Dennis Kucinich

In Praise of 'Joe' Wilson: What's Wrong with Calling Out Lies in Congress?

dlindorff — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:55:28 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Liberals are acting all righteous and offended that a member of the Republican opposition, Rep. “Joe” Wilson of South Carolina, would deign to besmirch the “dignity of the presidency” by calling out “Liar!” in the middle of President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening.

But what’s wrong with that? Whatever the veracity of Obama’s claim that his proposed health care “reform” would not pay for the health care of illegal immigrants residing in the US (and one can only hope that statement was fatuous, because at a minimum we would certainly want the government to pay for the care of an illegal immigrant in childbirth, or of an illegal immigrant who came down with a contagious disease), and even if Rep. Wilson is a racist bozo who wrongly thinks or wants to imply that Obama's plan would be out there enrolling undocumented workers in the millions at taxpayer expense, why shouldn’t members of Congress call out a president if they think he’s lying to them from the podium?

One of the big problems with American democracy is that the presidency has over the years been elevated to the level of a monarchy, with all the imperial trappings and pomposity formerly associated with royalty. Presidents surely should get no more respect than a prime minister, and look at the hoots and catcalls PMs have to endure when they address Parliament in the UK. That’s a good thing.

Anyhow, it would have been far better if, instead of clapping wildly, liberal Democrats in Congress had hooted down some of the other whoppers and stretchers told by the president in his health care address.

Among them:

1. First and foremost, Obama’s claim that he was “determined to be the last” president to have to deal with health care reform and that he didn’t want to “kick the can” down the street for a future administration to deal with. In fact, that is just what he did with his proposal, which has left the basic untenable system of employee-financed healthcare in place, and which has left the private insurance industry in control of who gets treatment and how much they will have to pay for it. It’s a sure bet that before very long—perhaps in just four more years—another president will face the same crisis. A boisterous cat-call of “Can Kicker!” here would have been in order.

2. Obama said that “nothing else even comes close” to health care expenditures in terms of causing the federal deficit. In fact, something does---the military budget—but that topic is off limits for both Republicans and Democrats. Why couldn’t Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold have yelled out, “What about military spending!”

3. Perhaps one of the biggest lies of the night was the president’s claim that while there are “arguments to be made” for single-payer systems like Canada’s, switching to single-payer in the US would require building “an entirely new system from scratch.” The truth: Medicare is already a successful single-payer system and in fact, it is bigger and older than Canada’s own nation-wide system. Expanding it to cover every American would not be starting from scratch at all. It would be expanding something already time-tested. Where were the shouts of “What about Medicare!” from Rep. John Conyers (and his dozens of cosponsors), whose bill, HR 676, to expand Medicare to all has been barred from getting even a hearing by the House leadership with encouragement from the White House?

4. The president insisted that insurance executives don’t “cherry-pick” profitable customers and push out those who are sickest, because they are “bad people.” He said they are just doing it because it’s profitable. It would have been nice if at least someone in the assembled throng of lobbiest-enthralled House and Senate members had shouted out something like “Just like bank robbers and drug dealers!” because the truth is that health insurance executives are bad people. They know that they are killing people every day through their ruthless policies, and they go right ahead and do it. Pursuit of profit does not, or at least should not, constitute a license to kill. (Just imagine a hit man, at his sentencing hearing, telling the judge, “I’m not a bad person, Your Honor. I just knock people off because it’s profitable.”)

5. The president said he was “not trying to put the insurance industry out of business,” and added, “They provide a legitimate service.” This line, not surprisingly, given the amount of money that industry has lavished on members of Congress and on the president himself, got what was probably the loudest bi-partisan applause of the night. But it surely led to a lot of groans and of coffee, tea or beer being spewed out involuntarily across carpets and upholstery in homes across America. Legitimate service? Insurance firms are nothing but vampires, or better, leeches on the health care system. They provide no service. Ask doctors, who have to fight to get permission to treat patients, and then fight to get reimbursed. Ask patients, who spend hours on the phone arguing with faceless drones, some probably in Bangalor or Manila, who are denying them coverage for needed medicines or procedures that are supposed to be covered. Listen to the testimony of whistle-blowers who have confirmed that those drones actually get paid bonuses based upon the number of claims they manage to deny. How satisfying it would have been if someone in Congress had yelled out, “Legitimate service my ass!”

6. Turning to the pathetically circumscribed and downsized “public option” in his “reform” plan, Obama declared that “a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option.” Well that may be true, but it's not the whole truth. It would have been a great moment for Kucinich or Conyers or some other progressive member of Congress to shout out: “A majority also favors a single-payer plan!”

7. And where the defenders of women’s rights, when Obama vowed that under his plan, “no federal funds would be used to fund abortions?” Couldn’t someone have shouted out, “Women have rights too!” Is the president really saying that if a woman is raped, or a child gets pregnant through incest, or if a woman’s life is at risk because of a pregnancy, that his public plan will not pay for her to obtain an abortion? Cries of “For shame!” should have been ringing through the hall!

8. Finally the president said that one reason the nation has such record deficits is that during the prior administration, so many initiatives, “including the Iraq War,” were set in motion but “not paid for,” and he vowed, “I will not make that same mistake with health care.” But he is doing the same thing with supplemental war funding requests for his war in Afghanistan, and with the continued war and occupation in Iraq, and someone should have called him on that. Besides, there’s no way that the program he is proposing will be paid for by current funding. It will add to the deficit and he should have the courage to admit it, or to call for more taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. A lusty “Tax the rich!” cry in unison from the progressive caucus would have been appreciated by viewers.

Whack-job or not, Rep. Wilson did the cause of democracy and honest discourse a favor when, faced with a statement he felt was clearly false, he found he couldn’t repress the urge to call the president a “liar.” In doing so, he put a much-needed ding in the wholly inappropriate and dangerous imperial aura of “respect” that has grown like lichens around the office of President. No more than anyone else in this nation, a president should have to earn the respect not just of the members of Congress, but of the broader public. He or she is another citizen, no more and no less, and when a president, like President Obama in this instance, dissembles, exaggerates or attempts to deceive or mislead, it is healthy for democracy if he is called out on it immediately and publicly.

We need more honesty in Washington, not more civility.
_________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Health Care Reform Sell-Out: Why Obama and the Democrats are Either Shysters or Idiots

dlindorff — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:30:36 -0400

By Dave LIndorff

As I wrote months ago in an article titled America’s Stupid Health Care Debate: Keeping Some Ideas Off the Table and several subsequent pieces on my website,
President Obama and the Democrats who currently run Congress have been
hoist on their own collective petard by their craven and gutless
refusal to consider adopting a Canadian-style single-payer system to
finance health care in the US, or simply to expand Medicare, which is a
successful single- payer program, to cover everyone, instead of just
people over 65 and the disabled.

Instead, because they are the recipients of hundreds of millions of
dollars in legal (and probably plenty of illegal) bribes from the
health care industry, they have cobbled together a “reform” in name
only, which preserves not just the central role of the vampire-like
health insurance industry, but also ensures the continued rapacious
profitability of the other segments of the medical-industrial
complex—the hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry, and the specialist
doctors.

Now, like Hillary and Bill Clinton before them, these weasels and
slimeballs who pose as the people’s advocates are left with nothing but
a Potemkin Health Plan that looks on the outside lie a reform, but that
changes little or nothing, leaves vast numbers of Americans uninsured,
forces tens of millions to buy crappy plans from private companies, and
that will end up doing nothing to halt the continuing rise in health
care costs that is bankrupting the people, employers and the country.

Nice going guys!

Let’s for a moment consider what could have happened.

Medicare, which is wildly popular among seniors and the disabled
according to every poll I’ve seen, currently covers 45 million of the
highest-cost segment of this country’s 300 million people—its elderly
and its permanently disabled. It does this at a cost of $484 billion.

Now that’s a heck of a lot of money—about 13% of the federal
budget—but it’s money well spent. We’re talking about our parents and
grandparents here, and because they’re all covered by a government
single-payer plan that pays virtually all of their doctors’ and
hospital bills, we don’t have to pay those bills for them out of our
own pockets. Okay, there are problems—the drug industry managed during
the Bush/Cheney dark ages to get a prescription drug law passed that
bars Medicare from negotiating group discounts for drugs, and that has
added enormous rip-off costs to the program, but that’s just another
example of corporate scamming of the system that needs to be fixed. The
important point that needs to be made is that according to Medicare
analysts, 10 percent of Medicare beneficiaries account for fully two
–thirds of the total annual cost of Medicare.

What that tells you is that the cost of treating that 10% of the
elderly is $320 billion, while the healthier 90% of the elderly—roughly
40 billion people--only cost $160 billion a year to care for.

Now, given that the rest of the population under 65—about 255
million people—need on average far less care than the 90% of seniors
who are in that lower-cost group, extending care to them all would
clearly cost less than $1 trillion. Add in the cost of the 10% of
high-cost elderly, and you’ve got a total bill of $1.34 trillion to
care for everyone in America.

That’s a big number, but now you need to subtract out the total
cost of Medicaid—the crappy program that, primarily funded by the
states through income and sales taxes—pays for the crappy care of the
poor. That would be about $400 billion in 2009. So now we’re down to
$944 billion to care for all Americans. But from that we need to
subtract the cost of Veterans health care—another successful
single-payer program that already cares for veterans (or at least some
of them—it’s grossly underfunded). If we had a single-payer system for
all, we could just fold the Veterans Hospital system into the national
program. That would mean eliminating another $100 billion that would be
saved (because remember, we calculated that original expanded Medicare
budget for covering all 300 million of us. So now we’re down to an
annual budget of $844 billion for a single-payer program to cover all
Americans. Finally there is uncompensated care provided by hospitals to
those 47 million Americans who have no health insurance but who don’t
qualify for Medicaid. This care is funded in two ways—one by state and
county revenues, which come out of state income and sales taxes and
also out of local property taxes, and the other is in the form of
higher hospital charges and insurance premiums and Medicare costs for
the rest of us. Uncompensated care is estimated to cost about $200
billion, all of which would be eliminated if we had a single-payer plan
for all.

Okay, so now we’re down to a total net cost for a national
single-payer program of just $644 billion. Now remember, we’re talking
about expanding a single-payer program that we already have in place,
that doctors and hospitals are already familiar with, and that the
people who use it already like. And expanding it to cover everybody,
instead of just the old and disabled would only cost an added $160
billion, or just 33% more than it costs now to cover only the old and
disabled. In these days of trillion-dollar Wall Street bailouts, $160
billion is almost chump change—heck, it’s less than the cost of a year
of war in Afghanistan.

Sure it would still mean a modest tax increase for everyone (to
figure out how much, just look at your check stub, find the Medicare
tax deduction, and multiply it by 1.33. Then double that to account for
the employer share of the added funds). But wait, all you tax freaks!
Before you start freaking out at a tax hike and waving those little
teabags Fox TV got for you, there are more savings we haven’t
considered.

If everyone is covered by Medicare, that means no more out of
pocket payments by you for doctor bills. No more co-pays. No more
deductibles that you have to pay out of pocket before your health
insurance kicks in. No more employee contributions to health insurance
premiums, which these days more and more employers are forcing us to
pay. That’s a lot of money. For many families, it adds up to thousands
of dollars a year. But there’s more. Your employer, if the company is
one of the one in three that still provides and pays at least something
towards health benefits for its workers, would be off the hook. That
would free up a lot of money that could go to higher wages and salaries
for workers (especially if you have or get yourself a union to make
sure that the managers pass the savings on to you and don’t just pocket
it or pass it along to shareholders). We’re talking about big savings
here.

So while yes, your taxes would go up a bit to expand Medicare to
all, it wouldn’t be by much, and on the plus side, you would be saving
an enormous amount of money, making the added tax bite easy to swallow
(and remember, your state and local taxes could be reduced).

Why didn’t Obama and the Democrats tell you all this? Why does
Obama continue to diss single-payer, as he did to the American Medical
Association, and as he continues to do, claiming it is not in the
American addition, as though he never heard about Medicare?

Well, as a matter of fact, some people in Congress, notably Reps.
John Conyers (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh), Anthony Wiener )D-NY) and
83 other members of the House are pushing a bill, HR 676, which would
do exactly what I’m suggesting—expanding Medicare to cover everyone.

It is being opposed by the Congressional leadership to the point
that advocates at one House committee hearing were ejected and arrested
for even mentioning the term single-payer. With the blessing of the
White House.

Clearly, Obama and the Democrat Party and Congressional leadership are in bed with the health care profiteers.

There is no other excuse for failure to do the obvious, and have
America adopt some version of the kind of health care system that has
been proven to be more effective and far, far cheaper than our own in
every other developed nation in the world—and in many less developed
nations, too.

My question: How long are we going to stand for this crap?
____________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. He is the
author of “Marketplace Medicine: The Rise of the For-Profit Hospital
Chains” (Bantam, 1992) and more recently of “The Case for Impeachment”
(St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Calling Congresspersons about HB 676

QueenLorene — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:17:08 -0400

I have just made 34 long distance calls to urge Congresspersons to vote YES on the Health Reform bill 676 & also on the single payer amendment. It bothers me that this site doesn't give me the individuals to target, as some that I called are co-sponsers & I did NOT need to call them. Also why do some of them want to know where I am calling from---does it not count that I called if I am not from their state? I told them I was calling from MONTANA----Big Sky Country!!!

Obama and Congress Must Act to Restore the Constitution

dlindorff — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:13:08 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

The calls for a reckoning for the criminals of the Bush/Cheney
administration are growing by the day, as the final few days of the
Bush presidency tick down, and as new evidence of their crimes keep
pouring out of the deflating gas bag that was the Bush White House.

For years, the Democrats in Congress, with a few notable
exceptions, have sat on their hands, allowing the ongoing destruction
of the Constitution, of the US military, of the nation’s reputation,
and of the rule of law, as well as of the institution of Congress
itself, by a cabal of Republicans in the White House, led by Vice
President Dick Cheney, who have sought to establish an executive-led government
that answered only to itself.

Obama, running for the White House, initially talked of restoring
the constitutional order, and of prosecuting crimes where they had
occurred, much as he talked of ending the war in Iraq. But now, as he
increasingly assumes the role of President, he is backing away from
that kind of talk, with plans instead to extend the war and occupation
in Iraq for years, while actually expanding the war in Afghanistan, and
to give the outgoing administration of criminals and
Constitution-wreckers a free pass, in the name of “letting bygones be
bygones.” Ironically, he is doing this even as some in Congress,
including House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who ducked the issue of
impeachment and sat on proposed impeachment articles against Bush and
Cheney filed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for two critical years when
he could have ordered a formal hearing by his committee, are now
calling for a special prosecutor.

But broken promises about the war aside, Obama cannot have it both
ways. If, as he is still declaring, “no one is above the law” in
America, then it is essential that those who have committed grave
crimes must be indicted and tried for those crimes. As he takes the
oath of office on Jan. 20, Obama will swear to uphold and defend the
Constitution. That means not only defending the integrity of the
document itself, but enforcing all the laws that have been passed in
accordance with that document.

As President, Obama has no more right than did his predecessor to
pick and choose which laws to enforce. At a time when the nation’s
jails are crammed to overflowing with hundreds of thousands of people
whose crimes are as minimal as stealing CDs from a convenience store,
if President Obama and his Justice Department fail to order an
investigation into profound White House crimes like the destruction of
evidence in the Valerie Plame spy-outing case, or the investigation
into the politicalization of the appointment and firing of US
Attorneys, or of the deliberate campaign of lies to justify an
unnecessary invasion of Iraq, if they fail to investigate fully what
the president’s illegal National Security Agency wiretapping program
was really all about, if they fail to investigate the rampant fraud and
profiteering by White House-connected private contractors in the Iraq
War zone, if they fail to investigate the clear evidence of White House
efforts to undermine fair elections in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008, if
they fail to prosecute the White House, right up to the offices of Vice
President and President, for authorizing, directing and then covering
up evidence of systematic torture of captives in the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and in the so-called “war” on terror, if they don’t
investigate what the administration really knew and what it covered up
in the days and weeks before the 9-11 attacks in 2001, it will no
longer be possible to say, with a straight face, that in America
everyone is equal under the law.

But that is only part of it.

Many of the current administration’s “crimes” are not statutory
violations. They are so called “high crimes” as defined by the
Founders. That is to say they are abuses of power that threaten the
nation’s very essense. They are not crimes in the sense that they
violate a law, but, even more seriously, they undermine our political
system and consequently threaten the very continued existence of our
free and democratic society.

The appropriate remedy for these high crimes—things like Bush’s
refusal, expressed through signing statements, to enact or envorce laws
or parts of laws duly passed by the Congress, his and Vice President
Cheney’s refusals to comply with Congressional subpoenas, his lies to
Congress regarding the true situation regarding the alleged threat
posed by Iraq in 2002 and 2003, and his overall assertion of “unitary
executive” power as commander in chief—was impeachment, but with Bush
and Cheney about to leave office, that is probably a lost cause.
(Certainly the two men could still be impeached, as impeachment itself
does not require that the impeached party still be in office, and the
potential penalty for conviction of an impeachable offence, besides
removal from office, also can include a permanent ban on holding any
future public office—an important sanction for the historical record.)
But here Obama—and the Democratic Congress--could act creatively, for
example by ordering the creation of a commission of inquiry to
investigate and condemn such constitutional undermining. By compelling
the testimony of witnesses under oath, it is possible that actual
punishable crimes such as contempt or perjury could still be committed
by White House officials and even by Bush and Cheney, but more
importantly, the nature of these crimes would be publicly exposed and
condemned, so that it would be far less likely that any future
administration would again commit them.

Obama should also act unilaterally to undo as much of the damage as
possible—for example revoking all unconstitutional presidential signing
statements from the Bush/Cheney years, and canceling all
unconstitutional Executive Orders, such as those authorizing torture
and extraordinary rendition programs.

The time is right for these actions. The public is almost uniformly
angry at the outgoing administration, which is walking away from office
leaving the nation a smoking ruin. Contrary to what Obama and his
advisers and the pathetic leadership in both houses of Congress seem to
think, the American public doesn’t want them to simply “move forward.”
Sure we want action to fix the wrecked economy, and to get all the
troops safely back home, but we also way the country put back together,
and we want those who wrecked the place to pay for the damage they’ve
done.

Few Americans would be dismayed to see Bush and Cheney squirming in the dock. Most would, in fact, be cheering and jeering.

The time has come for the newly empowered Democratic government in
Washington to stand up proudly and unambiguously for the Constitution
and the rule of law, and to prove that the phrase “No one is above the
law” isn’t just, as Bush’s hack lawyer Alberto Gonzales once said of
the Geneva Conventions, a “quaint historical artifact.”
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His most recent
book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now
available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39045';
digg_title = "Obama and Congress Must Act to Restore the Constitution";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n The calls for a reckoning for the criminals of the Bush/Cheney administration are growing by the day, as the final few days of the Bush presidency tick down, and as new evidence of their crimes keep pouring out of the deflating gas bag that was the Bush White House.\r\n\r\n For years, the Democrats in Congress, with a few notable exceptions, have sat on their hands, allowing the ongoing destruction of the Constitution, of the US military, of the nation’s reputation, and of the rule of law, as well as of the institution of Congress itself, by a cabal of Republicans in the White House, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to establish an executive-led government that answered only to itself.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Kos, Kucinich, and the Overton Window

Bob Fertik — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:42:17 -0400

Perhaps someone can help me, because I really don't understand why Kos regularly attacks Rep. Dennis Kucinich as being "loony" or something similar. Here's the latest:

Here's what too many people still don't understand -- there's nothing loony about the netroots. This isn't fertile territory for the McKinneys and Kuciniches of our party. This is fertile territory for the Howard Deans of our party -- sensible, pragmatic progressives who aren't afraid to be Democrats. Why? Because we're the nation. We're not clustered in DC and NYC, we're spread out over all 50 states, and we know better than anyone what it takes to win in our own backyards.

We didn't rally around Webb, Tester, Schweitzer, Trauner, Brown, Massa, Burner and so many other moderate Democrats because they were little Kucinich clones, but because they were perfectly suited for the states and districts they seek to represent. It's that simple. Howard Dean wasn't an anomaly. He was our ideal.

We are not the elites, we are America, and we're situated squarely in its ideological center. We proved it in 2006, and we'll prove it again next week.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of Kos on 98% of the issues. (I've mainly differed with him on impeachment, which he consistently opposed to prove Democrats could "govern", ignoring the substantive issues that could only be addressed through impeachment.)

But Kos is making a huge mistake in attacking Kucinich - in terms of raw politics, progressive policy, and even media strategy.

Kos's political mistake is that Kucinich is one of the few Democrats who is able to reach out to voters who stand to the left of the Democratic Party. If we had a parliamentary system like most of the world, these voters would readily join the Green Party because they believe deeply in saving the planet, ending war, and promoting economic and social justice. But because third parties are not viable in the U.S. under current rules, these voters reluctantly support Democrats.

As a sophisticated strategist, Kos understands the Democratic Party needs to be a "big tent" that covers a wide spectrum from Greens to Blue(Dog)s. So why does he want to throw Green-leaning Democrats out of the tent by attacking Kucinich?

Kucinich also appeals anti-corporate supporters of Ralph Nader, to non-fascist libertarians who otherwise support Ron Paul, to supporters of the Marijuana Party, to the numerous followers of popular spiritualists like Marianne Williamson who have no political champions, and even to believers in UFO's. Obviously none of these are large groups, and they don't get much TV time (except on Larry King and the offbeat channels), but in close elections these voters can make a difference, especially in The Great American Heartland.

There is also a practical consequence of throwing Green-leaning Democrats out of our "big tent" - they can produce third-party challenges that can swing close elections to the Republicans. There are at least three such challenges now: against Nancy Pelosi in CA08 (by heroic peace mom Cindy Sheehan), Kathy Dahlkemper in PA03 (by BlueAmerica candidate Steven Porter), and Christine Jennings in FL13 (by 2004 netroots favorite Jan Schneider). Pelosi is unlikely to lose her seat becasue of Sheehan's challenge, but Dahlkemper and Jennings may well lose their challenges because of lost third-party votes.

Beyond raw politics, the case against attacking Kucinich is infinitely stronger in terms of progressives policies.

It's impossible to compile a list of progressives issues on which Kucinich has been the leader - often the only Democrat willing to speak up and say on TV or the House Floor exactly the kinds of things the best progressive bloggers are writing.

Bush's invasion of Iraq - an epic historic disaster
Bush's threatened invasion of Iran - a mega-disaster that would dwarf Iraq
Bush's assault on our Constitutional rights, including warrantless wiretapping
Bush's assault on our election system
Paulson's Plunder - Bush's planned giveaway of $700 billion to banks and the wealthiest Americans
The need for single-payer health care
The need to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for their historic crimes

Obviously Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid never address these issues, nor do their lieutenants. But even the most "progressive" Democrats are silent, or at best mumble so quietly they are never heard: Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John Lewis, to name just a few.

When Kucinich fights for these causes, he does so with full command of the facts and with a calm and polished delivery that works in the most hostile forums - including Meet the Press (where Tim Russert attacked Kucinich for saying our invasion was primarily about oil, as of course it was) and FOX News.

Which brings me to the Overton Window - the concept that the only policy options that get taken "seriously" are limited to the center of our political debate. Since Barry Goldwater, conservative Republicans have staked out policy positions as far to the right as possible, and forced the "center" to move their way. We can see the success of that strategy now when a small 3% increase of the marginal tax rate on people making over $250,000 is called "socialism" - and Joe Biden gets attacked for laughing at the absurdity of the claim.

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democrat who stakes out policy positions to the left of the Overton Window. If we want to move the window to the left, we need dozens of Kuciniches all pulling the window in the same direction.

Kos himself points out the need to move our issues from the "loony" fringe to the mainstream:

Ah yes, us loony bloggers, fighting for universal health care, to protect social security, to keep our government from unconstitutionally spying on us, and to promote a sane foreign policy that doesn't unnecessarily cost us blood and treasure. You know, loony things supported by a majority of the (apparently also loony) American people.

By attacking Kucinich, Kos not only undercuts Kucinich's own efforts, but also discourages other Democrats from helping him in what of necessity needs to be a collective effort.

Surely Kos understands this. Like I said at the top, I just don't understand why he keeps doing it.

Update 1: Here are some responses to Kos from Kossacks, all of which are plus rated:

As someone way to the left of Obama, (8+ / 0-) by JSC ltd

I am tired of being stigmatized by having Obama shoved over into my pigeonhole.

Alas, nobody outside Ohio (besides me) seems to appreciate Kucinich.

...

Kos is wrong (9+ / 0-) by Chammy Nooks

I would wager that the majority of people that read this website agree with Kucinich's policies far more than those of the "moderate" Democrats that Kos mentions.

Single-payer healthcare. Clean energy such as solar and wind power, rather than the oxymorons of "clean coal" and "safe nuclear". Withdrawal of U.S. troops from the 100+ countries that they currently occupy. Economic policies that actually aim to eradicate poverty.

The ideological center is not a good place to be. The language makes it sound reasonable, but if there is a spectrum where one extreme wants to kill 100 babies and the other extreme wants to kill zero babies then the reasonable "center" would advocate killing 50 babies. I want no part of the "center".

...

but why? I love kucinich, I don't get it, I (4+ / 0-) by erin r

agree with everything he ever says!

I feel like if he's going to insult Kucinich so indiscriminately then he owes us an explanation. Is it personal?

McCain does not support the troops

by erin r

Update 2: Atrios implicitly addresses Overton:

I think Beltway people on both sides are surprisingly bad at, well, politics. They tend to view things through the concept of the political spectrum as dictated by the Villagers, unaware that people in the rest of the country, aside perhaps from political junkies, don't really see things that way. It isn't actually Cokie Roberts' world.

Even if Obama wins the biggest Presidential landslide since 1964, it won't be Obama's world either because the Overton Window is so far to the right that Obama's place in the spectrum is indistinguishable from "Socialist." The only way to make it Obama's world is to create space on the left through clear and serious people like Kucinich.

Kucinich Pursues Impeachment to Prevent 'October Surprise' Attack on Iran

Bob Fertik — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:29:57 -0400

Rightwinger Deborah Solomon interviewed Dennis Kucinich for the NY Times and got a lot more than she bargained for - the truth:

Q: But why bother with impeachment when Bush is on his way out of Washington anyhow?

A: This president is capable of taking us into war, in October, on the eve of an election, to try to change the outcome of the election. We need to keep the ability to impeach at the ready in the event that this president continues to exercise a wanton approach toward the use of power, particularly the war power. The events in Georgia are a premonition.

Q: A premonition of what?

A: A premonition of an attack on Iran. When Georgia moves against South Ossetia as the Olympics are starting, the Bush administration begins its own Olympics — the war Olympics.

Q: Are you saying the Bush administration is likely to declare war soon just to help Republican candidates pick up some votes?

A: Well, you know, they increased the funding to Georgia a while back for military purposes.

Q: You think President Saakashvili of Georgia was encouraged, possibly by the American government, to cry victim?

A: Look. Saakashvili had an American lobbyist who is now part of the McCain campaign, and I am sure he was given advice. The idea of striking during the Olympics would have to come out of Madison Avenue. We have to be able to see through this. And the one thing I have shown an ability to do is to cut through the b.s.

Pelosi Video Contest Award Winner #1

Bob Fertik — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:37:58 -0400

Note: Our first $1,000 award in our Pelosi Video Contest goes to Anthony from We Are Change Ohio for his outstanding effort to get an answer from Speaker Pelosi! Andrew writes:

I confronted Nancy Pelosi with the full articles of Impeachment. The crimes were highlighted. I have the full details of the confrontation in my video.
It was extremely difficult to not only record the confrontation fully, but also to bring her the articles because security wasn't allowing any cameras or allowing anyone to bring anything to her other than her book. So I literally had to sneak all this by.
I maintained integrity by remaining polite and trying to get a response out of her without getting aggressive like other have been. I kept my confrontation on the point and not only did I confront her with this but I got two responses.
I got her to admit that she hasn't read the articles of impeachment and when I mentioned that all the crimes that Bush has done like eviscerating the Constitution she replied "that's terrible".
Unfortunately I was only able to get audio but I still have the footage in its original form on my camera intact. I hope this is the answer you folks were looking for and I did my best. She hasn't read the articles of impeachment and the crimes listed in the articles are "terrible" according to her.

The Pelosi Video Contest remains open so we encourage everyone to keep trying to get a substantive answer from Pelosi to our question: Of the 36 detailed Articles of Impeachment introduced by Dennis Kucinich, do you consider any to be crimes? If yes, which? If no, why not - and what (if anything) would you consider an impeachable offense?

Friday's House Judiciary Hearing on Impeachment: A Victory and a Challenge

dlindorff — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:34:40 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The dramatic hearing on presidential crimes and abuses of power
held on Friday by the House Judiciary Committee was both a staged
farce, and at the same time, a powerful demonstration of the power of a
grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution. It was at once both
testimony to the cowardice and self-inflicted impotence of Congress and
of the Democratic Party that technically controls that body, and to the
enormity of the damage that has been wrought to the nation’s democracy
by two aspiring tyrants in the White House.

As Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the committee, made clear
more than once during the six-hour session, this was “not an
impeachment hearing, however much many in the audience might wish it to
be” He might well have added that he himself was not the fierce
defender of the Constitution and of the authority of Congress that he
once was before gaining control of the Judiciary Committee, however
much his constituents, his wife, and Americans across the country might
wish him to be.

At the same time, while the hearing was strictly limited to the
most superficial airing of Bush administration crimes and misdemeanors,
the fact that the session—technically an argument in defense of 36
articles of impeachment filed in the House over the past several months
by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)--was nonetheless a major victory for the
impeachment movement. It happened because earlier in the month, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has sworn since taking control of the
House in November 2006, that impeachment would be “off the table”
during the 110th Congress, called a hasty meeting with Majority Leader
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Conyers, and Rep. Kucinich, and called
for such a limited hearing.

It was no coincidence that shortly before Pelosi’s backdown, peace
activist and Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan announced that her campaign
had collected well over the 10,000 signatures necessary to qualify for
listing on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress against
Pelosi in the Speaker’s home district in San Francisco. Sheehan has
been an outspoken advocate of impeaching both Bush and Cheney. “Pelosi
is trying to throw a bone to her constituents by allowing a hearing on
impeachment,” said Sheehan, who came to Washington, DC to attend. “It’s
just like her finally stating publicly that Bush’s presidency is a
failure—something it has taken her two years to come to, but which
we’ve been saying for years.”

So determined were Pelosi and Conyers to limit the scope and
intensity of the hearing that they acceded to a call for Republicans on
the Judiciary Committee to adhere to Thomas Jefferson’s Rules of the
House, which prohibit any derogatory comments about the President,
which was interpreted by Chairman Conyers as meaning no one, including
witnesses or members of the committee, could suggest that Bush had lied
or deceived anyone. Since a number of Rep. Kucinich’s proposed articles
of impeachment specifically charge the president with lying to Congress
and the American People, this made for some comic moments, with witness
Bruce Fein, a former assistant attorney general under former President
Ronald Reagan, to say he would reference his listing of crimes to the
“resident” of the White House.

In the end, the rule imposing a gag on calling the president a
criminal fell by the wayside, with witness Vincent Bugliosi. A former
Los Angeles deputy district attorney, accusing Bush of being guilty of
the murder of over 4000 American soldiers and of hundreds of thousands
of innocent Iraqi civilians because he had “lied” the country into an
illegal and unnecessary war, and with committee member Shiela Jackson
Lee (D-TX) suggesting that the president may have committed treason in
invading Iraq, and that he appeared to be preparing to do it again with
an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

Conyers also acquiesced in a Republican effort to minimize public
monitoring and involvement in the hearing, allowing the minority party
to fill most of the available seats in the hearing room with office
staffers who showed little interest in the proceedings. Only a few
dozen of the hundreds of pro-impeachment activists who had come to the
Rayburn Office Building at 7 am in order to get seats in the Judiciary
Committee hearing room were allowed in, with the rest having to remain
in the hall or go to two remote “overflow” rooms to watch the
proceedings on a TV hookup. Conyers also went along with a call by
Republican members of the committee to have some of those who did make
it into the hearing ejected simply for wearing buttons on their shirts
calling for impeachment (the Republican members referred to these as
“signs”), though such small personal tokens are routinely allowed in
congressional hearing rooms.

It was clear that this was to be a tightly controlled and strictly limited hearing.

It was also clear that it was intended to go nowhere.

At one point, after hearing witnesses like Fein, Bugliosi, former
representative and Nixon impeachment committee member Elizabeth
Holtzman, former Salt Lake City mayor and impeachment activist Rocky
Anderson, former House Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, former
Watergate Committee counsel and current senior counsel of the Brennan
Center for Justice Frederick A.O. Schwartz, and Elliott Adams,
president of the board of Veterans for Peace, lay out the
administration’s crimes and abuses of power—which included charges of
usurping the legislative powers of Congress, violating international
treaties, war crimes, lying to Congress, an illegal war, felony
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth
Amendment, defying Congressional subpoenas, obstruction of justice and
more, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Constitution
subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, appeared convinced that the
abuses were real and serious.

But Nadler, who for two years has been a major obstacle on the
Judiciary Committee to any efforts to move impeachment to a formal
hearing, said, “No president has been removed from office through
impeachment.” He asked the witnesses, “How would you approach
impeachment today so it would be a viable option?”

Former Rep. Holtzman responded, “The real remedy to a president who
believes he is above the law is impeachment. There is no running away
from that.” She said, “An impeachment inquiry, handled fairly, could
work. Maybe I’m a cockeyed optimist, but I believe it could work.”

The basic point, made by Holtzman, by Fein and by many others,
including this writer, is that worrying about the political opposition
to impeachment, both in the House, and in the Senate, not to mention
among the broader public, is completely wrongheaded. Even when
impeachment articles were first filed against Nixon, the public and the
bulk of the Congress were against the idea. It was during the hearings
that the tide turned, as evidence of malfeasance, criminality and abuse
of power became evident through hearing testimony. The same would
happen in the case of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. Most
Americans don’t even know that the president made up evidence to
justify the war against Iraq out of whole cloth. They don’t know what
the Geneva Conventions are with regard to torture. They don’t know why
Congress passed the FISA act, which Bush has been feloniously violating
to spy on them (it was passed because Nixon was using the National
Security Agency to spy on Americans without judicial warrants!). They
don’t know the Bush has been refusing to enact laws passed by the
Congress. Public hearings by an impeachment panel would make all these
high crimes and misdemeanors clear on national TV to all sentient
Americans. Moreover, as Holtzman pointed out, the president would not
be able to use the claim of “executive privilege” to withhold testimony
from aides in an impeachment inquiry, the way he has done when they
have been subpoenaed by other House and Senate committees. Impeachment
would be about violations of the very executive actions he would be
claiming privilege on. As well, an impeachment committee, unlike any
other committee of the Congress, is specifically sanctioned and
empowered in the Constitution, meaning that even strict
“constructionist” Federalists on the bench would have a hard time
backing presidential obstruction.

As Holtzman noted, “There is no executive privilege in impeachment,
because refusing to testify is itself an impeachable offense.”

Committee Republicans, aided by two law professors they had brought
in to testify, Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law
and Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law, tried to
argue that impeachment was only meant for crimes in which the official,
or the president, was seeking personal gain. This nonsense was knocked
down by most of the speakers, who quoted numerous founders who made it
clear that what high crimes referred to were actions—even taken with
the noblest of intentions—that undermined the Constitution or abused
the powers of the office. As Rep. Nadler said, “Impeachment has nothing
to do with intentions or with good faith. Impeachment has to do with
abuse of power which weakens the balance of power.”

In the end, the hearing petered out, taking no action of any
kind—exactly the result that Pelosi, Hoyer and Conyers cynically
intended.

Now it is up to the public and the impeachment movement to call
their bluff and take impeachment to the next level. Noting that even
Rep. Conyers ended the hearing by saying, “We are not done yet, and we
do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that
Congress is entitled to and that the American people deserve,” Rep.
Kucinich and five other co-sponsors of his articles of impeachment
(Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, and Hank Johnson) are calling on all Americans to contact
their representatives (202-224-3121) and urge them to join in
co-sponsoring those articles and in calling for a formal impeachment
hearing.

They are also calling on everyone to contact their local and
national media, nearly all of whom have blacked out news of
impeachment. Incredibly, the New York Times, for example, has not even
reported on Friday’s hearing, even as a news “brief.” Those news
organizations, like the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer,
that did report on the hearings did so only in short, inside articles.
Though the hearing was aired in full on C-Span (and is still available for download), many Americans don’t even know it happened.

Time is short, but even at this late date, it would be a simple
matter to impeach the president on some issues. As several of Friday’s
witnesses pointed out, President Bush has essentially dared Congress to
act, admitting that he openly violated the FISA law—a felony, and
openly admitting that he has refused to enact laws passed by the
Congress, claiming a power—unitary executive authority—not even
mentioned in the Constitution. He has openly admitted to having known
about, and approved, “enhanced interrogation techniques” devised by his
subordinates—techniques like waterboarding which clearly violate the
Geneva Conventions and US law. No hearings would be required to
establish these high crimes and misdemeanors. They could simply be
voted on by an Impeachment Committee and sent to the full House for a
vote.

Even if there were no time for a Senate trial, the simple act of
impeaching the president for one or more abuses of power would serve
notice on future presidents that future such abuses would not be
tolerated. Failure to do so, and allowing this administration to leave
office unimpeached, would send the opposite message: that Congress is
no longer a co-equal branch of government, but is merely a consultative
body, at best, and that a president is in effect a dictator.

That Pelosi buckled and permitted a hearing on impeachable crimes
by the Bush/Cheney administration is a major victory for the
impeachment movement, but it must not be the end of the line.
Impeachment activists need to now redouble their efforts to make
Congress do its Constitutional duty, and initiate a formal impeachment
proceeding.

As former Republican representative Bob Barr, now the Libertarian
candidate for president, told Friday’s hearing, “We had a nuclear clock
during the Cold War. In the ‘90s we had a debt clock. Now we have a
Constitution Clock.”

That clock is getting close to midnight, and it is ticking.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and
columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s
Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Liveblogging Impeachment Day 1

Bob Fertik — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:15:31 -0400

It's impeachment day 1 thanks to Rep. Dennis Kucinich!

David Swanson is liveblogging with impeachment activists on Capitol Hill. Kagro X has a diary on Kos explaining how Kucinich and Robert Wexler pressured Pelosi into having hearings, who will testify, and why no one can call Bush a "liar." Ralph Lopez has a diary at Kos with Corporate Media links - tell them to cover today's impeachment hearing!

#2: 9 a.m. Pacifica starts live coverage. David will be a guest at 9:30.

9:40: Robert Parry, author of "Neck Deep" - Mainstream media (MSM) doesn't feel pressured by the left Media, as they do by the right. There is a difference between how the media responds to the conservatives and liberals.

9:43: John Conyers is 79 and has been in Congress since 1961.

9:46: Scott Horton and David Swanson on now.

9:47: David Swanson currently in line; has been in line for 3 hours, and is about to be let into the room.

9:48: David was asked if this is a victory. He said no, but it is a forceful statement on Bush's multiple crimes.

9:49: Jane Harmon will not be speaking. Prepared remarks by Bruce Fein available on www.afterdowningstreet.org/

9:50: Discussion about the need for increased "street heat" that is, activism by citizens to bring about accountability.

9:52: David was asked if it's too late to impeach. He replied absolutely not! This action is not about George Bush, but rather about upholding the rule of law in our nation.

9:55: Scott Horton: When impeachment hearings commence, blanket pardons are no longer possible, and this is one of the central arguments for impeachment.

9:56: Will today's hearings set the stage for the next step toward impeachment? Yes, if there is an outpouring of public support for impeachment.

9:58: In 1974, telegrams represented the public outcry; today, it is emails.

10:00: CSPAN is showing the hearing room and Rep. John Conyers greeting people. Gavelling in soon.

10:02: Motion and commotion as people come in and settle. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) is present. Crowd cheers vigorously as Rep. Dennis Kucinich and his wife Elizabeth enter the hearing room. Three or four rounds of indecipherable chanting.

10:05: Panelists for Panel #1 are assembling.

10:09: You can watch the hearing webcast at http://www.c-span.org/ and read Articles of Impeachment Rep. Kucinich submitted in the "Featured Links" section.

10:16: The Committee appears to be settling in, paper shuffling has begun.

David Swanson reports that "They let a grand total of 17 members of the public into the room. A crowd of hundreds is in the hallway shouting "Shame! Shame!" despite being offered two large overflow rooms. The 17 of us include a bunch of people with IMPEACH shirts, after we won an argument in the hallway for the right to wear them -- led by Col. (retired) Ann Wright." At least half of those admitted are members of Vets for Peace.

10:19: Chairman Conyers calls hearing to order. He is reading a prepared statement about the legacy of this administration's excesses. Chairman Conyers states that there have been 45 hearings on related matters in this Congress. He points out that the Judiciary Committee took action against Harriett Miers and Josh Bolton, and expects to take action against Karl Rove.

10:27: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) says nothing will come out of this hearing; there will be no impeachment. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the President. This hearing will only impeach Congress' credibility.

Rep. Smith reads a House Rule: "Rules do not permit the use of language that is personally offensive toward the President."

10:32: Rep. Robert Wexler begins opening statement. Openly calls for impeachment. This is not a partisan issue - it is an American issue. Rep. Wexler recommends studying the events surrounding the Nixon years.

10:35: Chairman Conyers reminded those in the hearing room that cheers, clapping and other similar actions are not permitted.

10:37: Rep. Steve King (R-IA-5) when Chairman Conyers mentioned "the power to remove" in his opening statement, Rep. King never thought that he would be present at a hearing where the removal of a president would be the subject. Rep. King will be releasing today the debriefing of Ambassador Joe Wilson after his return from Niger. Rep. King is asserting that Wilson's debriefing statement acknowledged that Niger had yellow cake uranium.

10:34: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-16) exploring "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations." Calls Bush the "worst president our country has every suffered."

10:37: Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA-3) opening statement. He seems to be straining to speak. Calls hearing "Friday morning show trial." Questions the purpose of the hearing; perhaps it's "impeachment lite" leaving the press to print the charges without actually taking the steps.

10:51: Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY-8) reviewing the lists of possible offenses that are excesses of the Executive Branch. States this is not a waste of time.

10:53: Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN-6) again reflects that this is not a hearing on "impeachment." Does this take us down the road of criminalizing American politics? Rep. Pence sees no reason for impeachment. Bush not accused of treason or bribery, so that leaves high crimes and misdemeanors. Rep. Pence say Rep. Kucinich is "dead wrong." Calls Bush a "man of integrity." He has seen no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor, and therefore there should be no serious consideration of impeachment of George W. Bush.

10:58: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (R-TX-18) opens by reading the preamble to the Constitution. Points out that Congress has responsibility to do fact-finding; she focuses on the issue of how the movement toward war evolved. She queried whether it was treasonous for Karl Rove not to appear as required by the Judiciary House Committee. Also questioned whether signing statements contravene the Constitution.

11:02: Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ-2) criticizes past committee hearings that has made Americans less safe due to terrorism. Says the committee's hearings make the terrorists happy.

11:07: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN-9) Congressional newbie - 19 months. Administration is contemptuous of the Congress. Cohen describes how Monica Goodlin only would testify to executive branch wrongdoing by being granted immunity.

11:09: Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA-4) Lawyer/judge

11:29: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) begins his statement. War has killed 4,127 American military personnel. Rep. Kucinich asks to enter HR. 333, 1258, and 1345 into the record; Chairman Conyers agreed. Rep. Kucinich passionately describes the decision before us is to right a very great wrong.

11:36: Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY-22) administration dominated by corruption and incompetence. Need to insure that future administrations work with the Congress. Rep. Hinchey outlines numerous references and warnings about AlQaeda's determination to attack the US. All of the circumstances surrounding the war need to be examined because of the damage that it has done. The situation now is one of the most difficult we have faced in history of our nation.

11:41: Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC-13) Democracy dies behind closed doors. It is the responsibility of Congress to keep communication open, both Democratic and Republican. Quoting James Madison about the founders of our republic.

11:52: Walter Jones

12:00: 2nd Panel Being Seated. Panelists are:

The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York
The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President
The Honorable Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights
Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law
Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom Agenda
Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor
Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Panel 2

Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York: Outlined list of crimes, recommended an impeachment action.

Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President: Notes that the US Post Office is the most trusted governmental agency, and says that's a source of concern to all. Expresses hope that this will be the first of many inquiries into the checks and balances and the separation of powers. Quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Administration's secrecy undermines the respect of the rule of law.

Honorable Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights:

Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law: Discussing standards for impeachment. Comparing and contrasting with Clinton. Says unitary executive theory and signing statements aren't impeachable.

Bruce Fein, Statement Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom Agenda: Close to executive despotism...rule of law is the nation's civic religion...claims of war power: every square inch of world is an active battlefield where Bush can use military force...we have the sword of Damocles over our heads...

Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor: Charges that Bush is a murderer of our military personnel; would never make the charge if he didn't have evidence. Bush knew that Hussein was not an eminent threat. The unclassified report had that information deleted. The Bush Administration has gotten away with thousands upon thousands of murders. No comparison to Clinton; urges a CRIMINAL investigation. Crowd breaks out in loud applause. Chairman Conyers admonished the guests in the room not to react to the testimony.

Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law: Will try to add perspective to hearing. Doesn't want to look at "secondary charges." "Wartime presidents don't take great care of the Constitution." People want to kill us.

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: Now we are less free, and less safe. This is given extremist Muslims powerful recruiting tools. World is doubting the moral basis of our war on terrorism. Recommends independent non-partisan, bi-partisan commission rather than impeachment. Thinks there's no time for a detailed investigation now. US must not adopt the techniques of our enemies.

Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace: Ben Franklin asked "What have we here?" and Ben Franklin replied: "A republic, if you can keep it." Describes the works of Veterans for Peace. No question that members of this administration have committed crimes. The question is what we do about it? Torture is illegal and ruins the value of the intelligence gathered. When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence they were not worried about political will or their political future. They were worried that were going to get hanged.

Follow-ups:

Bob Barr: The Constitutional clock is running down. Chooses constitutional inquiry over constitutional silence.

Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson: Characterizes aluminium tubes as fraud, leading to war

Stephen Presser: You won't find a lack of good faith.

Bruce Fein: Permanent war is inconsistent with freedom. Bush has taken more powers that George III.

Vincent Bugliosi: Consensual sex and lying about it is worse than murder. Bush spoke about 3 ways to provoke war; one included provoking Hussein by flying war planes into Iraqi territory.

(Audience outburst, person evicted from hearing room)

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr.: The idea that the President can break the law and do it secretly is a very dangerous doctrine that must be exposed and squashed.

Elliott Adams: Promotes his soon to be written book.

Chairman Conyers accepts all paperwork for entry into the record.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): Feels that witnesses missed the point that this is not an impeachment hearing. Question to Presser: Was the Clinton impeachment about lying about sex? Answer: No. There is no misconduct from this administration that would rise to an impeachable offense.

Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law: Question from Rep. Smith to Prof. Rabkin: Is there something impeachable? Did the president get us into a war to enrich oil companies? If that were true, of course, impeachment would be suitable. Why are people so bitter? Something to do with is such a charge even plausible...I mean, you have to find it demented, really. You not only have to believe that the president is a Shakespearean villain, you have to believe that all through the White House there are people who will just say, "Well, I'll just cover it up."

Rep. Smith: If we accepted the definitions of impeachable offenses given today, would other presidents have committed impeachable offenses.

Rep. Nadler: If the President lied to Congress,

#1: 8 a.m. Dennis Kucinich kicks off the day on C-Span 1 while I make my first cup of coffee.

8:07: Q: On Iraq, was the Administration lying or honestly wrong? A: Either way it's impeachable after the deaths of over 4000 U.S. soldiers

8:09: A: My presentation will focus closely on what Congress was told about Iraq... on representations that were untrue at the time they were told to Congress. Now everyone knows Iraq had no WMD's, no ties to Al Qaeda.

8:10: Q: Only months left - why push impeachment? A: Setting precedent for future president. Disastrous consequences. Central purpose was to grab Iraq's oil - our troops are there to get $5/gal gasoline from our people. What's this all about?

8:11 Q (Auburndale Republican): I voted for Bush twice and I'm sorry about it. I thank you for impeachment.

8:12: Q: Are you in touch with the Speaker? A: She's busy; I talk to her staff and tell them everything I'm doing. Q: Why does she oppose impeachment? A: Ask her. She took it off the table in 2006. But she allowed this hearing which is good. This isn't about Pelosi but about Bush. She's done her best - other Members oppose impeachment.

8:15: Q: Read Phillippe Sands' book - Bush lied on purpose. A: I wrote a report in 2006 exposing lies. We want to trust our President. There has to be accountability - Founding Fathers only gave us impeachment.

8:16: Q (Random Lake WI): High crimes - I see every day. We've called 50 million children (abortion), Waco, Saddam paying terrorists. No attacks in US for 6 years because Bush went into Iraq. A: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We went to war against innocent people.

8:18: Q (Essex CT): Bush says he got bad info but never said where he got it - who gave it? Doug Feith? Netanyahu and Sharon? After 9/11 FBI caught 5 dancing Israelis - said they were sent to "record the event." How did they know "the event"? A: Don't know about the latter, just the former. Senate Intelligence Committee report is damning to administration - they had plenty of info that the what they told Congress wasn't true.

8:21: Q: What do other Members say? Some voted for Iraq because they honestly believed Bush. There has been a steady reappraisal. Over 4,127 troops have died, tens of thousands injured, over a million innocent Iraqis, $3 trillion cost, oil prices going up - oil was a central reason why we went to Iraq - rising oil price, rising food price. Dimunition of civil liberties - all because a lie was told, that Iraq was an imminent offense. I can't think of a graver offense because of all the consequences.

8:23 Q (Anniston AL Republican): Should Democratic leadership be impeached too for stupidity? A: Congress does have responsibility - for war powers. But we never declared war. We only relied on what the President told Congress. When driving, accidental killing is manslaughter - a serious crime. If it was just a mistake, look at the gravity - 1 million dead people in Iraq. There must be accountability. You can't say "gee we made a mistake." They knew better and there must be consequences.

8:25 Q (Walton NY Democrat): What was Bush's motivation? Is there a money trail? A: Congress can't crack veil of secrecy over Cheney's meetings with oil companies - maps of Iraq - consensus that access to oil would be critical. Link between that meeting and military action later on. But just based on what's on the record we can impeach. Look at consequences - money for health care, jobs, environment, alternative energy - money's not there because money's going into war. Unless we find out the truth we'll never be free of the consequences.

8:27 Q: Cheney? A: I introduced H.Res.333 against Cheney because of his statements on nuclear weapons. I thought it would be better to remove him first. This is about accountability to history. Our Constitution is at risk. If our President is no longer accountable, we've set the stage for more wars, a government that's about empire - not the urgent problems at home.

8:29 Q (NYC Republican): I'm a former prosecutor. I blew the whistle on airport security in 1999. I made a big arrest for drug smuggling. I reported it and was threatened by my supervisor to keep my mouth shut. They wanted me to perjure. I was terminated and filed a lawsuit that has lasted 9 years. A: Call my office so I can investigate. Thank you for standing up.

8:31: This administration is getting ready to attack Iran and plunge us into a 4-front war. Very dangerous for America - for our troops in the field, for our economy. We can't sustain this - we have to look to our Constitution to rein this in. There has to be consequences for this President's insistence on passing the AUMF.

8:32 Q: Will War Powers Act be changed? A: Proposed changes would take more power from Congress. Founding Fathers were clear - power for warmaking given to Congress, not President. We need to strengthen Congress' role. This is very serious - we see consequences in Iraq.

Support the Kucinich Impeachment Hearing on Friday

Bob Fertik — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:15:29 -0400

Tell your Representatives to support impeachment by cosponsoring H. Res. 1345:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/142

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has led the fight for impeachment since April 2007, when he defied Speaker Pelosi and courageously introduced 3 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 333/799) against Vice President Cheney. On June 10, Kucinich defied Speaker Pelosi again and introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 1258) against President Bush.

When Pelosi refused to allow hearings on any of the 38 Articles of Impeachment, Kucinich returned to the floor of Congress to introduce one more Article of Impeachment against President Bush (H.Res. 1345).

Thanks to massive pressure from Democrats.com and our pro-impeachment allies, Speaker Pelosi finally allowed Chairman Conyers to hold a hearing this Friday. Kucinich will finally get a few minutes to argue for impeachment, along with Rep. Robert Wexler, former Rep. Liz Holtzman, and former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson. Kucinich made a video to thank us for our efforts.

H.Res. 1345 focuses on Bush's ultimate crime - invading Iraq on the basis of lies. The evidence is overwhelming that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, Andy Card, and other top officials deliberately manufactured those lies to "sell" an invasion whose real purpose was to gain control of Iraq's oil and establish military bases in the heart of the Middle East.

This was the agenda of the Project for a New American Century that Bush adopted after stealing the 2000 election. And it's the reason Bush and John McCain are determined to stay in Iraq forever, even though Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki supports Barack Obama's plan to remove all our troops by 2010.

When Kucinich testifies on Friday, he will naturally face hostile questions from rightwing Republicans who impeached President Clinton. But Kucinich will also face hostile questions from key Democrats who oppose impeachment.

Some of these Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq: Howard Berman (CA28), Rick Boucher (VA09), Adam Schiff (CA29), Brad Sherman (CA27), and Anthony Weiner (NY09).

But most of these Democrats oppose impeachment because they are cowering in fear of a counterattack from the White House and FOX News: John Conyers (MI14), Artur Davis (AL07), Bill Delahunt (MA10), Zoe Lofgren (CA16), Jerry Nadler (NY08), Linda Sanchez (CA39), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL20), Bobby Scott (VA03), Betty Sutton (OH13), and Mel Watt (NC12).

Only a few Judiciary Democrats understand that the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power of impeachment as the only way to stop a President from defying the Constitution and becoming a dictator, as Bush has done: Robert Wexler (FL19), Tammy Baldwin (WI02), Steve Cohen (TN09), Keith Ellison (MN05), Luis Gutierrez (IL04), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX18), Hank Johnson (GA04), and Maxine Waters (CA35).

If anti-impeachment Democrats get their way, Friday's 2-hour hearing will be the only "impeachment" hearing for this entire Congress - and then Bush will try to pardon himself and everyone else before leaving office next January, just as his father pardoned six Iran-contra criminals.

So it is crucial for all of us - now over 500,000! - to tell our Representatives today to support impeachment by cosponsoring Kucinich's H. Res. 1345:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/142

And if you can do more, please make free calls to every Judiciary Democrat who opposes impeachment through CauseCaller:
http://www.causecaller.com/causes.php?c=House_Judiciary_Democrats_Impeachment
Simply enter your phone number and click the "Start Calling" button. (Click "Call me back if I accidentally hang up" in case you hang up by mistake.) In a few seconds, your phone will "magically" ring and CauseCaller will say the name of the first Representative on the list. Listen carefully for the name of each Member so you can repeat the name to the receptionist - or just say "The Representative." Don't hang up between calls - let the receptionists hang up and CauseCaller will dial the next Representative.

Note: If CauseCaller isn't working, you can call/fax this list manually:

last	first	statedist	phone-dc	fax-dc
Berman	Howard	CA28	202-225-4695	202-225-3196
Boucher	Rick	VA09	202-225-3861	202-225-0442
Conyers	John	MI14	202-225-5126	202-225-0072
Davis	Artur	AL07	202-225-2665	202-226-9567
Delahunt	William	MA10	202-225-3111	202-225-5658
Lofgren	Zoe	CA16	202-225-3072	202-225-3336
Nadler	Jerrold	NY08	202-225-5635	202-225-6923
Sanchez	Linda	CA39	202-225-6676	202-226-1012
Schiff	Adam	CA29	202-225-4176	202-225-5828
Scott	Bobby	VA03	202-225-8351	202-225-8354
Sherman	Brad	CA27	202-225-5911	202-225-5879
Sutton	Betty	OH13	202-225-3401	202-225-2266
Wasserman Schultz	Debbie	FL20	202-225-7931	202-226-2052
Watt	Melvin	NC12	202-225-1510	202-225-1512
Weiner	Anthony	NY09	202-225-6616	202-226-7253

If you want to do even more, call your favorite radio or TV talk shows and tell them how important Friday's hearings will be, and how strongly you support impeachment for whichever reasons are most important to you. Prepare your thoughts in advance so you sound informed and determined.

And if you're near Washington DC, join Veterans for Peace to lobby Congress on Thursday and hold a pro-impeachment rally on Friday:
http://www.democrats.com/node/17211

Lots more details and actions here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34943

Thanks for all you do!

Update 1: The evidence of Bush's war crimes and other impeachable offenses grows daily. Investigative reporter Jane Mayer's new book The Dark Side provides more evidence that Bush authorized torture. The British Parliament accused Bush of torture.

Yet Attorney General Mukasey told Congress he won't prosecute anyone who followed Bush's illegal torture orders. Even worse, Bush's rightwing supporters have begun a propaganda campaign for blanket pardons of everyone in the Bush administration!