultra-hawk Joe Lieberman was facing an antiwar challenger, Obama appeared at his side, calling Lieberman his "mentor."

At a recent debate, he wouldn't promise to end the Iraq occupation by 2013. His policy team is a Wall Street wet-dream: Lehman Brothers financiers, Citigroup, defense contractors, insurance lobbyists. Edwards and Clinton have assembled similar policy teams packed full of corporate insiders and entrenched military-industrial interests.

They talk about change, but they represent Bushism without Bush. They represent the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, whose President Clinton passed the horrific NAFTA and "welfare reform," and whose embargo against Iraq murdered more than 500,000 children.

Some people wonder why Kucinich chooses to run in such a corrupt system. When I met him, I finally understood. In his mind, he's still just Dennis from west Cleveland, working three jobs to pull his family out of poverty.

And he sees us - this country, the world - as his family. And maybe one day, we'll live in a truly democratic country, where someone can win on the strength of their ideas, not on their ability to please corporate financiers and media. Until the day comes, I say give 'em hell, Dennis. You have my vote.

- Zaid Jilani is a sophomore from Kennesaw majoring in international affairs.

My Condolences to the Kucinich Family

2007-12-19T22:07:00.000-08:00

Diary Entry by Kevin Gosztola

Kucinich's brother Perry was found dead. In this time of need and after Dennis has been there for Americans all through 2007, it is time for us to be there for him.

::::::::

Kucinich's brother found dead

My heart goes out to you Dennis as I can only imagine what you are going through.

Once I complete "The Courage to Survive" I will understand fully what your brothers meant to you but so far, after reading the story of how you bought Christmas presents for your siblings, I know that deep in your heart you have a profound affection and compassion for all in your family.

You have been there for Americans since the Iraq war became a possibility tirelessly working to make sure others follow the rule of law. You have been relentlessly following the reckless Bush administration and demanding they stop abusing power and stop grabbing for more power. You have gone above and beyond while also doing the little things we take for granted like putting together articles of impeachment, analyses, and reading legislation like the PATRIOT Act and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act that virtually nobody else read.

You have sought to support policies that will curb poverty, bring health care to all, spread values that promote peace and sustainability, and force people to understand the interconnectedness of our world.

You are a beacon of light that shines brightly.

You have done what every American could hope a politician to do. And now we owe it to you in this time of need to keep you in our hearts and be deeply sympathetic.

You treat us like family and so will we.

So to you from this OpEdNews writer/ardent supporter of your presidential campaign and other OpEdNews writers, my deepest condolences go out to you.

Kevin Gosztola lives in Chicago where he is studying to become a documentary filmmaker. When not writing on OpEdNews, he participates in the local campaign in Chicago for Dennis Kucinich for President, the Amnesty International chapter at Columbia, and assists with several political youth groups who face suppression and violation of civil liberties. For example, recently, the incident at Morton West and with three protesters on Oct 27th has led to the organization of weeks of action to raise awareness and money for the victims.

Peace.

Congressman Wexler released the following op-ed on need for impeachment hearings with Reps. Gutierrez and Baldwin:

2007-12-17T21:23:00.000-08:00

A Case for Hearings

On November 7, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As Members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

Now that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has indicated that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent to report to the American people, it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice. Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to “unknowingly [pass] along false information.” In addition, recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have ...read more

December 14, 2007

Truthdig - Reports - Sane Officers Oppose Cheney

2007-11-15T15:21:00.000-08:00

Posted on Nov 15, 2007

By Joe Conason

The Pentagon has launched a preventive strike against a target that military chiefs presumably regard as one of the most active current threats to U.S. and world security—namely, the office of the vice president of the United States. Thrusting back hard against Vice President Dick Cheney’s warmongering, the head of U.S. forces in the Mideast declared that an attack on Iran “is not in the offing,” and more or less urged the vice president and his political allies to shut up.

In a front-page interview published on Nov. 12 by the Financial Times, Admiral William Fallon, who heads the U.S. Central Command, spoke in diplomatic tones, as top military officers usually tend to do when they make strong political statements. Yet there was no mistaking the admiral’s message. While Iran certainly poses a “challenge,” he said, U.S. policymakers must engage Tehran to encourage changes in the regime’s behavior. But the Iranians won’t “come to their senses” while under threat of bombardment, invasion or worse.

“None of this is helped by the stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war, which is just not where we want to go,” he said with a degree of exasperation. “It seems to me that we don’t need more problems. It astounds me that so many pundits and others are spending so much time yakking about this topic [of war against Iran].”

Most of that bellicose speculation can be traced back to vice presidential circles, including the neoconservative ideologues (or as the admiral put it, the “pundits"), who popularized the notions that Iran is an imminent threat to the United States, Israel and the world and that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler. Those themes certainly have a familiar ring; the last imminent threat was Iraq, and the last next Hitler was Saddam Hussein. Not content with the great success of their Mesopotamian misadventure, the same people have been urging action against Iran.

Admiral Fallon’s remarks follow in the wake of recent statements by both President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney. Not long ago, the president blurted a strange warning that if other nations wish to avert “World War III,” then they had best ensure that Iran never obtains “the knowledge” to construct nuclear weapons. “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” growled the vice president, muttering about the “serious consequences” that the Iranians would suffer. Since nobody believes that Tehran will come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon before the Bush administration leaves office, the ominous comments were taken as signals that the White House is contemplating preemptive action. Those signals have emanated for years from the office of the vice president and those associated with him.

More important, the nation’s military leaders seem determined to block any rush to war, no matter what the vice president may desire. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have reportedly expressed strong opposition to any military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and little enthusiasm for even limited action against Iranian forces. Their reluctance stems from tactical concerns about the impact of conflict with Iran on U.S. forces in Iraq, and strategic worries over waging wars in three Muslim nations in the region simultaneously.

For now, the influence of sane and sensible officers appears to be ascending. Only a few days before Admiral Fallon spoke out, an Associated Press dispatch noted that American officials are quietly reducing our force profile in the Gulf region—for instance, by withdrawing an aircraft carrier that was sent earlier this year to emphasize the American regional security commitment.

As for President Bush, if his own words are to be believed, then he too has decided to pursue the diplomatic option rather than engage in reckless bombing. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has explicitly rejected the idea that the Senate authorized war last September by designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organization.” She went on to say “the president has also made very clear that he’s on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus.”

If calmer counsel is prevailing, however, tensions are certain to rise again when the U.S. moves for United Nations sanctions against Tehran. It would not take much to provoke fire on either side, which is why rhetorical tone is so important. “You certainly don’t want to encourage any kind of a miscalculation or misstep by talk,” said Admiral Fallon, who seems to understand how swiftly foolish fantasies of war can be transformed into lethal realities.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer.

2007-11-12T07:58:00.000-08:00

War foes arrested at Veterans Day event

Arrests Made at Boston Veterans Day Event When Antiwar Group Refuses to Move Away From Podium

Staff
AP News

Nov 12, 2007 10:34 EST

Several anti-war veterans were arrested when they protested their exclusion from a Veterans Day event by refusing to move away from a podium.

The Boston chapter of a group called Veterans for Peace estimated 15 of its members and supporters were arrested Sunday at the event sponsored by the American Legion. Boston Police said several arrests were made, but did not have an exact number. The detainees were later released on bail.

"We're opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq; we're opposed to the planned invasion of Iran," said group member Winston Warfield, a Vietnam War veteran. "A lot of veterans view us as traitors."

Warfield said the American Legion rejected their request to have a speaker at the event, which took place outside City Hall. A call to the American Legion office in Boston was not immediately returned Monday.

"From our point of view, it's a public affair," Warfield said, despite U.S. Supreme Court precedent that allows private groups that obtain proper permits to choose who can participate in their events.

Earlier Sunday, Gov. Deval Patrick and Sen. John Kerry presented medals to five surviving members of the Tuskegee Airmen, the famed group of black fighter pilots from World War II.

"It is an honor to formally recognize these heroic pioneers," said Patrick, the state's first black governor. Legislation was approved last year authorizing a Congressional Gold Medal for the Tuskegee Airmen as a group; it was presented in March. Individual airmen receive bronze replicas.

Source: AP News

Truthdig - Cartoons - UN Report

2007-10-29T18:50:00.000-07:00

Truthdig - Cartoons - UN Report

Former Senator Max Cleland Delivers the Democratic Radio Address - The Gavel

2007-08-26T02:00:00.000-07:00

Former Senator Max Cleland Delivers the Democratic Radio Address - The Gavel

August 25th, 2007 by Karina

Former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia delivered the Democratic Radio Address this morning. He discussed President Bush’s speech this week comparing the ongoing war in Iraq to the Vietnam War and the need to bring our troops home safely from an open-ended civil war. Senator Cleland explains, “President Bush’s report to Congress will attempt to show that his escalation has produced improved security in certain parts of Iraq. But it will ignore the stark truth in Iraq — that his overall strategy to buy time for Iraqis to make the needed political decisions has failed and, just like Vietnam, we are enmeshed now in an open-ended war for which our troops and our country will pay the price for decades to come.”

The text of the radio address, as delivered:

My fellow Americans, this is Max Cleland, former U.S. Senator from Georgia.

This week, President Bush gave a speech comparing the ongoing war in Iraq to the Vietnam War.

He used this analogy in his latest plea to the American people for yet more time to continue his war.

I know something about the Vietnam War. I know something about the price that was paid for continuing that war long after it was clear we could not succeed. I know something about years of war failing to produce a stable, secure, and democratic country. I know something about enemy attacks increasing and taking an ever higher toll on our troops. Fifty-eight thousand young Americans were killed in Vietnam. Three hundred and fifty thousand were wounded.

I was one of them.

There are similarities between the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam. One of the lessons to be learned from Vietnam is that the commitment of American military strength alone cannot solve another country’s political weakness. This should be a somber warning to us all to responsibly end the war in Iraq and the additional loss of precious American lives.

Congress has required the president to issue a report soon on the state of the war. This assessment gives him yet another opportunity to do the right thing and change course in Iraq.

Unfortunately, it appears he will continue to argue that if the American people and the U.S. Congress will just be patient things will work out. He is likely to say that given more time victory is just around the corner. He is likely to argue that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

But like political leaders during the Vietnam era, this President has a “credibility gap.” The majority of Americans see a profound difference between President Bush’s optimistic rhetoric and the grim reality which lies beneath.

Our history in Vietnam and the facts on the ground in Iraq today prove the American people are right.

How do I know? Because I’ve seen this movie before. I know how it ends. I know that all the PR in the world didn’t change the truth on the ground in Vietnam and won’t change the truth on the ground today in Iraq.

What is this truth? The truth is that more than 3,700 Americans have already lost their lives, more than 20,000 have been wounded, and nearly $500 billion in American taxpayer funds have been expended.

The truth is that despite this enormous sacrifice, we find ourselves mired in a civil war with no end in sight and Iraqis unable or unwilling to make the political decisions necessary to end this conflict.

And the truth is President Bush’s decision to go to war and stay at war has actually encouraged thousands of new recruits for Al-Qaida in Iraq and around the world, has made the Middle East and other parts of the globe less safe, has alienated the Muslim world and allowed Al-Qaida - the enemy that attacked this nation six years ago - a chance to rebuild and restore its terror network.

These are the facts. But the facts will not stop the President and his fellow Republicans from trying once again to sell the American people a bill of goods on the Iraq War.

The failures in Iraq are not the fault of our troops or their courage in battle. They have done everything asked of them and more. The conflict in Iraq is an Iraqi political problem, not a U.S. military problem. We can’t continue to sacrifice American lives, deplete our treasury and weaken our national security. We can’t expect our soldiers to continue to risk their lives especially when the Iraqi leaders themselves show no interest in achieving a peaceful political solution.

President Bush’s report to Congress will attempt to show that his escalation has produced improved security in certain parts of Iraq. But it will ignore the stark truth in Iraq - - that his overall strategy to buy time for Iraqis to make the needed political decisions has failed and, just like Vietnam, we are enmeshed now in an open-ended war for which our troops and our country will pay the price for decades to come.

That’s why we must act now. This fall, Democrats in Congress will continue to stand with our troops – and with the American people — to remember the lessons of history — and end the Iraq War.

This is Max Cleland.

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 25th, 2007 at 9:57 am and is filed under Iraq, Real Security. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Disabled Veteran left without Insurance for 4 Years due to Case Backlog Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

2007-08-24T04:24:00.000-07:00

Disabled Veteran left without Insurance for 4 Years due to Case Backlog

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News: "Backlog leaves disabled in limbo Those seeking Social Security benefits often wait years for OK Erica Bryant Staff writer (August 21, 2007) — John Johnson left the U.S. Army with such physical and mental scars, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs rated him 100 percent disabled in 2003. But it took nearly four years for the Persian Gulf War veteran from Rochester to win approval for and finally receive Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. About 65 percent of the 2.5 million people who file disability claims each year are initially denied and have the right to appeal. At Social Security's Buffalo Hearing Office, where Johnson's case was heard along with most local cases, the average time between a request for an appeals hearing and the hearing is 22 months. Nationally, the average wait is 17 months, the longest in Social Security history. 'The process is horrifying,' said Johnson, whose SSDI benefits started last month. Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue has blamed understaffing and an increase in claims for the backlog. When he addressed the Senate Finance Committee in May, he lamented the fact that Congress has provided the SSA with an annual average of $150 million less than what has been requested by President Bush" since 2001.

Meanwhile, the disability hearings backlog has doubled to more than 745,000 cases.

"The length of time many people wait for their final disability decision is unacceptable," Astrue told the Senate Committee.

As of the end of July, 14,707 cases were waiting for an appeals hearing at the Buffalo office. Close to 8,000 had been pending for more than a year. There are currently 13 judges working out of the Buffalo office. Social Security Administration spokesman John Shallman says that an additional administrative law judge should be added there in October.

As a veteran, Johnson was able to appeal to his congressional representatives to get his case pushed along faster.

Service in the first Persian Gulf War and a blow to the head he received while stationed in Korea left him suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder, a traumatic brain injury, degenerative disc disease and other ailments.

When Johnson applied for SSDI in 2003, he was denied. Because of the massive backlog at the Buffalo hearing office, he did not get his first appeals hearing until July 2006.

During his four-year wait, Johnson had Veterans Affairs benefits to help him manage. Terry Nichols, a Greece resident who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2002, did not.

Nichols applied for Social Security disability benefits in November 2002, after blurry vision, debilitating fatigue, persistent pains and cognitive issues made it impossible for him to keep his lawn maintenance business.

After an initial denial, he waited 18 months for a hearing. In May 2004, he received a favorable decision.

By that time, his house was already in foreclosure. He lost the home in June 2004.

"You pay into the system and you always believe there's a safety net there for you when something like this happens," he said.

"Then you find out it's not there to catch you."

Crunch to worsen

The Social Security Administration is experimenting with new efforts to speed up proceedings. It is using automation tools to screen cases and has been prioritizing cases that are or will be 1,000 days old as of Sept. 30. Astrue requested $10.44 billion for the Social Security disability system for the 2008 budget cycle. President Bush has proposed $9.4 billion and the Senate has budgeted $125 million more than that, specifically to address the backlog. The final figure will be decided later this year.

As baby boomers age and become more prone to disability, Astrue expects the crunch to worsen. He has estimated that the number of pending cases could reach 1 million by 2010.

In 1996, Linda Fullerton of Rochester bumped her head while getting out of her car. A blood clot that formed between her scalp and skull became infected, leaving her in a coma. In the aftermath of the accident, she had to have the base of her skull removed and developed several autoimmune disorders. By 2001, she could no longer work as a computer purchasing agent and filed for SSDI benefits.

She was initially denied and waited a year and a half for an appeals hearing before she started receiving benefits. In 2003, she co-founded the Social Security Disability Coalition to push Congress to reform the system and to help get other people through the appeals process.

"Most Americans can't live for two weeks without money," said Fullerton, who says she lost her pension and life's savings waiting for her disability benefits. "They're asking people who are sick and can't work to wait 700 days? It's insane."

'Ready to give up'

Johnson sought help from Fullerton's organization when he was left stunned that he could be denied Social Security disability benefits, despite the fact that the V.A. had declared him 100 percent unemployable. "I was ready to give up," he said.

Social Security and the V.A. are separate federal organizations and use different criteria to determine disability, explained Rick Warsinskey, the president of the National Council of Social Security Management Association.

There is no system in place to spare a veteran who has been declared disabled by the V.A. the long wait for Social Security. "It's unfortunate," he said.

"It was stressful, painful and humiliating," said Johnson, who is trying to get his house out of foreclosure. "I worked. It's not like you're giving me anything for free."

Nichols said one of the worst parts of applying for Social Security disability benefits was being treated like he was trying to scam the system.

He said he recognizes that some people try to get disability insurance benefits that they don't deserve, but he said making people wait years before they get the opportunity to appeal a decision is wrong.

"There should be something in place to protect people from losing everything they've worked for," Nichols said.

"It just shouldn't take that long."

43 Congress Members for Impeachment | AfterDowningStreet.org

2007-08-05T19:34:00.000-07:00

43 Congress Members for Impeachment | AfterDowningStreet.org
Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2007-08-05 04:19. Impeachment

Forty-three Congress Members now stand in one manner or another for impeachment.

Seventeen have signed on as cosponsors of H. Res. 333, a bill proposing articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. H Res 333 cosponsors include, Dennis Kucinich, Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Yvette Clarke, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Bob Filner, Sam Farr, Robert Brady, Tammy Baldwin, Donald Payne.

Twenty-seven have signed onto H Res. 589, a bill proposing the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The cosponsors are Jay Inslee, Xavier Becerra, Michael Arcuri, Ben Chandler, Dennis Moore, Bruce Braley, Tom Udall, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Keith Ellison, David Wu, Yvette Clarke, Darlene Hooley, Betty McCollum, Timothy Bishop, Barney Frank, Carolyn Maloney, Ed Perlmutter, Tammy Baldwin, Shelley Berkley, Raul Grijalva, Ed Pastor, Ellen Tauscher, Rush Holt, Jim McGovern.

Only Johnson, Ellison, Clarke, and Baldwin have signed onto both bills. (17 + 27 -4 = 40)

Congressmen Jesse Jackson Jr. and Maurice Hinchey have recently said that they support the impeachment of Cheney and Bush, but have not yet signed onto any bills. (40 + 2 = 42)

Other Congress Members have said privately that they favor impeachment but not these bills, even that they would only support impeachment if it included Bush. The lack of cross-over support between the two existing bills is an indication of the importance of petty personal politics within Congress, and the extent to which Congress Members will sign onto a bill based on who the sponsor and cosponsors are and who asks them, and whether anyone asks them, to sign on.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has opposed impeachment since May 2006, but this week said that if she were not the Speaker she would probably be backing impeachment, and that impeachment of Gonzales is clearly merited. (42 + 1 = 43)

Congress to allow Gonzales to issue surveillance warrants - Politics on The Huffington Post

2007-08-03T01:38:00.000-07:00

Congress to allow Gonzales to issue surveillance warrants - Politics on The Huffington Post Shayana Kadidal
A story has emerged this week that seems to have escaped the headlines in the major papers entirely: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which had approved of some close variant on the NSA Program in January, changed its mind sometime in the last few months and decided the program was illegal under FISA. Only Newsweek and the blogosphere seem to have found the story.

A few hours after the January 17 announcement that the administration had convinced a single judge on the FISA court to issue a series of surveillance orders allowing the administration to carry out the NSA Program in almost exactly the same manner as before, I put up this post arguing that it was very likely these "innovative," "complex" new orders were very likely illegal - that is, to the extent that these warrants "authorized the president or executive officials to determine on their own when there is probable cause ... are general warrants, outside the scope of what FISA allows judges to approve, and are illegal."

Now it appears another FISA judge agreed with me. Orders from the FISA Court typically last only for a maximum of 90 days, after which the administration must return to the court for renewal. However, those applications typically are rotated to different judges on the eleven-member court. The original orders were issued by a single judge on January 10, 2007; it has been a bit more than180 days since then, so the administration would have had to seek at least two renewals from different judges since then. Apparently, "[o]ne FISA judge approved this, and then a second one didn't," as one official source told the L.A. Times.

Great news, right? Yes, it likely means that a judge has finally ruled that the NSA program is illegal (although the whole FISA court process is secret, so only the administration and a few high-ranking Congressional intelligence committee leaders know for sure). And sure, that's quite satisfying given that our challenge to the Program, Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush, has been passed around by the federal courts like a hot potato, and the ACLU's simultaneous challenge was dismissed on appeal on standing grounds, allowing the two republican judges to duck the merits (though the ACLU may yet appeal). But all thinking beings knew the program was illegal already.

Congress, on the other hand, still needs convincing.

A new bill, proposed by the administration and being rushed through both houses in the last week in an apparent deal with Democratic leaders, would allow the administration to set up whole programs of surveillance, without prior approval of the FISA court, so long as those programs operated under internal rules designed to capture communications where both parties are "reasonably believed to be outside of the United States." (One supposed "safeguard": such programs may only be carried out through a telecommunications company - as if AT&T and Verizon have our privacy interests at heart!) Who would get to authorize these programs of surveillance, lasting up to a year? Who else: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

That's right. The same trustworthy official who insisted that the single presidential order issued by the President after 9/11, authorizing the NSA to leave no American unheard, actually authorized not one program but a whole slew of separate programs. So that when Gonzales told Congress that "the" NSA Program was narrowly tailored at Al Qaeda suspects -- when in fact this week the papers have all reported that NSA engaged in massive data mining -- he wasn't lying because he was only talking about one of many types of surveillance programs authorized in that single order, the one admitted to by the administration in December 2005. (And all the rest, of course, are still so secret he can't even describe them to Congress.)

Certainly the stated purpose of the bill is to allow the continued interception of calls between two overseas callers that happen to travel through electronic switches inside the United States. (Currently, such calls are governed by FISA if they are intercepted in the U.S.) James Risen's book, published weeks after he and Eric Lichtblau broke the NSA story in the New York Times, revealed that many purely international calls - someone outside the U.S. calling another person outside the U.S. - route through circuits located in the United States. As odd as it may seem, with fiberoptic signals traveling at the speed of light, this is often the easiest route for calls and email to take. Thus, to give just one example, almost all calls from the Middle East to Asia route through the United States, rather than taking a geographically-direct line. Indeed, our government has encouraged this technological development because it puts the power to surveill foreign communications within the hands of American companies. (Before the fiberoptic era, some of these calls went thru satellites, and those signals could be picked up by government listening stations located outside of the US, thus skirting FISA.)

However, it's hard to imagine that the administration couldn't get FISA warrants for such calls if they really wanted to. The FISA court processed 4,248 applications from the administration in 2005-06, and rejected one of them (and that one only in part). The most likely reason NSA doesn't want to go thru FISA for even this mainly-international part of their eavesdropping programs is likely twofold: First, they may want to listen to a huge mass of international calls where they have absolutely no evidence that either of the overseas parties are linked to terrorism - not even enough to meet the easy FISA standard. And second, that broad brush may also be imprecise enough to inevitably gather in a decent number of calls with one or both ends inside the United States.

This conclusion is reinforced by reading between the lines of the FISA modernization bill proposed by Senators McConnell and Bond. This version has no sunset provision making the whole law automatically expire at the end of six months, as Sen. Rockefeller's proposal supposedly has (full disclosure: I haven't yet seen his version). Instead, after six months the FISA court gets to review any programs of surveillance the Attorney General has approved of, to see if the court thinks they are "reasonably designed" to capture communications of "person[s] reasonably believed to be outside of the United States." Between those two "reasonably"s is a vast margin for error, into which any number of domestic communications could be swept up. Again, that may very well be the goal here.

All of these "FISA modernization" bills are poorly thought-out and have been rushed through Congress in the last two weeks of the current session (despite the fact that some reports have the FISA court reversal happening several months ago). The wonderful folks at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have an action alert posted here, so you can call your local Congressfolk and let them know how you feel about replacing federal judges with the President's Consigliere, Alberto Gonzales.

Meanwhile, our legal challenge to the NSA Program is finally closing in on a decision. The new judge in the case will hear oral arguments next Thursday, August 9th, in San Francisco. Our latest brief, arguing that the case did not become moot after the January 10th FISA Court orders, is here.

Thanks for reading. Now go give your elected reps a piece of your mind!

--August 3, 2007

IMPEACHMENT PETITIONS: Have we got petitions | AfterDowningStreet.org

2007-07-30T14:05:00.001-07:00

IMPEACHMENT PETITIONS: Have we got petitions | AfterDowningStreet.orgSubmitted by danielifearn on Tue, 2007-07-24 22:01. IFPJAnd we want more. Check out the petitions below. If your online petition isn't listed add a comment to this post

read more | digg story

IMPEACHMENT PETITIONS: Have we got petitions | AfterDowningStreet.org

2007-07-24T16:43:00.000-07:00

IMPEACHMENT PETITIONS: Have we got petitions | AfterDowningStreet.org
Submitted by danielifearn on Tue, 2007-07-24 22:01. IFPJ

And we want more. New - slightly used - old - it doesn't matter. We want to prove our majority so we are mobilizing petitons.

Check out the petitions below. If your online petition isn't listed add a comment to this post and provide the link.

----------------
ACT FOR CHANGE

http://actforchange.workingassets.com/campaign/impeach_gonzales Impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

http://actforchange.workingassets.com/campaign/impeach_cheney Tell Congress: Impeach Dick Cheney

http://actforchange.workingassets.com/campaign/Katrina_failure Congress: Hold Bush Accountable on Failed Katrina Response

AFTERDOWING STREET COALITION

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cvilleimpeach Charlottesville, VA, Petition to Impeach Bush and Cheney

BILLY JACK

http://www.billyjack.com/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=81 Petition to Impeach Bush and Cheney

CODEPINK

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/codepink/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=651 Impeach Vice President, Dick Cheney

DEMOCRATS.COM

http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/65 Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88 Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

http://www.democrats.com/impeachment-poll-petition It’s Time to Poll on Impeachment

http://www.democrats.com/topelosiandjudiciary Begin Impeachment Preceedings in Judiciary Committee

http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73 Tell Congress to Impeach Cheney First

http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=impeach Petition to Impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney

EASTSIDE FELLOWSHIP OF RECONCILIATION

http://www.eastsidefor.org/impeach/ the Impeach Bush and Cheney Petition Page

FREE SPEECH TV COMMUNITY

http://community.freespeech.org/earthday_people_sign_impeach_bush_petition Earthday People Sign Impeach Bush Petition

GOPETITION.COM

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/bush-cheney-impeachment-california-petition.html Bush, Cheney Impeachment - California Petition

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/bush-impeachment-los-angeles.html Bush Impeachment - Los Angeles

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/call-for-the-impeachment-of-president-george-w-bush.html Call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/impeach-bush-1.html Impeach Bush

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/impeach-bush-for-9-11.html Impeach Bush for 9/11

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/impeach-george-w-bush-and-richard-b-cheney.html Request to the United States Senate to Initiate Impeachment Proceedings Against George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/impeach-george-w-bush.html Impeach George W. Bush

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/impeachment-of-george-bush-richard-cheney-donald-rumsfeld-and-john-ashcroft.html Impeachment of George Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ascroft

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizationsCOM/Greens/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=237 Green Party calls for impeachment of Bush and Cheney

IMPEACHCHENEY.ORG

http://impeachcheney.org/petition.php Congress should begin Impeachment hearing against Vice President Dick Cheney

IPETITIONS.COM

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bush_impeachment/ Newark City Council Resolution

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bush_impeachment2/ Petition to demand Congressional Investigation of Bush Policies

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/impeachbush/ Impeach George Bush

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Impeachbushandcheney/ Impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Impeach_Bush_Katrina_Misconduct/ Impeach Bush for Gross Misconduct Regarding HUrricane Katrina

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/moveontoimpeachment/ It’s time for MoveOn to Start Talking about Impeachment

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NLResolutionToImpeach/ New London Resolution to Impeach Bush/Cheney

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nomorebushit/ Impeach George Bush

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/paimpeachment/ Ask PA Legislators to Support Impeachment

MAINEIMPEACH.ORG

http://www.maineimpeach.org/Petition.html Petition to the Maine Legislature for Impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney

MOVEON.ORG

http://pol.moveon.org/subpoena/ Congress must force Vice President Cheney to respond to its subpoenas...Congress has no choice but to begin impeachment proceedings against him.

NADAR/CAMEJO 2004

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Referendum Urge Congress to Begin an Impeachment Inquiry

PETITIONONLINE.COM

http://www.petitiononline.com/acfa/petition.html A Call for Accountability

http://www.petitiononline.com/911911/petition.html Impeachment of President George W. Bush

http://www.petitiononline.com/awp/petition.html Impeach George W. Bush

http://www.petitiononline.com/bush1/petition.html Impeach George W. Bush for lying to the American people about Iraq’a weapons of mass destruction

http://www.petitiononline.com/cityres/ Charlotte Resolution to Impeach Bush & Cheney

http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc12/petition.html Impeach George W. Bush

http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc16/petition.html Mr. Bush, Please Resign

http://www.petitiononline.com/DropBush/petition.html 100,000,000 Americans Defend the Bill of Rights

http://www.petitiononline.com/dsmnc/petition.html Investigate the Downing Street Minutes as Evidence of Impeachable Crimes!

http://www.petitiononline.com/durimp/ Durham, NC - Impeach Bush & Cheney

http://www.petitiononline.com/g0e0rge/petition.html A Request to Initiate a Formal Presidential Impeachment Inquiry on George W. Bush

http://www.petitiononline.com/jailbush/petition.html Impeach Bush & Cheney

http://www.petitiononline.com/JW1955/petition.html Impeach President Bush Now!

http://www.petitiononline.com/mpeachw/petition.html Impeach George Bush NOW!!!

http://www.petitiononline.com/NC05FOXX/petition.html Investigation into Alleged Crimes Commited by George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard B. Cheney - Congresswoman Virginia Foxx

http://www.petitiononline.com/NC06/petition.html Investigation into Alleged Crimes Commited by George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard B. Cheney - Rep. Howard Coble

http://www.petitiononline.com/ncres/ North Carolina Resolution to Impeach Bush & Cheney

http://www.petitiononline.com/p2combs1/petition.html City of Oakland Resolution to Impeach George W. Bush

http://www.petitiononline.com/recgwb/ Recall President Bush

http://www.petitiononline.com/stopbush/petition.html Impeachment of President George Walker Bush

http://www.petitiononline.com/TARGBush/petition.html Impeach President G.W. Bush

http://www.petitiononline.com/TaTaGWB3/petition.html Impeach Bush over Iraq!

http://www.petitiononline.com/voter03/petition.html Petition Demanding Investigation and Impeachment of the Illegitimately Elected Bush and Cheney for Dereliction of Duties in Woefully Failing to Protect the American Public from the September 11th Terrorist Attacks

PETITION-THEM.COM

http://petitionthem.com/default.asp?sect=detail&pet=3822 Impeach the Bush Administration

PETITION TO IMPEACH

http://www.petitiontoimpeach.com/petition.html A Petition for The Impeachment of George W. Bush to the Congress of the United States

PETITIONSPOT.COM

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/BanGeorgeWBush Ban George W. Bush from Presidency and Impeach HIm from his Duties

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/bashingbush Impeach Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/buckfush Impeach Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/bushbadalso Impeach George Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/downwithbush Impeach George W. Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/firebush Impeach Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/GoodbyeMrPresident It’s Time to Impeach President George W. Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/hottstuff@bellsouth.net Impeach Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/impeach Impeach President Bush Now!

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/impeach_bush We willl impeach Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/impeachbush Impeach President George W. Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/impeachbushnow Impeach the Lying Idiot

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/IMPEACHBUSHONBALLOT Get Impeach Bush on the Ballot

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/ImpeachCheney Move to Impeach Cheney for High Crimes

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/impeachdangbush Impeach Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/ImpeachGeorgeBush Impeach the President: Petition to bring impeachment of George W. Bush on Grounds of Treason and Distrust

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/ImpeachInjustice Impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/impeachpresbush Impeach President George Walker Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/impeachpresidentbush Impeach President Bush!

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/ImpeachPresidentBushNowDOTcom Impeach George W. Bush for War-crimes

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/impeachpresidentgeorgewbush Petition to Impeach George W. Bush

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/pleading4impeachment Impeach Bush and the Cabinet

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/sayno2bush Impeach Bush!

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/outwithbush6478 Impeach Bush!

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/trybush Impeach and try President Bush for War Crimes

THEPETITIONSITE.COM

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/695455984 Impeach Bush in Event of Terrorist Attack

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/290081783 Impeach Bush and Cheney

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/371129241 Impeach President Bush

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/964972543 Petition for Impeachment Investigation of Bush and Cheney

TRUEMAJORITY.ORG

http://act.truemajority.org/o/1/t/3/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=16 Impeach Cheney

VETERANS FOR PEACE

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/vetsforpeace/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=382 Impeachment Petition

VOTETOIMPEACH.ORG

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Referendum The ImpeachBush Referendum

Crooks and Liars » Cindy Sheehan arrested while calling for Bush/Cheney Impeachment

2007-07-24T16:02:00.000-07:00

Crooks and Liars » Cindy Sheehan arrested while calling for Bush/Cheney Impeachment

By: Nicole Belle on Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 at 11:31 AM - PDT

CNN: (h/t CappuccettoRosso)

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat’s refusal to try to impeach President Bush.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan says “Impeachment is not a fringe movement.”

Sheehan was taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers’ office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Conyers, D-Michigan, chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.[..]

Sheehan and about 200 other protesters had walked to Conyers’ office from Arlington National Cemetery. She said Conyers told her there weren’t enough votes for impeachment to move forward on the issue.

Ray McGovern | Bush's Wooden-Headedness Kills

2007-07-19T20:45:00.000-07:00

Ray McGovern | Bush's Wooden-Headedness Kills
By Ray McGovern
President George W. Bush is convinced, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that he is on the right course in the war in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism. He says he will not change his mind. Thus, we are at a historic moment, and we would be well advised to see what light historians might shed on our current predicament in Iraq and the basic (but unanswered) question as to why so many people resort to terrorism against us.

Historian Barbara Tuchman addressed the kind of situation we face at this juncture in our country's history in her best-selling book, "The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam." (Had she lived, she surely would have updated the book to take Iraq into account).

Tuchman wrote:

"Wooden-headedness ... plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists of assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts."

Tuchman referred in this context to the 16th century's Philip II of Spain as the Nobel-laureate (so to speak) woodenhead of all time: "No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence." Comparisons, I know, can be invidious, but Philip amassed too much power and drained state revenues by failed adventures overseas, leading to Spain's decline. Sadly, Tuchman, who died in 1989, cannot opine as to whether history will see George W. Bush as having displaced Philip as supreme woodenhead. Bush would have a good shot at it, it seems to me.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

In her book, Tuchman emphasized that courtiers can reinforce the ruler's certitude, as was the case with Philip and is the now the case with George. And if the courtiers are really good at it, they are awarded the Medal of Freedom - as was the case with former CIA Director George Tenet, former Army General Tommy Franks, and former US proconsul in Baghdad Paul Bremer - each of whom richly deserved a "Heck of a job, Brownie" type of salute. As Tuchman pointed out:

"Once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it.... Adjustment is painful. For the ruler it is easier, once he has entered the policy box, to stay inside. For the lesser official it is better ... not to make waves, not to press evidence that the chief will find painful to accept. Psychologists call the process of screening out discordant information "cognitive dissonance," an academic disguise for "Don't confuse me with the facts."

Bush's genius is that he knows this instinctively - without having to take Tuchman's book to read in Crawford. And, by all signs, he likes it that way. That is why he has assembled a truly amazing array of sycophants around him, whose only pedigree is loyalty to George W. Bush.

And that is precisely why we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), in our first Memorandum for the President (February 5, 2003), closed with this admonition:

"After watching Secretary Powell today [giving his speech at the UN], we are convinced that you would be better served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

Our views, and those of others - like Scott Ritter, who knew more about what had happened to Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" than virtually anyone - made no dent in the wooden head. Not that the president really believed there were such weapons there. If he did, he was badly misled by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was well aware that the "evidence," such as it was, was bogus. Senior White House officials told my former colleagues at CIA eight months before the war that they needed to focus on "regime change," not WMD. And the White House did not wish to hear any more about WMD from CIA's supersource - the Iraqi foreign minister, whom CIA operations officers had "turned" to work in place for the US rather than for Saddam.

The Attack on Iraq and Terrorism

In the same February 5, 2003 memorandum, we strongly warned the president (as did many others) of the consequences, should he order our troops to invade Iraq:

"It is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially."

We cited a CIA study done the previous fall that pointed out:

"The forces fueling hatred of the US and fueling al-Qaeda recruiting are not being addressed ... the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist."

And we noted that that CIA report cited a 2002 Gallup poll of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased." We hoped against hope that someone could break through the coterie around President George W. Bush and give him a chance to hear why "they hate us." Someone, for example, from the US Defense Science Board, a panel established to provide independent advice to the secretary of defense, which on September 23, 2004 completed on an unclassified study on "Strategic Communication." With little risk to their day jobs, that distinguished board directly contradicted the line taken by the president:

"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy ..."

It is hard to guess whether such straight talk might make a dent in presidential wood. The pity is that the palace guard around him headed by centurion-in-chief Cheney can, and does, keep such information from getting through. Even if the president were to read The New York Times, as many of us still do, he would have had to wait two months for the "paper of record" to put this story on the record and, even then, he would have been shortchanged.

Times writer Thom Shanker, to his credit, wrote a story on the findings of the Defense Science Board panel on November 24, 2004 (better two months late than never). Shanker, too, cited the paragraph immediately above, but only the first and last sentences survived. To someone's discredit, the offending middle sentence was surgically removed before the paper went to press.

NIE Ducks Key Issues

The latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) titled "The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland," is a disappointment, at least judging from its declassified Key Judgments that were made public on July 17. The judgments caused a stir by describing a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" and pointing out that al-Qaeda has secured safe haven in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And then came the "mushroom-cloud" warning:

"al-Qaeda will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability."

Now that I've got your attention, I must tell you there is in the Key Judgments absolutely no hint as to how likely it might be that al-Qaeda will be able to acquire such material. The message seems to be simply: Be afraid. Let us "assess" and "judge," but don't ask us about sources or provenance.

The Unaddressed Why of It All

Worse still, the Key Judgments throw no light at all on why al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups would want to use such weapons against the US. With this key element missing, the paper reads like a long police bulletin: Be alert; heightened threat; terrorists want to do bad things to us. We don't know if they can; but "we assess" they will try to do very bad things ... and don't ask us why. They're evildoers; is that not enough for you?

The estimate bears the earmarks of having been drafted originally by law enforcement agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, whose portfolio includes terrorist threats to the US, and the FBI. There are pitfalls here. There is a tendency to inflate the threat, when one has a parochial interest in building up one's capacity to deal with it

In the past, the Pentagon would routinely magnify external threats by writing what we disdainfully called "budgetary intelligence" to justify burgeoning budgets. There is more than a whiff of that in the Key Judgments. The National Intelligence Council, which has purview over NIEs, is supposed to monitor this. But there is no sign in the Key Judgments that judicious restraint has been applied.

So, even if the president and Cheney wished to know what actually fuels all this terrorism, they would receive little if any help from this estimate.

Help Needed

And since 9/11, the Michael (Heck-of-a-Job-Brownie) Browns have proliferated in the national security apparatus almost as quickly as lapel flag pins.

Ms. Fran Townsend, the young woman with the portfolio for terrorism at the National Security Council, seems ill-suited to the job. She confessed to being frustrated at al-Qaeda's success in rebuilding its infrastructure and links to affiliates and the fact that Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants have found safe haven, as the estimate makes clear.

And she was far from comfortable responding to journalists' questions, as can be seen from her answer to this one:

Q. The president was warned before the war that this was actually going to help al-Qaeda gain influence.... Isn't that something the president ignored?
A. But you're assuming this is a zero-sum game, which is what I don't understand. The fact is, we are harassing them in Afghanistan. We're harassing them in Iraq. We're harassing them in other ways non-militarily around the world. And the answer is, every time you poke the hornet's nest, they are bound to come back and push back on you. That doesn't suggest to me that we shouldn't be doing it.

Is this what passes for a strategic plan to counter terrorists? If so, it certainly highlights the need for adult supervision in the White House... and for creating the capability to prepare honest, sophisticated estimates, which in turn can enable policies of some vision and imagination.

But all this matters little, if wooden-headedness continues to prevail with the president and Cheney. As long as they are permitted to preside over keystone-cops law enforcement operations, with an occasional military surge here and there, the men and women in our armed forces, and the rest of us, will be in greater danger.

In the end, though, wood is not difficult to drill through with the proper tools.

Thanks to the prescience and courage of those who crafted our Constitution, a wood tool is available. It is a precision tool that, with some courage, can be employed almost immediately. It is called impeachment, the orderly political process the Founders left to us for use when the president and/or vice president or other high official needs to be removed to save the Republic.

Let the members of Congress, who enjoy calling one another "distinguished," distinguish themselves by rising to the occasion. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us at another such juncture, there is such a thing as too late. Too late has already come to more than 3,600 young men and women in our armed forces, as well as thousands now missing limbs and other once functional parts of their bodies and minds. Not to mention the carnage visited on hundreds of thousands more whose only sin is that they are Iraqis.

---------

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared/briefed the President's Daily Brief. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

This article appeared originally on Consortiumnews.com.

As if our lives depend on it… - Progressive Democrats of America

2007-07-19T19:41:00.000-07:00

As if our lives depend on it… - Progressive Democrats of America
By Jeeni Criscenzo

This is the third in a series of article on the Edwards and Kucinich campaigns.

We are at a moment in time when what we do–or don’t do–will not only impact our own lives but the future of humanity on this planet. It’s that critical ….

Thirty years ago, when I was balancing the responsibilities of being a single mom and a sole provider, I put aside my concerns about the safety of the food I fed my children and the car I drove to shuttle them around, the quality of education they were getting, the water we drank, the air we breathed, and the myriad experiences my family encountered every day, by thinking, “I can’t possibly do everything, so I’m going to have to trust that the people in charge are doing their job.” I seldom thought beyond those issues that directly impacted my daily life. There simply wasn’t enough time–or so I told myself.

If you are reading this, you have probably come to the same terrifying realization that I have–the “people in charge” are NOT doing their job and most cannot be trusted. So where does that leave us? Do we have to take personal responsibility to do everything ourselves? Do we have to check the safety of everything we feed our children and ourselves? Do we have to check that the airplane we fly is mechanically safe? Do we have to test our water before drinking it and our air before breathing it? Do we have to stop illegal wars? Do we have to shut down nuclear power plants? Do we have to stop global warming?

We can’t do these things ourselves–we have neither the resources nor the time. That’s why, as a civilized people, we have agreed to elect individuals to govern, regulate and oversee. Unfortunately, we’ve made some god-awful bad choices–or more accurately, we’ve let others make those terrible choices for us. We’ve allowed the corporate-controlled media to tell us who our leaders should be. Like blind sheep we bleat their declarations of who is “viable” and who “doesn’t have a chance,” as if those conclusions were the result our own research and insightful analysis. This isn’t a poker game where we can fake our expertise, and the stakes are too high to leave the outcome to chance or the dictates of someone else with their own self-serving agenda. This time we MUST take personal responsibility for choosing our leaders, because only someone of impeccable integrity, proven courage and inspired vision can lead us from the precipice humanity hangs from. Choose wrong, and we all perish.

It doesn’t matter one flying-flippit how tall our next president is, as long as that person measures up when standing alone. Who cares how they choose to part their hair, as long as we know they will always choose what’s best for the people of our nation over what’s going to enrich their campaign coffers. There’s only one candidate running for President with a proven track record for making the tough choices, for having the intelligence to see through the cons in Congress and the backbone to buck the relentless pressure to enrich the military industrial complex rather than serve the people. That candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who voted against giving President Bush a blank check to wage war on a country that was no threat to us. He doesn’t have to apologize for being fooled about the lies of WMDs because he was smart enough to know they were lies from the beginning. That’s the kind of wisdom we need in our President, because there’s no more room for mistakes of judgment no matter how sincere the apologies are after the fact. Imagine if the majority in Congress had the insight and intestinal fortitude of Dennis Kucinich in 2003 to never let the illegal invasion of Iraq happen in the first place! Just imagine what a better place we would all be in right now! Do the research–Edwards, Obama and Clinton have ALL said that they wouldn’t rule out the possibility of attacking Iran. Have they learned NOTHING from the past five years! Do you want anyone who has no concept of the insanity of war with Iran running our country?

Remember the scene in Fahrenheit 911 when the 3,000-page Patriot Act is being handed out to Congress? There was one man in the background who was actually READING IT–the ONLY Presidential Candidate who voted against that outrageous usurpation of our Constitutional rights–Dennis Kucinich.

Michael Moore has just come out with a new movie about another national disgrace–our healthcare system. SiCKO clearly pins culpability for our medical mess on the HMOs. But, while it’s politically popular to say that you’re all for fixing our healthcare system, only ONE candidate actually has the courage to propose a plan that eliminates the blood-sucking insurance companies from the system–Dennis Kucinich. I’ve heard some people justify keeping health insurance companies in the plan because it would be “unfeasible” to stand up to them. Should we say the same thing about every bully we encounter? I want a President who isn’t beholden to bullies, whether they’re HMOs, war profiteers or the oil industry. Back when he was the youngest mayor of Cleveland the banks and electric utility tried to shake down Dennis Kucinich. He stood on his promise not to sell out, even when it sidelined his political career for years. That’s what we need now–courage!

I’ll never go back to those innocent days of blind trust in our government. No, I can’t check up that every person is doing their job, but I can do everything possible to make sure that we have someone at the top who I can trust to set the tone and the standard for integrity, courage and a passion for serving the people. I’m not just asking you to vote for Dennis Kucinich, I asking you to commit the next six months to getting him the Democratic nomination. I’m asking you to work on this campaign as if our future depends on it–because it does. We have the candidate we’ve been waiting for, so what are YOU waiting for?

Introducing Dennis Kucinich - Progressive Democrats of America

2007-07-19T19:38:00.000-07:00

Introducing Dennis Kucinich - Progressive Democrats of America
By Steve Cobble

PDA Board member Steve Cobble, an associate fellow of the Policy Institute Studies, introduced Dennis Kucinich at the Take Back America Conference in June. Here is the text of Cobble's speech:

Good morning. My name is Steve Cobble. I’m a cofounder of Progressive Democrats of America and a cofounder of www.AfterDowningStreet.org

Thirty-five years ago this week, I was elected a national convention delegate for George McGovern at the age of 20. Why was I for McGovern? Because he was the one working hardest to end the Vietnam War.

Twenty years ago, I joined the Jesse Jackson for President Campaign as national delegate coordinator. It was a great campaign, the most incredible multi-racial, electoral insurgency this nation has ever seen. It changed the Democratic Party, and changed America. Why was I for Jackson? Because he was—and still is—the living bridge to Dr. King’s movement for peace and justice.

Five years ago, I joined up with Dennis Kucinich. Why? Because he had the character to lead the fight against the invasion of Iraq even when George W. Bush’s poll ratings were near 90%. When others were in hiding—at best—he risked his career to oppose an illegal, immoral war launched by a hugely popular, vindictive Administration.

Dennis Kucinich was the first to stand up against invasion in February 2002, more than 5 years ago. Dennis didn’t just give a speech, or cast a vote—both of which were brave and unique in their own right—he led.

He spearheaded the fight in the House in 2002 to deny President Bush his fig leaf of an authorization to go to war. He sued to block the war. He spoke at peace rallies, including in New York City on February 15, 2003, when the world said no to war. He challenged Bush’s war on the same night Bush launched it, when others ducked for cover.

We offered the first comprehensive plan to get the troops out of Iraq—not last month like some, not last year, but in September 2003.

Dennis was first to call for bringing the mercenaries home, and closing the bases. He had the integrity to challenge his own party caucus on the privatization and theft of Iraqi oil, calling it a war crime. He is the only one running who voted not to go to war; and he has consistently—alone among the contenders—voted not to fund the continuing occupation. And he uses that word. Not civil war. Occupation.

Here are some other words he speaks in public: Empire. War crimes. Nonviolence.

Dennis didn’t stop there. He’s the candidate who voted against the Patriot Act, at a time when it was regarded as politically dangerous to do so. Why? Well, for one thing, he actually read it.

Dennis Kucinich is the only one running who supports single-payer, not-for-profit national health care. Medicaid for All. He and John Conyers are leading this fight, and introduced their single-payer bill a couple years ago. So when you hear other people saying they have the best plan, or the first plan, or the most comprehensive plan, let’s just say they’re mistaken. Dennis was there first.

Just as he was there first on fair trade. Do you think any of the other candidates thought about going to Seattle in the fall of 1999 to be with the “turtles and Teamsters” as they challenged corporate free trade? Yeah, right.

But Kucinich was there. He’s been a leader on the fair trade issue all his life, because he’s seen first hand what low-wage, corporate-driven trade has done to his home city of Cleveland—first the jobs went to Mexico, then they went to China. And now, as Dennis said in the last debate, “we borrow money from China to pay for an illegal war in Iraq.”

Dennis Kucinich has shown enough leadership to compile a long list of “firsts” or “stand-alones” or “only’s” that I could bring up, from protecting public utilities to introducing a bill to have all our elections conducted by verifiable paper ballots to challenging President Bush on threatening Iran.

Remember the last Presidential debate, the New Hampshire debate? Who else but Dennis promised to cut the military budget by 25%; who else even mentioned fair trade and the WTO; who else but Dennis reminded us that it was NAFTA that helped drive Mexican peasants off their land, and then over the border; who else would call the Iraq War “blood for oil”; who else but Dennis promised to work for the abolition of nuclear weapons; and who else had the character and integrity to say that he would not blissfully blow up a bunch of civilians if the CIA handed him the coordinates where they claimed bin Laden was?

Surprise. No one else wanted to share in that last leadership position. No one else wanted to disown assassination as an instrument of policy.

Let me end with this. There was a great moment of clarity near the finish of the first Presidential debate in South Carolina, when NBC’s Brian Williams asked if any of the other Presidential candidates would join Dennis in supporting H. Res. 333, the bill Kucinich introduced calling for the impeachment of Vice-President Cheney.

Dennis had the integrity to stand up for the Constitution. No one else would join him. Even though everyone watching, including many of you, including most Democrats, including all the other candidates, knows full well that Dick Cheney has earned impeachment.

Why am I for Dennis Kucinich?

Because in 2003, when he started running last time, he ran on the idea that the key issues that would lead us to victory were peace and fair trade.

How did we win the House back last fall? Opposition to the war and fair trade.

How did we win the Senate back last fall? Opposition to the war and fair trade.

How will we win in 2008? By paying attention to what the voters told us they wanted done when they voted in November 2006—End the war; make trade fairer.

Dennis Kucinich’s issues.

Dennis’s leadership.

Brothers and sisters, I give you Dennis Kucinich.

He has the character and integrity to lead, to stand up.

You can stand with him at www.kucinich.us

Brothers and sisters, I give you Dennis Kucinich.

Watch Dennis Kucinich deliver his comments.

As if our lives depend on it… - Progressive Democrats of America

2007-07-19T19:35:00.000-07:00

As if our lives depend on it… - Progressive Democrats of America
By Jeeni Criscenzo

This is the first in an ongoing series of articles on the Kucinich campaign.

It seems like a million years ago…. July 2004, following the Democratic Convention in Boston, when a thousand people filled a hall in Roxbury, Massachusetts, for the Progressive Democrats of America’s first convention and PDA was born. PDA was an outgrowth of the Kucinich for President 2004 campaign. Most of the people in that hall that day were Kucinich supporters, joined by Deaniacs. Seeing Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean hold their hands up together in Roxbury signaled a spirit of cooperation, integrity and hope that continues on in PDA.

Three years later, PDA is growing and going strong. This past weekend, I was part of about 75 PDA leaders from California who met in San Luis Obispo to discuss the direction of PDA in our state and in the nation. As we gathered for a group photo at the end of our meetings, I thought, “Someday we are going to look back at this and realize that we were part of something so powerful that it completely changed the world – for the better.”

For many of us, myself included, the 2004 Presidential campaign was our first foray into politics. Dennis Kucinich’s candidacy in ’04 inspired many of us, again including me, to run for office and to stay involved in the political process in order to manifest the ideals of the Kucinich campaign in the Democratic Party. While many members of PDA are still looking over the smorgasbord of Democratic candidates running for president in ’08, the values and idealism of our original Kucinich roots remain. Of all the candidates running for President, only Dennis Kucinich is 100% in alignment with PDA priorities.

Now the 2008 Presidential campaign has begun, and this could be the most crucial election in the history of our nation. Rather than endorse any one candidate, PDA has invited the Kucinich and Edwards campaigns to blog on the PDA website. Over the coming weeks and months I’ll be writing about where Kucinich stands on those issues PDA has chosen as priorities. I’ll keep you up-to-date on what’s happening in the campaign and ways that you can get involved. And I’ll also be sharing with you some of my personal reasons for supporting Dennis Kucinich and the experiences I have while working on his Presidential campaign.

I hope that at this stage of the race you are still open to learning more about all of the candidates and not allowing the mass media to choose our next Democratic nominee. The stakes are too high this time—we must get it right and choose a leader who will turn this country around. Thanks for being a part of this historical opportunity.

Clinton, Edwards overheard planning to eliminate other Democratic candidates | Kucinich for President 2008

2007-07-13T05:24:00.000-07:00

Clinton, Edwards overheard planning to eliminate other Democratic candidates | Kucinich for President 2008
Submitted by Press Secretary on Fri, 2007-07-13 06:18.

Unaware that their microphones were still on following an NAACP Presidential Forum in Detroit on Thursday, Senator Hillary Clinton and former Senator John Edwards agreed to try to eliminate other Democratic Presidential candidates from future debates.

According to the Associated Press, "Fox news microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field."

"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards was overheard telling Clinton, according to the AP.
watch the video

Clinton agreed, according to the AP. "We've got to cut the number...They're not serious." Clinton added that she thought her campaign and Edwards' had previously been discussing steps to eliminate other candidates. "We've got to get back to it," Clinton told Edwards.

"Candidates, no matter how important or influential they perceive themselves to be, do not have and should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not," said Kucinich.

"Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial President."

The Kucinich campaign will immediately take steps to address the planned actions of the Clinton and Edwards campaigns.

Kucinich Camp Outraged by 'Overheard' Plans of Clinton and Edwards to Eliminate Candidates from Future Presidential Debates | AfterDowningStreet.org

2007-07-13T05:04:00.000-07:00

Kucinich Camp Outraged by 'Overheard' Plans of Clinton and Edwards to Eliminate Candidates from Future Presidential Debates | AfterDowningStreet.org
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-07-13 15:32. Elections

DETROIT, July 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Top campaign officials for
Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich
tonight expressed outrage that rival candidates Hillary Clinton and John
Edwards were overheard collaborating on a strategy to eliminate other
Democratic candidates from future debates and forums.

According to the Associated Press, Fox News Channel microphones picked
up Clinton and Edwards on stage discussing their desire to limit future
joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field. "We
should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said into
Clinton's ear following a Presidential Forum in Detroit hosted by the NAACP
on Thursday.

Clinton agreed with Edwards, according to print reports and video
footage of the exchange. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not
serious," she said. Clinton added that she thought representatives of her
campaign and Edwards' had already tried to limit the debates, and "we've
gotta get back to it," according to the AP.

"Candidates, no matter how important or influential they perceive
themselves to be, do not have and should not have the power to determine
who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not," said
Kucinich.

"Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our
Democracy as an imperial President."

The Kucinich campaign will immediately take steps to address the
planned actions of the Clinton and Edwards campaigns.

15 Congress Members for Impeachment | AfterDowningStreet.org

2007-07-13T05:00:00.000-07:00

15 Congress Members for Impeachment | AfterDowningStreet.org

By David Swanson

Congressman Sam Farr (D., Calif.) is the latest member of Congress to respond to intense pressure from his constituents and co-sponsor H Res 333, articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. The official list of co-sponsors at thomas.loc.gov includes 11 names, plus the original sponsor Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio). That makes 12. In addition, Congressman Bob Filner (D., Calif.) has said he will sign on, and has said so publicly in media interviews including this one: http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0189.html

That makes 13, or 14 with Farr. Then there is Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D., Ill.) who has not signed onto H Res 333 or introduced his own articles of impeachment against Cheney or Bush, but who recently released this statement:

"In her first weeks as leader of the Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi withdrew the notion of impeachment proceedings against either President Bush or Vice President Cheney [actually she did that 8 months earlier, and Jackson began parroting her line right away, but who's counting]. With the president's decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings. Lewis Libby was convicted of lying under oath to cover up the outing of active, undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame. It is beyond unthinkable that the president would undermine the legal process to protect a man who engaged in treason against the United States government, threatening the security of the American people. In November's election, voters put Democrats in charge of Congress because they believed our pledge of oversight and accountability. Now it's time for us to honor that pledge. The Executive Branch should be held responsible for its illegalities. Our democratic system is grounded in the principle of checks and balances. When the Executive Branch disregards the will of the people, our lawmakers must not be silent. Today's actions, coupled with the president's unwillingness to comply with Senate and House inquiries, leave Democrats with no other option than to consider impeachment so that we can gather the information needed to achieve justice for all Americans."

If Jackson signs onto H Res 333, there will be 15 cosponsors.

Sam Farr represents Santa Cruz, California, the first city in the country to have passed a resolution demanding impeachment. Santa Cruz city council passed that first resolution in 2003, and passed another in 2006. Santa Cruz is also home to COIN (Coalition for Impeachment Now) led by local organizers Sherry Conable and Louis LaFortune. Following Santa Cruz's lead, a total of at least 79 towns and cities have passed resolutions demanding the impeachment of Cheney and / or Bush: http://impeachpac.org/resolutions-list

Of all the polling companies in the United States, only one has ever polled, and only once, on whether Americans want Cheney impeached. 54 percent of Americans and 76 percent of Democrats said Yes. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

Counting Farr and Jackson, a total of 3 percent of Congress Members and 6 percent of Democratic Congress Members have taken the position shared by over three-quarters of Democrats, 51 percent of Independents, and 17 percent of Republicans around the country.

Meanwhile, Cheney's popularity has reached a record low, with 13 percent of the country in favor of his performance. And that figure actually comes from May, prior to the most recent few scandals and exposed abuses of power: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/polls-cheney-nears-quayle-as-least-popular-veep

What will it take for Congress to act? The majority of the people want it, and the least popular Vice President in history can't be all that intimidating, can he? Isn't it time we started intimidating him? http://www.impeachcheney.org

People from around the country are headed to Washington on July 23rd to find out whether pressure from the citizens of this republic counts for anything anymore: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/24450

Joe Wilson Bashes Cheney Cabal at House Hearing

2007-07-12T13:44:00.000-07:00

Joe Wilson Bashes Cheney Cabal at House Hearing

Former Ambassador Joe Wilson had his day Wednesday at a House hearing about I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s controversial commutation, accusing President Bush and his men—Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Libby—of playing key roles in a “character assassination campaign” against him and his wife, outed CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, and of misleading the American people about the real reasons for the Iraq war. Watch PoliticsTV.com’s coverage of Wilson’s forceful opening salvo here

National-Security Breaches: Time for Impeachment | AfterDowningStreet.org

2007-07-03T19:28:00.000-07:00

National-Security Breaches: Time for Impeachment | AfterDowningStreet.org

By Bernard Weiner, Crisis Papers

By taking impeachment "off the table," Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers may have made partisan sense during the run-up to the November 2006 midterm election -- the Dems didn't want to scare away any wavering Republicans. Perhaps it even made sense in the first few months of their new majority status in Congress. But it's now mid-2007 and a whole lot of awful, fetid water has flowed under the political bridge in the interim.

It's long past time for Dem leaders to re-think their strategy on this issue, and to use the great leverage their majority status now conveys -- much of that leverage inadvertently supplied by Bush and Cheney themselves -- to help protect the American people from the Administration's dangerous policies.

The old issues are still there and together would make up formidable reasons to begin impeachment hearings in the House. But some or all of those highly-publicized issues (lying to take the country to war, U.S. attorneys scandal cover-up, torture as state policy, widespread domestic spying without court warrants, et al.) might not fly with many Republicans. They can choose to believe that the Administration has the right to be wrong in its policies but are not generally engaged in anything that would rise to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required for impeachment.

What I'm proposing here is that the Democrats stick to one simple yet vastly important, impeachment charge that might well garner enormous support from Republicans and Dems alike: that CheneyBush have endangered U.S. national security in a wide variety of ways, and thus have violated their oaths of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and thus the citizens of these United States. Since CheneyBush are not permitted to run for another term, impeachment is the only constitutional form of accountability for such criminal behavior.

NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW

Much of the evidence for such a charge has been revealed only recently. (I'm about to take off for a week's vacation in a few minutes, so I won't be able to include whatever further gory details emerge in the next few days, but the essence probably won't change.)

I think most Americans can be reached on a gut level about both the issue of Bush and Cheney's endangering America's national security by their cavalier treatment of classified secrets, documents and personnel and by the generally-accepted principle that "no person is above the law" in our society.

So, let's do a quick summary of how Bush and Cheney have endangered America's national security; we won't even include their launching an unnecessary war of aggression on Iraq based on lies and deceptions, thus putting the U.S. and U.S. citizens in grave danger, all the while serving as al-Qaida's best recruiting tool. No, for impeachment purposes, we'll stick with the documented evidence of law-breaking. (Much of what follows in this first section is information gathered from White House insiders by Chairman Henry Waxman's staff on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

SECURITY OFFICE IS NOT DOING ITS JOB

There is a compliance officer in the White House, who heads up the White House Security Office which is charged with protecting classified information and making sure that whenever lapses occur they are properly reported and corrected. Apparently none of this is not being done. It appears that Bush and Cheney have cut out access to and monitoring of classified information and its handling in the White House. This puts the national security of the country at risk.

Even when security breaches are reported to the Security Office by Secret Service agents and others, for example, they are not investigated. Apparently, Bush and Cheney have ruled the White House off-limits to probes of the very actions that Bush made illegal under Executive Order 12958. This puts the national security of the country at risk.

Of course, the most egregious example of endangering America's security was when Cheney and Libby and Rove (probably with Bush's knowledge) spread the word around the press that Valerie Plame -- wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had publicly questioned the way intelligence was "twisted" to justify the invasion of Iraq -- was a CIA agent. She had been covertly working in the WMD field, and her outing may have resulted in scores of CIA assets around the world being compromised and "neutralized." Such callous political behavior, to punish a critic (and by doing so warning others not to try something similar) by ruining the career of his wife, put the national security of the country at risk.

Another example: A senior advisor to the President improperly disclosed classified material to a junior aide, who had no security clearance. No investigation of this breach took place at the White House. This puts the national security of the country at risk.

Classified documents were left lying around in open view in White House offices, when they **{should have been} required to be locked away at secure locations. No investigations were carried out, no disciplinary measures applied. This puts the national security of the country at risk.

In short, as Waxman wrote then-White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, there is a "systemic breakdown in security procedures at the White House." This puts the national security of the country at risk. If doing so is not an impeachable offense, what is?

CHENEY: THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

Last week, Josh Meyer of the Los Angeles Times reported:

The 2003 executive order addressed a system of safeguards for government agencies aimed at ensuring that classified national security information is properly handled so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, that improper leaks of such information are investigated promptly, and that government secrets are properly declassified at the appropriate time.

The Information Security Oversight Office, an agency within the federal National Archives and Records Administration, is in charge of the effort, with broad authorities that include inspections of government agencies to make sure that they are in compliance.

The president's and vice president's offices handle some of the most highly classified national security information.

The controversy flared up last week when Waxman criticized Cheney for rebuffing the agency's oversight efforts, saying his office's refusal to file annual reports on how much information it was classifying and declassifying had created a potential national security risk.

Waxman also released letters showing that Cheney's office had blocked efforts by the oversight agency's director, J. William Leonard, to inspect the vice president's office in 2003.

In addition, in 2005 similar attempts to monitor the offices of Bush's advisors in the West Wing were blocked. Meyer writes:

"The security officers reported that after an initial meeting, a senior White House official intervened and instructed the White House Security Office to block any inspection of the West Wing. The security officers expressed shock that the Information Security Oversight Office was not permitted to conduct an inspection."

The story gets even more strange and scary. A few days later, Cheney, speaking for himself and Bush, claimed that he was not part of the Executive Branch and thus did not have to obey Bush's Executive Order and neither did Bush. They were exempting themselves from any monitoring of their handling of classified information. In effect, devoid of oversight by anyone, Cheney had established a Fourth Branch of government, beholden to no one and accountable to no one. This puts our country's national security -- and our Constitution -- at risk.

But Cheney, presumably knowing Bush would not object, went even further. He attempted to get the office in the National Archives responsible for classification oversight -- which Bush's Executive Order had set up -- abolished. This would have put the national security of this country at risk.

Now Bush has chosen to ignore subpoenas from Congress for information vital to the Legislative oversight of Bush Administration programs. He asserts "executive privilege" when it's clear that he's hiding something likely criminal in nature. The courts may have to sort out the legal issues, with no guarantee of resolution anytime soon.

THE DANGERS OF SECRECY

As many Washington observers have pointed out, the M.O. from the establishment of the CheneyBush Administration in 2001 until now has been to concentrate all power and all accountability in their own hands. The Legislative Branch had to be dealt with, to be sure, but the idea was to keep them more in an advisory role, never having any real say-so in how the Executive Branch carries out its activities. (Bush operates under the cockamamie theory that as "commander-in-chief" during "wartime," he can do whatever he wants, and ignore whatever laws he wants.) The Judicial Branch has been warned many times to stay out of Executive Branch matters.

The ramifications of such secrecy and paranoia are frightening. Writes **{former [JD is now an Independent]} Republican and D.C. insider John W. Dean, author of "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush":

"Their secrecy is extreme -- not merely unjustified and excessive but obsessive...It has given us a presidency that operates on hidden agendas. To protect their secrets, Bush and Cheney dissemble as a matter of policy...Cheney openly declares that he wants to turn the clock back to the pre-Watergate years -- a time of an unaccountable and extraconstitutional imperial presidency. To say that their secret presidency is undemocratic is an understatement....Cheney formed what is, in effect, a shadow NSC [National Security Council]...It is a secret government -- beyond the reach of Congress, and everyone else as well..."

"Worse Than Watergate" was written in 2004; things have gotten even worse in the past three years, to the point where Dean in his most recent book, "Conservatives Without Conscience," writes that under Cheney and Bush, the country is perilously close to a kind of American fascism:

"It would not take much more misguided authoritarian leadership, or thoughtless following of such leaders, to find ourselves there," he wrote.

Dean's conclusion is worth highlighting:

"Democracy is not a spectator sport that can be simply observed. To the contrary, it is difficult and demanding, and its very survival depends on active participation. Take it for granted, and the authoritarians, who have already taken control, will take American democracy where no freedom-loving person would want it to go. But time has run out, and the next two or three national election cycles will define America in the twenty-first century, for better or worse."

That is our challenge. We need to rid ourselves of the reckless, ultra-secretive, paranoid crew in the White House bunker before they take the entire country down with them. That means impeaching Cheney and Bush, and casting out their legislative enablers in 2008, regardless of party. If we do nothing, and simply let CheneyBush run out the clock of their tenure, we ourselves will be putting our country's security gravely at risk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

No Child Left Behind Bars | Kucinich for President 2008

2007-07-03T19:16:00.000-07:00

Dennis took me to the airport early this morning so that I could fly to Austin to attend an Amnesty International coalition rally in Taylor, Texas at T. Don Hutto Correctional Facility. The facility is now being used to detain families seeking asylum. Having fled persecution in their homelands, they have made their way to America, only to be treated without dignity and respect as vulnerable people.

Children are locked up with their parents, with only one hour of school per day and very little time spent outside. There were stories of sexual abuse which have gone unchallenged by the legal system; however the ACLU has filed several lawsuits against the DHS and ICE on behalf of incarcerated children. In May, a UN Official was denied access to Hutto and other immigration centers in the U.S.

Hundreds of people gathered outside the Texas facility, in a peaceful demonstration in support of humanity and in an attempt to call back that which is truly American, a country of justice, freedom, and liberty.

A child is a child; no matter the heritage, nationality, or the actions of their parents, all children should be treated with love, respect, and care. It is up to all of us to stand up for children everywhere.

http://keyetv.com/local/local_story_174233751.html

http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_174215206.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Family-Detention-Center.php

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19392468/

http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=6701356

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/24/24roundup.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52

Forget the Leadership. Convince the Judiciary Committee.

2007-07-03T09:10:00.000-07:00

Forget the Leadership. Convince the Judiciary Committee.

by Meteor Blades

Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 06:28:04 AM PDT

Special Assistant to the Attorney General Wrisley Brown wrote in the June 1913 Harvard Law Review:

To determine whether or not an act or a course of conduct is sufficient in law to support an impeachment, resort must be had to the eternal principles of right, applied to public propriety and civil morality. The offense must be prejudicial to the public interest and it must flow from a willful intent, or a reckless disregard of duty. ... It may constitute an intentional violation of positive law, or it may be an official dereliction of commission or omission, a serious breach of moral obligation, or other gross impropriety of personal conduct that, in its natural consequences, tends to bring an office into contempt and disrepute.

Brown's monograph concerned "The Impeachment of the Federal Judiciary." But that paragraph could apply to anyone subject to the Constitution's impeachment remedy.

However much progressives differ about whether impeachment is a proper, well-timed remedy for what ails the U.S. Executive branch at this particular moment in history, there is, I wager, less than a handful who would deny that Mr. Brown's description applies to the two highest officials in today's Executive branch. Indeed, it's a perfect measure for the behavior of the - to choose Larry Wilkerson's word - cabal that's been running our government since January 2001, every day adding to the pile of offenses.

This president and vice president are on the cusp of wrecking what was for many people one of the most important aspects for working so hard to secure a Democratic majority: subpoena power. Wrecking it by using the legal system every bit as cynically as was done in commuting I. Lewis Libby's prison sentence. Rule of law? Sure, when it suits them, when it assists them, when it's a cudgel in their hands.

Those who came to believe in impeachment did so at different times. Some when the Administration made Gitmo into a jurisdictionless no-man's land, free of the rule of law and public scrutiny. Some when torture and rendition and secret prisons were revealed. Some when the Downing Street Memo provided the first hard evidence that the Bush-Cheney Administration had decided ahead of time to go to war in Iraq whatever the evidence. Some when warrantless, domestic spying belatedly hit the news. Some years ago, some weeks, some yesterday.

Impeachment is the right remedy right now. But transforming it from blog-shriek into reality - if that can be done - will require a fresh approach. Those who want Richard Bruce Cheney and/or George Walker Bush (and possibly other high officials) impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate should stop pounding on Nancy Pelosi and concentrate on convincing the 23 people pictured below. If impeachment is going to happen, these are the ones who must be persuaded to take action.

Not Pelosi. She's made her position clear. Not Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. These 23 folks. Every one of them a Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee. Twenty-three who are essential to making impeachment happen. They can vote to hold impeachment hearings.

^{Chairman Conyers Rep. Berman Rep. Nadler Rep. Rick Boucher}

^{Rep Scott Rep. Baldwin Rep. Watt Rep. Waters}

^{Rep. Jackson Lee Rep. Meehan Rep. Wexler Rep. Schiff}

^{Rep. Ellison Rep. Sánchez Rep. Weiner Rep. Gutierrez}

^{Rep. Johnson Rep. Sherman Rep. Davis Rep. Delahunt}

^{Rep. Cohen Rep. Lofgren Rep. Wasserman Schultz}

The good news? Two of them - Rep. Keith Ellison and Rep. Maxine Waters - have already signed on as co-sponsors of H Res 333 to impeach Cheney.

That means only 21 to persuade. Obviously, Republicans sit on the Judiciary Committee, too. Seventeen of them. It's essential to have a few of those Republicans vote on the side of Democrats if a committee majority eventually approves Articles of Impeachment and sends them for a vote to the full House. But, first things first. And first, we must convince the committee Democrats.

Here are their names and contact information. They are most likely to listen to constituents from their own districts, naturally. But that shouldn’t stop you from phoning, writing or e-mailing one or more of them, urging them to do what needs to be done.

Chairman John Conyers, Michigan, 14th (202) 225-5126 Contact him here.
Howard Berman California, 28th (202) 225-4695 Contact him here
Rick Boucher Virginia, 9th (202) 225-3861 Contact him here
Jerrold Nadler New York, 8th Contact him here
Robert C. Scott Virginia, 3rd (202) 225-8351 Contact him here
Melvin L. Watt North Carolina, 12th (202) 225-1510 Contact him here
Zoe Lofgren California, 16th (202) 225-3072 Contact her here
Sheila Jackson Lee Texas, 18th (202) 225-3816 Contact her here
~~Martin T. Meehan Massachusetts, 5th~~ Resigned.
William D. Delahunt Massachusetts, 10th (202) 225-3111 Contact him here
Robert Wexler Florida, 19th (202) 225-3001 Contact him here
Linda T. Sánchez California, 39th (202) 225-6676 Contact her here
Steve T. Cohen Tennessee, 9th (202) 225-3265 Contact him here
Hank Johnson Georgia, 4th (202) 225-1605 Contact him here
Luis Gutierrez Illinois, 4th (202) 225-8203 Contact him here
Brad Sherman California, 27 (202) 225-5911 Contact him here
Anthony D. Weiner New York, 9th (202) 225-6616 Contact him here
Adam B. Schiff California, 29th (202) 225-4176 Contact him here
Artur Davis Alabama , 7th (202) 225-2665 Contact him here

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Florida, 20th 202-225-7931 Contact her here
Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin, 2nd (202) 225-2906 Contact her here

As noted, Rep. Ellison and Rep. Waters already favor impeaching Cheney. So, if you favor impeaching him, give them some hugs.

Keith Ellison Minnesota, 5th (612) 522-1212 Contact him here
Maxine Waters California, 35th (202) 225-2201 Contact her here.

Many bloggers and elected Democrats - both progressive and not - say that pushing for impeachment now is a distraction from important business, badly timed, unlikely to reach a majority in the House, much less result in conviction in the Senate, and therefore it's a turn-off to independent voters, which could imperil what could be a policy-shifting Democratic landslide in 2008. In other words, the argument goes, pushing impeachment will be counterproductive and potentially disastrous, just when we're on the brink of a huge change for the better in Congress, the Senate and the White House.

The comments I've heard and read make it obvious that many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee hold some or all those views. That is, therefore, exactly what we have to change their minds about, with vigor, passion and persistence, as well as respect. Quite a few people disagree with that last bit, I know. So, let me repeat that I think calling a person a coward, sell-out, sin cojones or "as bad as a Republican" is not a productive way to begin any conversation directed toward changing that person's mind whether in person, on the phone or by e-mail. Hone your best argument not your worst insult.

Some pro-impeachment people don't think there are political risks. They think impeachment has no downside, that impeachment hearings will uncover what there is to be uncovered and fill in the details of what we already have a pretty good idea that Mister Bush, Richard Bruce Cheney, and others have done. If Democrats show some spine, they say, it will help in next year's election, not hurt.

Maybe. But I'm of the opinion that there are political risks to impeachment, and these are no small matter. I wish it weren't so close to the elections. I wish the majorities in the House and Senate were larger. I wish fewer voters bought the crap they get from Foxaganda and its kin, which will certainly be in fine spew if impeachment hearings actually get underway.

But what is our choice? We can't only defend the Constitution when the timing is convenient. We can't always wait until election day to make matters right. If that were the Founders' view, there would be no mention of impeachment in the Constitution. If the Bush-Cheney Administration cannot be compelled to turn over subpoenaed documentation relating to its Constitution-dismantling outlawry, and it plans to try every legal maneuver and delaying techinique at its disposal to avoid that compulsion, what remedy remains?

A court battle over these subpoenaed documents could take, in political terms, forever, with no guarantee at the end of even partial victory. The Nixon Administration engaged in legal wrangling over releasing incriminating audiotapes for more than a year, and that was before rightwingers had their hooks so deeply embedded in the federal judiciary.

The political risks of impeachment must be weighed against what's at risk from not impeaching, for failing to shield the Constitution and the American people from the continuing depredations of the lying, unaccountable cabal that's been in charge for the past six-and-a-half years.

Bush Crimes That Will Get Him Impeached, Tried, Removed and Tried Again as a Common Criminal

2007-07-02T16:52:00.000-07:00

Bush Crimes That Will Get Him Impeached, Tried, Removed and Tried Again as a Common Criminal
By The Existentialist Cowboy
Watergate leftovers in the Bush administration learned all the wrong lessons. Dick Cheney, for example, learned how to stonewall, lie and obstruct justice. Outright treason he left to underlings who would take the fall for him. More ominously, however, these "leftovers" learned how to pull off a coup d'etat.

Those too young to remember Watergate are tempted to write that the GOP set the stage for impeachment hardball when they impeached Bill Clinton for lying about an act that was not even a crime. Admittedly, that was absurd. But it stands in stark contrast to the numerous real crimes that had been attributed to Richard Nixon during watergate and the numerous real crimes that will be charged and proven against George W. Bush.
Read more

Chairwoman Slaughter on President Bush’s Decision to Commute

2007-07-02T16:19:00.000-07:00

Chairwoman Slaughter on President Bush’s Decision to Commute
July 2nd, 2007 by Jesse Lee

Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter released the following statement in response to President Bush’s pardoning of Scooter Libby:

“The President has claimed Mr. Libby’s sentence was excessive. But the only excessive actions taken were those of the Administration as it sought to exact retribution against a critic. As I learned personally from the testimony of former CIA agents, its actions were unconscionable.

“The case against Scooter Libby always involved much more than the fate of one man. By revealing Valerie Plame’s identity, the Administration endangered her life, the life of everyone in the field she had worked with, and America’s national security. This illegal action set back the work of our intelligence community immeasurably by breaking bonds of trust which take years to form. Two years is a paltry price to pay for the damage done to our nation, damage Mr. Libby made possible.

“With its decision, the Bush Administration has proven that to the very end, it is interested only in shielding its members from accountability rather than encouraging it, even when doing so comes at the direct expense of our nation’s security.”
Former covert CIA Agent Valerie Plame:
“All of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States, all of my training, all of the value of my years of service were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.”

A President Besieged and Isolated - washingtonpost.com

2007-07-02T15:52:00.000-07:00

A President Besieged and Isolated - washingtonpost.com

By Peter Baker

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 2, 2007; Page A01

At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers. One at a time or in small groups, he summons leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House to join him in the search.

Over sodas and sparkling water, he asks his questions: What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is it just me they hate?

President Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence - washingtonpost.com

2007-07-02T15:42:00.000-07:00

President Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence - washingtonpost.com

By Amy Goldstein

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 2, 2007; 6:20 PM

President Bush today commuted the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, sparing him the 30-month term to which he was sentenced last month for lying to federal investigators about his role in the White House leak of a CIA officer's identity.

Bush took the action just hours after a federal appeals court ruled that Libby was not entitled to remain free while he was appealing his conviction on four felonies.

"With the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision," Bush said in a statement issued by the White House early this evening. Although the president said he "respected" the jury's verdict, he added that he had "concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive."

Bush said he was letting stand a $250,000 fine that also was part of the sentence handed down last month by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who presided over the month-long trial last winter.

In their one-paragraph order earlier in the day, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had denied Libby's request to remain free while he appealed his conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice.

The judges said that Libby's appeal did not raise "a substantial question" close enough that it was likely his conviction would be overturned.

The appeals court ruling prompted Bush to abandon the hands-off posture he had adopted towards the criminal proceedings against Libby, a 56-year-old lawyer who was Cheney's right-hand man and an architect of the administration's national security policies. As pressure from conservatives to give Libby a reprieve mounted on Bush over the past several months, the White House had, until now, said that it was not appropriate to intervene.

The judges' order had upheld a decision by Walton, who presided over Libby's month-long trial. In mid-June, Walton ruled that the defense had not raised any issues that were so likely to prevail on appeal that they warranted allowing Libby to remain free on bond.

At the time, Walton estimated that Libby would have to report to prison within 45 to 60 days, after federal prison officials determined where he would serve the sentence.

In March, a federal court jury found Libby guilty of four felonies for lying to FBI agents and the grand jury that investigated leaks to the media by administration officials of the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame. In a trial that featured high-ranking officials and an A-list of Washington reporters as witnesses, the jury convicted Libby of two perjury counts and one count each of obstructing justice and making false statements about when and how he learned Plame's identity--and what he told journalists about her.

The appellate judges who ruled today included two appointed by Republican presidents and one Democratic appointee. They were David Sentelle, selected by President Ronald Reagan; Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush; and David Tatel, chosen President Bill Clinton.

Dick Cheney's Dangerous Influence

2007-07-02T02:14:00.000-07:00

Dick Cheney's Dangerous Influence

By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek

A longtime confidant of the Bush and Cheney families describes the dangerous influence of the vice president.

Dick Cheney is like "Zelig," the Woody Allen character with the uncanny ability to turn up everywhere. We always suspected his dark influence throughout the government, and now it's been documented chapter and verse in an exhaustive series in The Washington Post. Cheney operates largely in secret, and because he is such a skilled bureaucratic infighter, he's able to do end runs around everybody, including President Bush, who does nothing to rein in his evil twin.

Under the guise of national security, Cheney has gotten away with curbing civil liberties, condoning torture and launching an unnecessary war. He's also chipped away at environmental regulations and done myriad favors for his friends in the business world. His stealthy intervention undermined former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman and led to her resignation. He shapes tax policy and energy policy and whatever else strikes his fancy, installing himself as president of Corporate America.

Cheney's above-the-law arrogance finally met its match this week, when he declined to give national archivists who oversee the handling of classified data in the executive branch access to his papers. Cheney's argument: that he's not part of the executive branch because he also serves as president of the Senate. The claim was ludicrous on its face and opened up Cheney to ridicule. Democrats can't muster the votes to cut off funding for the war, but when House leader Rahm Emanuel threatened to cut off funds for the vice president's operation, Cheney backed down.

Dennis Kucinich 08' - Dave Letterman's guest friday night was Dennis Kucinich.

2007-06-30T13:06:00.000-07:00

Dennis Kucinich 08' - Dave Letterman's guest friday night was Dennis Kucinich. Right on the war, right on healthcare, right for America.

Click here to watch

Or go here to learn more.

House Report Faults Pentagon Accounting of Iraqi Forces - washingtonpost.com

2007-06-28T14:53:00.000-07:00

House Report Faults Pentagon Accounting of Iraqi Forces - washingtonpost.com

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 27, 2007; A15

The United States has invested $19 billion to train and equip nearly 350,000 Iraqi soldiers and police since toppling Saddam Hussein, but the ability of those forces to provide security remains in doubt, according to the findings of a bipartisan congressional investigation to be released today.

As a result, President Bush's pledge to have U.S. troops "stand down" as Iraqi forces "stand up" remains unfulfilled. Instead, U.S. troop numbers and operations have escalated in recent months, and the overall level of violence has not decreased.

Despite the substantial number of Iraqi security forces and their increasing willingness to fight -- demonstrated by rising numbers of casualties -- their progress toward taking full responsibility for the nation's security remains mixed, according to a report on the investigation by the oversight panel of the House Armed Services Committee. U.S. commanders now predict that it will take years and tens of thousands more Iraqi soldiers and police to achieve that goal.

The Pentagon "cannot report in detail how many of the 346,500 Iraqi military and police personnel that the coalition trained are operational today," according to the 250-page report. Details of the document were provided to The Washington Post by congressional staff members.

"We have no idea what our $19 billion has gotten us," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, noting that the United States investment represents $55,000 per Iraqi recruit.

"The DOD can't tell us how well the Iraqis perform their missions or even plan them," he said in an interview. "The police are in particularly bad shape, although they are critical to counterinsurgency."

The lack of transparency is especially worrisome, the report said, because of the possibility that Iraqi forces trained and equipped by the United States have joined the insurgency or sectarian militias.

Democratic senator Patrick Leahy seeks probe of a Bush judge | U.S. | Reuters

2007-06-28T14:47:00.000-07:00

Democratic senator Patrick Leahy seeks probe of a Bush judge | U.S. | Reuters

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy on Wednesday sought a federal investigation into whether a White House lawyer turned appeals court judge testified truthfully to Congress about the Bush administration's detention policies for enemy combatants.

Leahy also asked that Judge Brett Kavanaugh be prosecuted if it is determined that he misled Congress about his involvement in drafting the policies in testimony at his Senate confirmation hearing in May 2006.

In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Leahy wrote, "I have no choice but to refer the matter to you for appropriate investigation and prosecutorial action.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

Kavanaugh, who sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, said through a spokesman this week that his testimony was truthful.

He was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush and confirmed before Democrats won control of the Senate.

On Tuesday, Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin asked Kavanaugh to explain apparent discrepancies between his testimony and reports that he participated in a 2002 White House meeting about the detainee policies.

Durbin and Leahy noted that Kavanaugh had testified: "'Senator, I did not -- I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants."

Leahy said when he asked Kavanaugh about documents related to detainee policies, Kavanaugh replied: "This was not part of my docket."

The senators cited reports by The Washington Post and National Public Radio that Kavanaugh had participated in discussions by White House lawyers in 2002 about whether the Supreme Court would uphold the detention policies.

A federal appeals court panel ruled this month that Bush could not declare civilians in the United States to be enemy combatants and have the military hold them indefinitely.

Cheney Spank | AfterDowningStreet.org

2007-06-27T18:33:00.000-07:00

Cheney Spank | AfterDowningStreet.org

Cheney Spank

Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-05-31 01:22. Cartoons

Cheney's chief of staff rebukes Kerry on VP's secrecy oversight

2007-06-27T12:07:00.000-07:00

Filed by John Byrne

Dick Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, issued a letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) today defending the Vice President's interpretation of his office being outside the executive branch - only this time, he said it was because Cheney's office isn't an "agency."

A copy of the letter from David Addington to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was released to RAW STORY. Kerry said the "legalistic" response from Addington "raises more questions than it purports to answer."

"Dear Senator Kerry," Addington writes. "The executive order on classified national security information -- Executive Order 12958 as amended in 2003 -- makes clear that the Vice President is treated like the President and distinguishes the two of them from 'agencies.'

No longer satisfied with the Vice President's office's claim that Cheney is actually an admixture between the legislative and executive branch, Addington now posits that the Vice President's office is not an "agency."

"The executive order gives the [Information Security Oversight Office], under the supervision of the Archivist of the United States, responsibility to oversee certain activities of 'agencies,' but not of the Vice President or the President."

Kerry said Addington was wrong on that point because the executive order governing the handling of classified material covers "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

Addington insists that the question of whether Cheney is in the executive branch does not apply to the discussion of classified materials.

"Constitutional issues in government are generally best left for discussion when unavoidable disputes arise in a specific context instead of in theoretical discussions," Addington adds. "Given that the executive order treats the Vice President like the President rather than like an "agency," it is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning, based on the law and the history of the legislative functions of the vice presidency and the more modern functions of the vice presidency, to reach the same conclusions that the vice president is not an 'agency' with respect to which ISOO has a role."

Kerry re-iterated his request that Cheney's office define its place in government. If Cheney intends to ignore two centuries of constitutional precedent in declaring himself outside the executive branch, Kerry asks that he at least provide a justification for that decision.

Read a PDF of the letter here.

Michael Moore Attacks the Grotesque Profit Motive of the US Health Care System - Alternet.org

2007-06-22T05:47:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore Attacks the Grotesque Profit Motive of the US Health Care System - Alternet.org

Moore explains how the the obscene profits made by the CEOs of "non-profit" hospitals started with Richard Nixon in this powerful interview about his new documentary, SiCKO.

Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore sat down with Amy Goodman ahead of the release of his new film SiCKO. The film is a seething indictment of the US healthcare system. It focuses not on the more than 40 million people who don't have healthcare but on the 250 million who do - many of whom are abandoned by the very health insurance industry they paid into for decades. "They are getting away with murder," Moore said of the health insurance companies. "They charge whatever they want. There is no government control, and frankly we will not fix our system until we remove these private insurance companies."

Amy Goodman: Michael Moore is on the move. The Academy Award-winning filmmaker testified this week on Capitol Hill. And he's making his way to New Hampshire to challenge presidential candidates -- Democrat and Republican -- over the nation's healthcare system.

Oh, and his latest documentary, SiCKO, is being released in thousands of theaters next week. The film is a seething indictment of the US healthcare system. It focuses not on the more than 40 million people who don't have health insurance, but on the more than 250 million who do, many of whom are abandoned by the very health insurance industry they've paid into for decades.

I sat down with Michael Moore at the Tribeca Cinema here in New York, just after he'd done a sneak preview for 9/11 workers who fell ill after working in the toxic environment at Ground Zero. He was then doing a fundraiser for the Center for Justice and Democracy, a tort reform group. I began by asking Michael Moore what inspired him to make the film.

Michael Moore: Well, I actually -- I had a TV show on back in the '90s called TV Nation, and one day I just -- I thought it would be interesting to have like a race. So we sent a camera crew to an emergency room in Fort Lauderdale, a camera crew to an emergency room in Toronto, and then one to Havana. And they would each wait until someone came in with a broken arm or a broken leg. And then they were going to follow that person through and see falthcare Olympics. And so, it was a race between the US, Canada and Cuba. And to make a long story short, Cuba won. They had the fastest care, the best care, and it cost nothing.

We turn the show in to NBC that week, and we get a call from the censor. They're not called "the censor," they're called Standards & Practices. And so, this woman calls. She's the head of Standards & Practices -- Dr. Somebody. I don't know they -- she actually had a "Dr." before her name, but I forget her last name now. But she calls, and she says, "Mike, Cuba can't win." I said, "What?" "Cuba can't win." "Well, they won. What do you mean they can't win? They won." "No, we can't say that on NBC. We can't say that Cuba won." "Well, yeah, but they won! They provided the fastest care. They were the cheapest. And the patient was happy, and the bone got fixed." "No, it's against regulations here." I said, "Oh, well, I'm not changing it."

Well, they changed it. They changed it. Two days later, when it aired, they changed it so that Canada won. And Canada didn't win. Canada almost won, but they charged the guy $15 for some crutches on the way out. So it's bugged me to this day that anybody who saw that episode, you know, where it said, you know, "and Canada won the Healthcare Olympics," and in fact it was Cuba, but that couldn't be said on NBC, because God knows what would happen.

So, anyways, I first started thinking about this issue then, and then when I had my next show, The Awful Truth, we followed a guy who had health insurance, but his health insurance company would not approve this operation he needed, which would save his life. So we took the guy to the headquarters of Humana, the HMO down in Louisville, Kentucky, took him in to see the executives there. They gave us the boot. So we went out on the lawn and conducted the man's funeral, with him present. So we had a priest and a casket and pallbearers, bagpipes and, you know, "Amazing Grace" and the whole deal. And the executives are looking down from the top floor at this and horrified this is going to air on national television. Three days later, they call and tell the guy, "We'll approve the operation." And the man is alive today.

And I thought at the time, geez, you know, a ten-minute piece, we saved a guy's life; what could we do if we did a two-hour movie? And so, that was the sort of the genesis of this, though the movie didn't end up being a bunch of stories about, you know, saving individual people's lives, because as I got into this, I figured there's a much, you know, sort of bigger story to tell about the actual system itself.

Goodman: Well, tell us about the 9/11 workers and how you got involved with all of these people who have gotten sick. We just came from one of your first showings before the premiere of the film, with 9/11 emergency responders who are sick.

Moore: Right. Well, as you know, those of us who in New York here, where, you know, since 9/11, a lot of these workers who ran down there to help on 9/11 who were not city employees or state employees, but were just volunteers -- I mean, some people got across from New Jersey and came and helped. They were maybe volunteer firefighters from New Jersey, some were EMT volunteers, and they went down there to help. Some of them stayed there for months in the recovery effort. And they got all these illnesses, respiratory illnesses and things like that, from breathing, you know, the whole, you know -- while the EPA was saying, Giuliani was saying everything's fine down there. You know, go ahead and breathe away. In fact, as we now know, it was very toxic down there. And hundreds, perhaps even thousands, have suffered as a result of the toxicity in the air at the time.

SENATORS DEMAND JUSTICE DEPT. INVESTIGATION INTO TIM GRIFFIN, RNC 2004 VOTE CAGING ALLEGATIONS

2007-06-19T21:37:00.000-07:00

SENATORS DEMAND JUSTICE DEPT. INVESTIGATION INTO TIM GRIFFIN, RNC 2004 VOTE CAGING ALLEGATIONS

Sens. Kennedy and Whitehouse Send Letter to DoJ Inspector General's Office Seeking Probe into RNC Voter Supression Tactics

Inquiry Into What Justice Officials Knew About Griffin's Vote Caging Activities When He Was Named as US Attorney for Arkansas

Senators Kennedy and Whitehouse have sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales demanding a probe by the DoJ's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility into "allegations that the Republican National Committee engaged in 'vote caging' during the 2004 elections."

The letter, sent today to Gonzales, also requests an investigation into "whether any Department officials were aware of allegations that Tim Griffin had engaged in caging when he was appointed United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and whether appropriate action was taken."

The complete letter and a press release sent along with it are posted in full at the end of this article.

"The Republican Party has a long and ignominious record of caging – much of it focused on the African American community," Kennedy and Whitehouse explain in their letter which gives details of the RNC using voting caging tactics to suppress minority voters in both 1981 and 1986. After both incidents, the GOP had signed consent decrees that they would not engage in the activity in the future.

Nonetheless, email evidence has shown that in 2004, Tim Griffin created and sent caging lists on behalf of the Bush 2004 campaign as originally reported by the BBC to little American media fanfare, prior to the election. Griffin, who became an aide to Karl Rove, was later appointed by the Bush Administration as the US Attorney from Arkansas after they had fired Bud Cummins. Griffin has since resigned from the post in the wake of the scandal.

The “Cloud” over Dick Cheney Just Got Darker! | AfterDowningStreet.org

2007-06-18T00:27:00.000-07:00

The “Cloud” over Dick Cheney Just Got Darker! | AfterDowningStreet.org
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2007-06-18 00:27. Impeachment

By William Hughes

“It is an extraordinary subversion of the [U.S.] Constitution to send people to die...on the basis of a lie.” - Elizabeth Holtzman (1)

There is a story told about a criminal defense lawyer, a colorful kind of character at the Maryland Bar, who has since gone on to his final reward. Supposedly, he comforted his guilty-as-hell client as the trial date approached by repeatedly telling him: “Don’t Worry! Everything will be all right!” Well, on the day of the trial, the trial judge assigned to the case wasn’t who the defense lawyer expected. In fact, he was a nightmare--”a Hanging Judge!” It was at this point, that the defense counsel leaned over to his client and whispered: “Start worrying!” Well, this is exactly where V. P. Dick Cheney is today. The reason: Impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives are picking up momentum. The American people are demanding action as the quagmire of Iraq deepens. Millions of them believe that Cheney lied the country into the Iraqi War and should be impeached. (2) Some gutsy members of the U.S. Congress are responding to that call. This is why H Res 333, “Cheney’s Nightmare,” was introduced by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), on April 24, 2007. On top of all that, there is the darkening cloud over Cheney's head--Lewis “Scooter” Libby!

Notes:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiSyIbeYjI
2. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
3. http://impeachpac.org/node/976
4. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030501.html
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB6B0J98Kw0

William Hughes is an author and commentator. His videos can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=liamh2.
Email Contact: liamhughes@comcast.net.

A Resolutely Antiwar Democratic Candidate - OhmyNews International

2007-06-10T04:49:00.000-07:00

A Resolutely Antiwar Democratic Candidate - OhmyNews International: "A Resolutely Antiwar Democratic Candidate
Dennis Kucinich maintains his credibility as uncompromising maverick"
When Dennis Kucinich ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, the U.S. corporate media treated him either as if he didn't exist or as if he came from another planet. The same is happening in the current Democratic primary season, which is ironic given that polls indicate Kucinich's staunchly antiwar message is much more in line with the views of most Americans than pundits obsessed with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would have us believe.

In the second debate for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination, Kucinich was more honest than the Democratic frontrunners about their party's complicity in the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq.

In the debate, Hillary Clinton characteristically refused to accept responsibility for her record of consistently supportive votes for war funding. She stated, "I think it's important to particularly point out this is George Bush's war. He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war."

Kucinich responded,

Senator Clinton says well this is George Bush's war … There's a teachable moment here, and a teachable moment is that this war belongs to the Democratic Party because the Democrats were put in charge by people in the last election with the thought that they were going to end the war. Well, they haven't. They have to stop the funding. And I certainly am urging all of my colleagues here, don't give them any more money. The money's in the pipeline right now, enough to bring the troops home.

Kucinich for President 2008

2007-06-09T05:15:00.000-07:00

Kucinich for President 2008

Cheney Lies To High Schoolers About Debunked Iraq/al Qaeda Connection

2007-06-06T02:18:00.000-07:00

Cheney Lies To High Schoolers About Debunked Iraq/al Qaeda Connection
“Addressing about 100 wide-eyed Wyoming high school students learning about government and the political process,” Vice President Cheney yesterday repeated one of the key fabrications that helped send the United States into war.

During the question and answer session, one student asked, “I was wondering — I’m not trying to start a debate, or anything, but do you still think that the Iraq war can be won?” Cheney immediately answered “yes,” adding, “I think we’re making significant progress now.”

He then launched into a justification of the war, citing the September 11 attacks. “The fact of the matter is Iraq is part of the global war on terror,” he told the students. “And you’ve got to go back and look at what happened on 9/11.” Cheney recounted the tale of the late al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the administration’s great pre-war myths:

The worst terrorist we had in Iraq was a guy named Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian by birth; served time in a Jordanian prison as a terrorist, was let out on amnesty. … Then when we launched into Afghanistan after 9/11, he was wounded, and fled to Baghdad for medical treatment, and then set up shop in Iraq. So he operated in Jordan, he operated in Afghanistan, then he moved to Iraq.

Kucinich: New Hampshire Issues are National Issues | Kucinich for President 2008

2007-06-05T23:27:00.000-07:00

Kucinich: New Hampshire Issues are National Issues | Kucinich for President 2008

More than 1000 delegates to the New Hampshire Democratic Convention hear call for peace and job protection

CONCORD NH — Congressman Dennis Kucinich told delegates to the New Hampshire Democratic Convention Saturday that they should stand with members of their local communities on issues of water rights, communication infrastructure, and the privatization of public sector jobs because “the issues here in New Hampshire are national issues as well.”

The Ohio Congressman, running for the Democratic nomination for president, stood before the largest New Hampshire convention crowd in 16 years and urged them to “help New Hampshire help make the World love America again.”

Kucinich focused on three local New Hampshire issues that he said reflect environmental and worker's rights concerns around the country.

“I urge you to stand with the people of Barrington to help save their ground water, to stand with the Verizon workers around the state in their efforts to assure quality rural communication service, and to stand with school maintenance workers in Dover who may lose their jobs to privatization.”

“As New Hampshire begins its effort to elect the next president of the United States, I urge you to have the courage to believe in peace and act on it, and the strength to act on your courage. Believe that peace is inevitable. It's time to abandon war as an instrument of foreign policy,” Kucinich said.

Kucinich also renewed his call for single payer not-for-profit health care, distinguishing himself from other candidates who want to “fix” the health care system by subsidizing private insurance companies. In talking about his concept of Medicare for all replacing the for-profit insurance industry, Kucinich told the convention “it's OK to believe in these things. They will happen.”

Kucinich called on delegates to help him rebuild the nation's economy by forging a new environmental initiative in America. Modeled after Franklin Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration, Kucinich's “Works Green Administration” would put people to work building a sustainable and renewable energy economy, retrofitting homes and businesses.

And he said he would work to restore American manufacturing jobs by getting the country out of unfair trade deals. “My first act in office,” Kucinich said, “will be to cancel NAFTA and the WTO. We will have the courage to stand for workers' rights, for environmental rights and for the rights of Americans to hold onto their jobs.”

Noting that New Hampshire had recently passed civil union legislation, Kucinich said he was ready to help bring the country to the next level, that of true marriage equality.

On the topic of civil rights and civil liberties, Kucinich brought the crowd to its feet when he said “it's time to restore our constitution, it's time to repeal the Patriot Act, and it's time to impeach the Vice President of the United States.”

Motorcade avoids antiwar protesters

2007-05-25T04:49:00.000-07:00

Motorcade avoids antiwar protesters

NEW LONDON — Joan Chrisler of Milford felt it was time Wednesday for her to speak up.

The psychology professor at Connecticut College made her usual trip to New London Wednesday, but she wasn't there to teach. This time, her reasons were personal.

"I'm here primarily because of the Iraq war. It is just so distressing every day to see the carnage. I think it has to come to a stop. I'm proud to have the chance to stand up and say I have had enough," Chrisler said as she stood on Williams Street in the hopes President Bush's motorcade would see about 1,000 protesters lined up for a block toward the entrance to the Coast Guard Academy.

Bush was whisked in to deliver the commencement address through another route, but organizers were thrilled with the intergenerational and racially mixed crowd organized by Connecticut Opposes the War, the Answer Coalition and Veterans for Peace.

The protesters stood along a portion of Williams Street and up Route 32 off Exit 83 of Interstate 95, while about 100 Bush supporters, mainly veterans, held a counter-protest across the street as New London police with dogs patrolled the center.

Exchanges between the sides were spirited, but never went beyond shouting and often had a tinge of Vietnam War protests 30 years ago with the counter-protesters screaming, "Commie traitors have to go."

New Haven had a sizeable contingent with about 20 people on a bus and several more who came on their own. Khalil Iskarous, 39, a researcher from Yale University, said it was important to tell the world the war is not being conducted "in our name. I believe it is through the actions of regular people that we will see an end to this," he said.

Victorya McEvoy of New Haven was similarly moved.

"I stand in opposition to the madness that is trying so desperately to take over this country. I want to be part of the solution, rather than be part of the problem," she said.

The event didn't lack for theater, with several protesters sporting prison garb and huge paper mache heads of Bush and his Cabinet.

The antiwar groups carried signs such as: "Quagmire Accomplished," "Draft Young Republicans" and "Bush Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight."

One side yelled, "You are the right-wing road show," to which the other side replied, "You're a liberal girlie man," and "Go to Iraq as human shields."

Read more

Kucinich on ‘The Truth About Oil and Iraq’

2007-05-23T17:15:00.000-07:00

Kucinich on ‘The Truth About Oil and Iraq
Congressman Dennis Kucinich commandeered the House floor for an hour Wednesday to discuss “in detail the Congressional and White House efforts to privatize the oil of Iraq.” Before he spoke, he announced the speech in a public e-mail. The talk is excerpted here.

Oil was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq. There were, of course, no weapons of mass destruction, no connection between Iraq and 911, no connection between Iraq and Al Queda’s role in 911. Despite that the Bush-Cheney Administration, with the approval of a Democratic-controlled Senate and the Democratic leader of the House, supported and commenced a brutal campaign of shock and awe, of bombing, invasion and then occupation of Iraq.

Iraq may have as much as 300 billion barrels of oil untapped. With oil headed toward $70 a barrel, the oil wealth of Iraq could be worth as much as $21 trillion. Nearly 3,400 sons and daughters of America have been sacrificed. As many as 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed in the course of the US occupation. The taxpayers of the United States will pay between one and two trillion dollars for this war, which is based on lies.

'What Kind of Democracy Is This?'- by Justin Raimondo

2007-05-23T17:06:00.000-07:00

'What Kind of Democracy Is This?'- by Justin Raimondo

The family of Andrew Bacevich, a 27-year-old first lieutenant who was recently killed in an ambush north of Baghdad, doesn't want to see its beloved son and brother turned into an impersonal symbol of a tragic and unnecessary war: they want him to be remembered as a special person, "a great-looking kid with an infectious smile," as one of his close friends put it at his funeral service.

He was, by all accounts, a unique man of many talents, who aspired to join the Army in spite of restrictions against asthma sufferers. Young Bacevich was forced to leave ROTC at Boston University because of this, but he worked hard to stay in shape and ran the Boston Marathon in 3 hours and 35 minutes. After graduating from BU in 2003, he worked as an aide to a state Republican legislator, and in 2004 he became a legislative liaison and analyst on the staff of Gov. Mitt Romney.

He finally achieved his dream of serving his country when the asthma restrictions were relaxed. He joined in 2005 as a private and was admitted to Officers Candidate School – which he knew would mean deployment to Iraq in very short order. He went in October and led a platoon in the Third Brigade Combat Team, First Cavalry Division.

Trading Secrets

2007-05-23T16:55:00.000-07:00

Trading Secrets

By Amy Goodman

The Democratic Party leadership is stabbing its base in the back with secret “free trade” deals made behind closed doors with the White House. Now congressional Democrats may be on the verge of a significant split. While Democratic leaders and President Bush do the hard sell on bipartisan immigration reform, they are now pushing secret, anti-worker, anti-environment trade agreements that will only exacerbate U.S. immigration problems.

The contentious agreements are bilateral trade deals between the U.S. and Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea. The deals were announced in a bipartisan press conference May 10, with principal credit going to Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee (long dubbed by some as the “Ways to be Mean” Committee). According to Inside U.S. Trade, as noted by blogger David Sirota, House Democrats admit that the White House is drafting the legal language of the trade deals.

Rick MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine and author of the book “The Selling of ‘Free Trade’: NAFTA, Washington, and the Subversion of American Democracy,” calls these agreements “a fundraising gambit by the House leadership.”

He told me: “Rangel and [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi are saying, ‘Well, we’re gearing up for the 2008 election. We’ve got to raise a lot of money.’ They’re closer to the Clinton wing of the party, which is the pro-so-called-free-trade wing of the party, the pro-NAFTA, pro-permanent-normal-trade-relations-with-China part of the party. And this is a way of saying to the corporate community—Wall Street, Wal-Mart—that we’re open for business, we want to raise money from you.” In order to compete for campaign money, the logic goes, the Democrats have to cater to big corporate donors.

Kucinich to Speak for Full Hour on House Floor on Iraq Oil Law -- Watch C-Span

2007-05-22T23:47:00.000-07:00

Kucinich to Speak for Full Hour on House Floor on Iraq Oil Law -- Watch C-Span

by David Swanson

http://www.kucinich.us

WASHINGTON DC - WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2007 - At approximately 11:00 a.m. today, Congressman Dennis Kucinich will invoke a rarely used procedure to offer a privileged motion claiming one hour of time to speak on the floor of the House of Representatives about current legislative plans to privatize Iraq's oil. This will be the first time in Congress that there has been a full discussion of the covert efforts to accomplish privatization of Iraq's oil through the supplemental spending bill.

Kucinich has alerted his colleagues to this concern in the past. Today he will do so on the floor of the House.

Kucinich argued against invading Iraq prior to the 2003 vote that authorized it. He published his case against it and helped persuade many of his colleagues to vote No. Kucinich challenged the legality of the war in court in an effort to prevent it. He proposed a detailed plan to end the occupation of Iraq over three years ago. His current plan is found in his bill HR 1234, which includes these findings:

"Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the United States occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq."

Kucinich has voted against every new funding bill for the occupation, including the recent Supplemental. He supports using the power of the purse to end the war. He opposes any attack on Iran and proposes formally forswearing the use of so-called preventive war. He has proposed the creation of a Department of Peace to address international and domestic violence.

As with all House sessions, this speech will be televised on C-Span.

http://www.cspan.org/

Longtime Pre-Kindergarten Champion Kucinich Issues Statement on Sen. Clinton's Plan on Yahoo! News

2007-05-21T12:43:00.000-07:00

Longtime Pre-Kindergarten Champion Kucinich Issues Statement on Sen. Clinton's Plan on Yahoo! News

CLEVELAND, May 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Democratic Presidential candidate and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who has been pushing for federal legislation to provide additional funding for a national free pre-kindergarten program since 2003, today issued a statement welcoming U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton support for a position he has long championed.

Unfortunately, Kucinich (http://www.kucinich.us) said in the statement, Sen. Clinton's plan falls short by: limiting eligibility to 4-year-olds, failing to provide adequate federal funding; and requiring a too-high dollar- for-dollar match by state governments.

"I appreciate the fact that Sen. Clinton's announcement is now attracting wider attention to this crucial issue," Kucinich said, "but, it would be more meaningful if I and the co-sponsors of H.R. 6114, which I introduced in September, could secure her support for companion legislation in the Senate."

Kucinich's legislation calls for a five-year $150 billion appropriation "to ensure that all children 3, 4, and 5 years old have access to a high- quality, full-day, full-calendar-year pre-kindergarten education" by providing grants to States for a program that is voluntary and free-of-charge. Kucinich's plan would require a less burdensome 20% dollar match by state governments, and it was also require states to meet certain criteria.

Those criteria include: coordinating with existing state-funded pre- kindergarten programs, federally funded programs (such as Head Start), public school programs, and child care providers; addressing the shortages of qualified early childhood education teachers, including how to increase such teachers' compensation to be comparable to that of public school teachers; providing ongoing professional development opportunities for teachers and staff; addressing the needs of children with disabilities, limited English proficiency, or other special needs, including children in the State foster care system and homeless children; and providing transportation to children to and from pre-kindergarten.

Kucinich introduced similar legislation in the 108th and 107th Congresses, and his education program, including universal pre-kindergarten and tuition- free education in state universities, was a cornerstone of his 2004 Presidential campaign.

SOURCE Kucinich for President 2008

Dennis Kucinich 2008

2007-05-19T17:19:00.000-07:00

Dennis Kucinich 2008

Biography

Dennis Kucinich, a Representative from Ohio; born in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, October 8, 1946; graduated from St. John Cantius, Cleveland, Ohio, 1964; B.A., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, 1973; M.A., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, 1973; member of the Cleveland, Ohio, city council, 1969-1973, 1983; clerk of courts, Cleveland, Ohio, 1975; mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, 1977-1979; member of the Ohio state senate, 1995-1996; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Fifth Congress and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1997-present).

Positions

Our health care system is broken, and H.R. 676, the Conyers-Kucinich bill, is the only comprehensive solution to the problem. It is also the system endorsed by more than 14,000 physicians from Physicians for a National Health Program. Nearly 46 million Americans have no health care and over 40 million more have only minimal coverage. In 2005 some 41% of moderate and middle income Americans went without health care for part of the year. Even more shocking is that 53% of those earning less than $20,000 went without insurance for all of 2005. In fact, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance.

It is time to recognize that all the civilized countries have a solution that we must adapt to this country. American businesses can no longer be competitive shouldering the entire cost of health care. Health care is a right that all Americans deserve.

In the past three years, the U.S. has subjected the world community to a doctrine of preventive, unilateral, and illegal first strikes against "forces of evil" that have not attacked us. America has maintained into perpetuity an obsession with overwhelming U.S. military superiority. We have insisted that everyone else adhere to rules of international order that we have no intention of following ourselves. We have demonstrated a contempt for international organizations and any multilateral constraints whatsoever on the employment of American power.

Millions of citizens of the world have taken to their streets this past year to bravely protest our country's launching a foolish and dangerous war whose consequences we can still only dimly foresee. But the Department of Peace idea aspires to do more than just prevent particular wars. With a Department of Peace, we can articulate a vision of the future where humanity has abolished war itself.

Our country is facing twin crises: high unemployment and a decrepit infrastructure. At the same time, millions of manufacturing and high-tech jobs are being shipped overseas. I have a plan that will turn our problems around and put Americans back to work in America.

By pulling out of NAFTA, we can return jobs that have been lost, including high-wage jobs in the information technology field. By initiating a WPA-style jobs program that puts Americans back to work rebuilding America, we can create millions of jobs and simultaneously improve our quality of life.

The right of every American child to a high-quality free public education is one of America's most treasured principles. We must improve the quality of public education in those schools that are struggling and expand public education to include pre-kindergarten beginning at age 3 for any families that want it, as well as tuition-free college for millions of students.

I believe we can take our children and society in a new direction by challenging this notion that education should be so limited. We ought to be encouraging art, music, and creative writing in our schools. In doing so, we recognize and fuel the wide range of talents our children possess. Also See: Vouchers Floor Statements, 109th Congress: Reporting of School Bus RR Crossings Funded H.R. 609 Will Not Help Students Don't Let the War on Drugs Become a War on Children Students Pay for Tax Cuts for the Rich.

I see a new vision for American seniors. I see a country where all citizens can retire with full benefits at age 65, where social security will never become privatized, and where retirement years won't land in the hands of the stock market. I see an America where equal access and equal rights are obtained by all; where health care is regarded as a human right; and where the people who have lived to see this country grow can continue to grow old with it in peace.

By establishing a universal single-payer health plan, we can ensure that seniors never again resort to splitting pills or skipping medication to save costs, because they will already be covered. This plan, "Enhanced Medicare for All," provides comprehensive health coverage including prescription drugs, dental care, and complementary or alternative medicine. By removing the profit from health care coverage, patients and doctors will be put in charge of health care, instead of HMOs. My plan will cost employers, on average, less than they now pay -- those that provide coverage at all. Corporations don't heal people; people do.

The "Patriot Act" is not what American patriots have fought and died for. To allow our Bill of Rights to be nullified without judicial supervision invites tyranny. The Attorney General has been handed unfettered power to wiretap, search, jail, and invade our most sacred right to privacy. The government must not be allowed, without probable cause or warrant, to snoop on our communications, medical records, library records, and student records.

The time to stop the erosion of our rights is now. All elected officials want terrorists to be listened to and caught. Does anyone seriously believe that terrorists feel they can talk freely on the phone? The misleading and duplicitous response that the government can't talk about its secret programs even in secret sessions of Congress is, frankly, ludicrous.

In the summer of 2002, I was one of the few U.S. officials at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. To repair the earth, America must lead. We must reverse course on most Bush Administration policies and support the Kyoto Treaty that Bush rejected. We must strengthen environmental laws and increase penalties on polluters. We should provide tax and other incentives to businesses that conserve energy, retrofit pollution prevention technologies, and redesign toxins out of their manufacturing processes. Nontoxic, safe substitutes for hazardous chemicals must become permanent.

I would initiate a "Global Green Deal" to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs at home, increase our independence from foreign oil, and aid developing nations with cheap, dependable, renewable energy technologies like wind and solar. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future.

The hopes and dreams of the men and women who sent me to Congress are the stars by which I journey. Whenever there is an organizing campaign, a picket line to walk, jobs to save, working conditions to improve, laws to champion, I'm there. This is my purpose: To stand up and to speak out on behalf of those who have built this country and who want to rebuild this country. This is my passion: To raise up the rights of working people. Workers' rights are the key to protecting our democracy.

It is the restoration of the rights of workers that will put us at the dawn of a new political age. The rights of workers are core principles of an American Restoration. These aren't mere political principles. These are timeless moral principles, about fairness, about equality, about justice.

Coos County Democrats favor Kucinich in balloting | Kucinich for President 2008

2007-05-15T23:08:00.000-07:00

"Coos County Democrats favor Kucinich in balloting | Kucinich for President 2008" For Immediate Release
May 15, 2005

BANDON, Oregon -- Dennis Kucinich was the winner in a straw poll of Coos County Democrats, following the county's annual Democratic Recognition Dinner May 12.

Kucinich gathered 26 percent of the votes to best the seven other Democratic presidential candidates, according to Matt Christensen, chair of the Coos County Democratic Central Committee.

Christensen said Kucinich led a tight top-tier race between himself and Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards, who scored 24 and 23 percent, respectively.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth with 14 percent, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (9 percent), former Sen. Mike Gravel (4 percent), and Sens. Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd, who each received less than one percent.

While Oregon is a primary state, Christensen said the party used a caucus model to select a winner in the non-binding vote. He said during the dinner there were displays for each of the candidates and candidate literature was available. Following the dinner, participants had an opportunity to speak on behalf of their favored candidate prior to public balloting.

Kucinich was represented at the event by Ellen King of Vancouver, Washington, a member of the Kucinich national campaign organization."

Mother's Day for Peace

2007-05-14T01:35:00.000-07:00

Mother's Day for Peace: "Celebrate the true meaning of Mother's Day.

In 1870, after the devastation of the American Civil War, social activist and poet Julia Ward Howe wrote the original Mother's Day Proclamation calling upon the women of the world to unite for peace.

This Mother's Day, celebrate the true meaning of the holiday by giving your mother an e-card with a donation to No More Victims. No More Victims is a non-profit organization which brings war-injured Iraqi children to the United States for medical treatment. Your contribution will help bring Salee, a ten-year-old girl who lost both of her legs in the war, to Greenville, South Carolina where she will receive surgical treatment and prosthetics. Learn more."

On Iraq, Kucinich wants the truth out

2007-05-12T13:53:00.000-07:00

On Iraq, Kucinich wants the truth out
John Warner, Warner
As recently reported by June Caldwell in the American Chronicle, presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich revealed that the Democrats in Congress made secret concessions to the Republicans in the just vetoed Iraq war funding bill, as well as in a version currently being negotiated. These include:

• Privatization of Iraq's Oil This was in the original bill, but not shared with the public was the existence of a rule that said this clause could not be removed during debate on House floor. Privatization was posed as a benchmark that must be met or the United States would withdraw troops and refuse to offer peacekeeping troops to help rebuild the country. Privatization means international oil companies get 80 percent of the profits from exploitation of Iraq oil.

• Bush could invade Iran without approval A clause that would have required him to first get approval from Congress first was removed.

• Any timetables for troop withdrawal were to be removed in the post-veto version.

It is clear that beyond the lies about WMDs , the high-sounding rhetoric about terrorism and democracy in the Middle East is still a smokescreen to hide the real reason for the Iraq War: oil profits.

It is also clear that the Democrats are now complicit in the lies of this administration and its attempts to hide the facts from us. When Kucinich requested on the floor that the oil profits clause be removed from the bill, he was assured it would be. Finding that it was not, and after again demanding that it be removed, he was accused of "not being a loyal Democrat."

Thank you, Congressman Kucinich, for being willing to give the truth to the American people!

JOHN WARNER

I have Karl Rove's emails. No kidding

2007-05-10T22:55:00.000-07:00

I have Karl Rove's emails. No kidding
By Greg Palast

Amy Goodman and Greg Palast have a couple of neo-cons for lunch - recorded live at the LA Book Fest.

This Sunday 7pm (EST) - on C-SPAN's Book TV

Want a taste? Read the Interview with Palast from the Dollars & Sense magazine spring issue about to hit the streets …

"I have Karl Rove's emails. No kidding."

Dollars & Sense: In the new edition of your book, ARMED MADHOUSE, you report on the theft of the 2008 election. How do know what they're doing? Any way to stop them?

Palast: I know because I have Karl Rove's emails. No kidding. He and his team aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. They sent copies of their plans to GeorgeWBush.ORG instead of GeorgeWBush.COM addresses — and, heh heh, they ended up in my in-box. Who says this job ain't fun? Read more

Obama Jerks MySpace Page From Hapless Supporter

2007-05-10T17:52:00.000-07:00

Obama Jerks MySpace Page From Hapless Supporter

Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign organization reportedly took over a MySpace page created by a once ardent California supporter and refused to pay Joe Anthony for the time and effort he invested in developing the successful page.

After listening to the Senator speak at the Democratic convention in 2004, Anthony, a Los Angeles resident, set up a MySpace page in support Obama's campaign at myspace.com/barackobama. Through the years Anthony invested time and energy into its development and built a community of 150,000 “friends” to the senator’s cause.

The Obama campaign got in touch with Anthony once his site -- which was vigorously attracting tens of thousands of MySpace "friends" -- appeared on its radar. For a while, a synergy apparently existed between the two.

Anthony, a paralegal, said in a letter to Micah at TechPresident, “People were actually registering to vote, making contributions, asking questions, putting banners on their pages, etc. I know this because I constantly received emails about this, and I replied to every single one to thank them or point them in the right direction if they needed more information”.

Then the Obama campaign asked to take over the page, and the relationship quickly turned ugly. Anthony requested financial reimbursement for the time he had put into building the site, but the campaign reportedly refused to pay up. It then approached MySpace to obtain control of the site.

Anthony says in his own blog posting on the matter: "I was blocked from the profile, and the content was altered to redirect traffic to the new, 'official' profile. MySpace has, in fact, granted access to the profile without my permission." Read more

Cheney's Contempt for Thomas Jefferson | The Huffington Post

2007-05-10T01:53:00.000-07:00

Cheney's Contempt for Thomas Jefferson | The Huffington Post:
"Cheney's Contempt for Thomas Jefferson

One of the principles we hold dear in the United States is freedom of the press--an idea Thomas Jefferson listed in his 1801 Inaugural Address as one of the basic concepts on which this nation was founded:

About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration." Read more

Perjury and the Big, Bad Wolfowitz

2007-05-09T22:12:00.000-07:00

"Perjury and the Big, Bad Wolfowitz

by Greg Palast
Wednesday, May 9, 2007

George Bush is trying to save Paul Wolfowitz' job as President of the World Bank even after the vulpine neo-con was caught slipping a load of World Bank loot to his love interest, Shaha Ali Riza.

Big deal. Yes, Wolfowitz shouldn't have been greasing his cookie sheet with government funds, but there are bigger reasons to toss The Wolf out the door.

Like, say, perjury and homicide? I haven't forgotten, Mr. Wolfowitz, that on March 27, 2003 you testified before the US Congress that the occupation of Iraq wouldn't cost the American taxpayer a penny.

You said, "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money." Oh, really?

When Wolfowitz laid down that line of jive, he and the Bushes knew that Americans just can't pass up a bargain, and here The Wolf was offering the sale of the century, a "free Iraq." Not "free" as in "self-governing" but "free" as in, we'll get their oil and their allegiance for nothing!

We can bomb Iraq and the Iraqis will pay for the bombs!

And where will the Iraqis, holding nothing but bushel-bags of Saddam dinars, get these billions of US dollars to pay for the Occupation?

Wolfowitz testified, "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the next two or three years."

Is that so?

Wolfie's claim was no small matter. It's hard to remember, but lots of the Congressional debate was not about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction -- the New York Times had already found those for us. Senators were asking, What's this little war going to cost us? There was no way in hell Congress would have authorized Bush's big adventure if it cost $100 billion.

Indeed, $100 billion was the price projected by the President's chief economist, Larry Lindsey. The President corrected Lindsey's math: Bush fired him.

You know the punchline: The war has so far cost the U.S. taxpayer over half a trillion dollars - and counting.

But you weren't wrong, Wolfie. You were lying. And you knew it.

This is serious stuff. I can tell you, as a former government racketeering investigator: if you are wrong, well, stuff happens. But if you say one thing under oath but knew something very different, that, Mr. Wolfowitz, is perjury. Perjury's a felony, Wolf, and you know it. Indeed, your neo-con buddy, Elliott Abrams, was convicted in 1991 for lying to Congress about Reagan's arms-for-hostage swap.

So, did Wolfowitz perjure himself - or just get it wrong? While the question never crossed the mind of the Sheep-o-witz US press, which repeated Wolf's no-cost-invasion claim unchallenged, my producer at BBC Television asked me to investigate.

I learned that Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, would have gotten his numbers from the expert official designated to measure Iraq's oil, Guy Caruso. Caruso once ran the CIA's oil ops; now he's the head of Bush's Energy Information Administration. A source close to Caruso (in Saudi intelligence, no less) told me the ex-spook heard Wolfowitz' testimony and said, "What are they getting this from?"

In 2004, I confronted Caruso in his Department of Energy office in Washington. Nice man. Caruso knows his stuff. And, after an hour of technical jibberish, he told me the info he gave Wolfowitz' department -- and the numbers didn't add up to anything close to Wolfowitz' Iraq oil windfall.

I then checked Caruso's numbers with his own numbers man, another ex-CIA oil expert, Robert Ebel. I asked Ebel about the Wolfowitz claim of an oil gusher in Iraq that would pay for the US Occupation. Ebel wouldn't answer until after the cameras were off. But I wasn't asked to keep it off the record.

Ebel told me he had put the real numbers up on a think tank website just before the Humvees rolled into Baghdad. His projections conflicted big time with the fantasy facts to which Wolfowitz testified. Ebel told me that allies of neo-con conman Ahmad Chalabi asked Ebel to remove and bury the realistic numbers. He did.

Did Wolfowitz lie? Ebel smiled, "It was just part of the sales pitch, wasn't it?"

The sales pitch?? WAR FOR SALE - CHEAP!

Well, you can say that one man's sales pitch is another man's perjury. If Wolfowitz had knowingly concealed the Caruso team's findings while testifying under oath, then The Wolf is guilty of a felony. Moreover, perjury which leads to death is homicide.

But he's off the hook. I checked the record. Ever since his crony Abrams was charged with perjury, Wolfowitz won't testify under oath. Nor will any of the Bushies.

Wolfowitz did not raise his hand and swear to "tell the whole truth, so help me, God." The Wolf's home free. How the Lord will judge this loophole, I can't say.

So, no perjury charge for Wolfowitz. Of course there's another crime. His getting caught icing his cupcake, Ms. Riza, with World Bank funds, forces millions of innocent morning newspaper readers to suffer visions of these two neo-cons naked and nasty. Urgh!

Still, one can't but help be touched by the romantic side of this story. After all, here were two people of different faiths, sharing their intense love . . . of money, secrets and lies."

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild, from which this report is adapted. For more info and to order your copy of his latest book go to www.GregPalast.com

September Could Be Key Deadline in War - washingtonpost.com

2007-05-09T02:04:00.000-07:00

September Could Be Key Deadline in War - washingtonpost.com

By Jonathan Weisman and Thomas E. Ricks

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 8, 2007; Page A01

Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving President Bush a matter of months to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner, with September looking increasingly like a decisive deadline.

In that month, political pressures in Washington will dovetail with the military timeline in Baghdad. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, has said that by then he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions. And fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1, will almost certainly begin with Congress placing tough new strings on war funding.

"Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."

"September is the key," said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense. "If we don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be a very bleak month for this administration."

Poll: 39% of Public Already Support Impeachment

2007-05-09T01:56:00.000-07:00

Poll: 39% of Public Already Support Impeachment
by Rob Kall Page 1 of 1 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
Poll: 39% of Public Already Support Impeachment

While hack lamestream news anchors and reporters mock impeachment advocates like Dennis Kucinich as far left wackos, a new poll shows that 39% of responents supported impeachment of Bush AND Cheney, and that 42% of independents, the people who will decide the next election, support impeachment.

The poll, was reported in an article on townhall, by Matt Towery. He said,

Read more

RFK: Rove And Rove’s Brain, ‘Should Be In Jail,’ Not In Office Greg Palast

2007-05-07T19:02:00.000-07:00

RFK: Rove And Rove’s Brain, ‘Should Be In Jail,’ Not In Office
Greg Palast

NEW YORK — Voting rights attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for prison time for the new US Attorney for Arkansas, Timothy Griffin and investigation of Griffin’s former boss, Karl Rove, chief political advisor to President Bush.

“Timothy Griffin,” said Kennedy,”who is the new US attorney in Arkansas, was actually the mastermind behind the voter fraud efforts by the Bush Administration to disenfranchise over a million voters through ‘caging’ techniques - which are illegal.”

[Hear Kennedy on Griffin, Rove and ‘caging lists’ below or here]

Kennedy based his demand on the revelations by BBC reporter Greg Palast in the new edition of his book, “Armed Madhouse.” On one page of the book, Palast reproduces a copy of a confidential Bush-Cheney campaign email, dated August 26, 2004, in which Griffin directs Republican operatives to use the ‘caging’ lists.

This is one of the emails subpoenaed by Congress but supposedly “lost” by Rove’s office. Palast obtained 500 of these, fifty with ‘caging’ lists attached.

‘Caging’ lists are “absolutely illegal” under the Voting Rights Act, noted Kennedy on his Air America program, Ring of Fire. The 1965 law makes it a felony crime to challenge voters when race is a factor in the targeting. African-American voters comprised the bulk of the 70,000 voters ‘caged’ in a single state, Florida.

Palast wrote in his book, “Here’s how the scheme worked. The Bush campaign mailed out letters,” particularly targeting African-American soldiers sent overseas. When the letters sent to the home addresses of the soldiers came back “undeliverable” because the servicemen were in Baghdad or elsewhere, the Republican Party would, “challenge the voter’s registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballots being counted.”

The Republicans successfully challenged “at least one million” votes of minority voters in the 2004 election.

Kennedy, a voting rights attorney, fumed, “What he [Griffin] did was absolutely illegal and he should be in jail. Instead [Griffin] was rewarded with the US Attorney’s office.”

“They [Griffin, Rove and their confederates at the RNC] knew it was illegal.”

Kennedy has called on the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to expand their investigations of the firing of US Attorneys to include a probe of their replacements, especially Griffin, as well as Rove’s knowledge of the caging operation.

In preparation for just such an investigation, Kyle Sampson, former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, wrote a confidential email, dated December 19, 2006 outlining a strategy to stall Congress’ from questioning the propriety of the Griffin appointment. “We should gum this to death,” wrote Sampson, “Ask the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in ‘good faith,’ of course.”

Sampson has since resigned.

Palast said, “Just as Rove is known as ‘Bush’s brain,’ Griffin is ‘Rove’s Brain.’ I’m flattered by his ‘review.’”

Palast first reported on the caging list operation for BBC Television’s premier current affairs show, Newsnight, in 2004. In a February 7, 2007 email obtained by subpoena from Rove’s office, Griffin boasted that, “No [US] national media picked up” the BBC story. Griffin attached an excerpt of Armed Madhouse.

Griffin sent his remarks to Monica Goodling, Senior Counsel to Attorney General Gonzales, who has since resigned and invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer Congressional questions.

Griffin and Rove refused several requests from Palast and BBC to respond to charges of illegal, racial ‘caging’ of voters. However, a Republican spokeswoman, while admitting the lists could be used to challenge soldiers’ votes, said that was ‘not the purpose’ for gathering the lists.

Watch here

**********
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans — Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House GONE WILD.

To see Palast’s reports for BBC, obtain more information on Armed Madhouse or the prosecutor firing scandal, or to request an interview with Palast, go to www.GregPalast.com

Hear Kennedy on Griffin, Rove and on Palast’s book — “a masterpiece,” says RFK: download this recent segment of “Ring of Fire” at www.GregPalast.com Palast will return to speak with Kennedy and his Air America co-host, attorney Mike Papantonio, this weekend. Check Air America listings.

Ray McGovern: Cheney Had Niger Documents Farmed Out

2007-05-06T21:29:00.001-07:00

Monday night on "Tucker," retired CIA officer and truthout.org contributor Ray McGovern talks about George Tenet and the case that was made for WMD and Iraq. When Tucker turns the topic to the forged Niger documents, McGovern takes the discussion in a whole new direction. I don't think Tucker was ready for this…

read more | digg story

Join 'Conversation' With Dennis Kucinich - Politics News Story - KMBC Kansas City

2007-05-06T10:20:00.000-07:00

Join 'Conversation' With Dennis Kucinich - Politics News Story - KMBC Kansas City

Join 'Conversation'

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich shared his views on the war in Iraq, health care and the economy with an audience of New Hampshire voters.Kucinich answered questions in "Conversation with the Candidate," an ongoing series produced by WMUR-TV in New Hampshire in which the candidates for president discuss issues on the minds of voters.The Ohio Democrat talked about running for president for a second time, saying that he wants to "create a transformation in American politics."

"To have this country focus on real needs, people here at home," Kucinich said. "To have health care for all, education for all, jobs for all. Repair our environment. To have a good life in America. You can't do that, though, if we're a nation pursuing aggressive war."You can watch the entire program as it aired on WMUR-TV along with a special, online-only bonus half-hour by clicking on the links above. Hear Kucinich give his thoughts on the war in Iraq, jobs and his single-payer health care plan in front of a studio audience.You can also take part in future conversations by sending in your questions. Find out how by clicking here.
Watch it here

A Few Political Tidbits Not Covered by Corporate Press

2007-05-04T10:16:00.000-07:00

A Few Political Tidbits Not Covered by Corporate Press
by Stephen Crockett
Excellent news sources include OpEd News http://www.opednews.com ,
Buzzflash http://www.buzzflash.com ,
Raw Story http://www.rawstory.com ,
Consortium News http://www.consortiumnews.com ,
Smirking Chimp http://www.smirkingchimp.com ,
American Chronicle http://www.americanchronicle.com ,
Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com ,
Brad Blog http://www.bradblog.com ,
Common Dreams http://commondreams.org ,
Truthout http://www.truthout.org
This list is certainly not complete. This writer recommends you try exploring links on your favorite sites for new sources of news.

The Washington Post revealed a Right Wing bias much like their rival, The Washington Times. They did this by launching a blatantly Right Wing website called Red America while not balancing this Right Wing site with any “Blue” counterpart. Nothing could be more blatantly partisan. You can read the full story at Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/items/200603210017 .

Scoop News in New Zealand published a story from the Atlanta Progressive News organization that informed readers that 30 members of Congress now support impeachment hearing for Bush. You can read the full story at Scoop http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/hl0603/s00158.htm . The Corporate Media extensively covered the failure of Senate democrats to endorse the Feingold measure censoring Bush but completely ignored this equally big story. A truly balanced news coverage would have given each story equal time.

Greg Palast wrote an amazing column for The Guardian in London called Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools: THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED. Palast argues that the Iraq War was launched to prevent Iraqi oil from flooding the international market and keeping oil prices low. The column points to the dominate role Big Oil has in the Bush political machine. Palast discusses how the oil industry has been able to profit excessively from the huge increases in oil prices during Bush from tight supplies. This shocking column has been ignored in the Corporate Media. You can read the full story at Greg Palast.com http://www.gregpalast.com .

The growing scandal over electronic voting machine failures exploded in state after state. Voting machine failures created news from Texas to Maryland to Utah to Florida. The best place to start reading the many breaking stories is at Brad Blog. This column is simply not long enough to even begin to list the many daily breaking stories concerning the growing election voting scandal.

Maryland politicians from both major Parties are looking to scuttle the Diebold machines. A Texas primary recount was halted by court order when the voting machines were not counting properly for the recounts. Errors were reported up to 20 percent. Voting machine tests showed serious errors and security weaknesses in tests in Utah and Florida. The Bush Administration and allies in Congress are pushing to make these failed voting machines the standard by the Fall elections. Growing numbers of voting rights activists are seeking emergency action to guarantee verified paper trails to prevent election fraud and other snafus this year. The Corporate Media has not given the issue significant coverage. Many citizens are unaware their votes may not get counted this election. Information on the subject is readily available on the Internet.

Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.democratictalkradio.com ). Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com . Phone: 443-907-2367.

Authors Website: www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com

Authors Bio: Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio and author of the Democratic Voices opinion column.

Kucinich: You Cannot Deauthorize a War While Funding It

2007-05-04T00:09:00.000-07:00

Kucinich: You Cannot Deauthorize a War While Funding It

 WASHINGTON, May 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In response to reports
that Senator Hillary Clinton plans to support a bill deauthorizing the Iraq
War on October 11th, Congressman Dennis Kucinich said:
"Now that Senator Clinton supports deauthorization, will she support
defunding the war? When someone votes to fund the war 100 percent of the
time and then says she supports deauthorization, it looks like a gimmick.
Last week she voted to fund the war again. Every time she votes to fund the
war she reauthorizes it. The true test of her commitment to ending the war
is whether she'll vote to stop funding it. Congress will soon be faced with
yet another decision on whether or not to fund the war. Let's see how
Senator Clinton votes, to see if she is to be believed."
Congressman Dennis Kucinich opposed the war from the start and has
voted 100 percent of the time against funding it. When President Bush
vetoed the recent funding bill, Kucinich was the only member of the House
to vote Present. He did so because he objected to the Congressional
Democrats' position and to Bush's position. Kucinich has a plan to end the
war: HR 1234.