BACKGROUND: some time around Monday evening, June 9, there was a giddy moment when it seemed that justice was still possible in America. On the Friday before, the Senate Intelligence committee had issued their report condemning the Bush propaganda machine efforts to kick-start the Iraq War as intentional deception. As folks had been saying along Bush lied, Thousands Died. Impeach. And by that following Monday, Dennis Kucinich stood before the assembled might of the US Congress and read 35 different, verifiable, reasons George Bush could at last be removed from office. All across America millions of citizen finally exhaled our sighs of relief and waited for history to happen. And of course it didn't.
As planned. With Speaker Pelosi sternly disapproving and Steny Hoyer dutifully leading his majority away from the topic with all post haste, it turned out the Republican party were the ones who championed hearing for impeachment, hoping to easily out debate and embarrass Dem leadership. They actually pressed to have the thing heard right there, but it wound up in committee, presumably to die.
And so we waited through June, recurring calls to the Judiciary gave no clue that their stance on why impeachment should not be discussed and when challenged as ineffective against Bush, Conyers office would refer to the ousting of Alberto Gonzales, who was embarrassed out of office over the Attorney General firings. So true to the promise he made to Congress and to the American people, when Congress failed to act for more than 30 Days, on July 11th, Kucinich again introduced impeachment but this time focusing on one charge: the deceptions of imminent threat regarding Hussein in the fall of '02.
And somehow an amazing thing happened: on the 17th Conyers Judiciary Committee announced hearings. While the bombshell flashed through the online progressive community, it remained a non-starter for mainstream media. Unlike either the Nixon Hearings over Watergate or Clinton's BJ impeachment, no mainstream media outlet had plans to cover the hearing live for the public to decide. In fact when called in a July 24th survey of the major TV news networks, NBC backpedaled through 6, count 'em, 6 different viewer service reps who didn't even know who to ask to find out if the network was covering it. And the guy who answered the phone in the ABC national news newsroom, not only had not heard about the hearings and but did not even know how to check on the Judiciary committee's schedule of upcoming hearings. When finally guided to the public notice, he grudgingly allowed they'd "do something on it, I'm sure," and hug up.
Of course not wanting to draw too much attention to the hearings in advance, the ever meek Conyers originally billed the hearing as "The Imperial Presidency" and later milded down even that, to "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations." In fact when the hearings finally started after a good twenty minutes of live glad-handing, Conyers duly admonished the crowd they were not allowed to show any reaction to any statements made and both witnesses and committee members were neither allowed to speak of impeachment nor in the pejorative in general of the president or name him directly in any accusatory fashion.
A faux rule which easily fell to the wayside once the testimonies started. At first I was so dazzled by the fact that the hearings were even happening, that my wife and daughter and I got up early and gathered in front of the TV at 7am AZ time for the opening gavel on CSPAN and just stared open mouthed.
The line that eventually got me to realize I could be taking notes was, "Informed criticism, as annoying as it may be to those in positions of power, is the stuff of democracy"-Brad Miller D-NC in his opening remarks.
What follows is an attempt keep up live with the pace of the action over the nearly six hour hearing. I am not a stenographer and so many of the issues discussed required a certain amount of background info to contextualize that the quotes are few and the summaries many. However since the chances are good mainstream media may never present much coverage of this hearing historic hearing, here's my best shot:
Following Conyers' gentle often befuddled sounding opening remarks, which included the lines, "the politicization of the Department of Justice, the misuse of signing statements, the misuse of authority with regard to detention, interrogation and rendition, possible manipulation of intelligence regarding the Iraq war, improper retaliation against critics of the administration... and excessive secrecy," several committee members also made opening remarks with GOP loyalists uniformly outraged over the very essence of the hearings Ranking Repug Lamar Smith hissed loudly the mantra of the GOP objections: congressional consideration of the numerous lies, deaths, unjust imprisonments, and misspent billions of President Bush amounts to "the criminalization of political partisanship." In other words the problem is not that Bush and his supporters committed these heinous acts, but that they were members of the Republican Party and those complaining about their actions are members of the Democratic Party.
Trent Franks (my own representative, woe is me) gave the most offensive anti-hearing address complaining that the terrorists were winning because the hearings were taking up time that Congress should have been working to further restrict and invade rights in the War on Terror. Franks contended that though the president has only has a 30% approval rating Congress' approval rating is in single digits due largely to its despicable hounding of the poor president. Coincidentally later that same day MSNBC showed the latest poll which had the numbers at Bush 23%, Congress 15%.
Walter Jones D-NC complained about the signing statements which Bush has repeatedly used to, in some cases, completely undo the purpose of the legislation, noting that though signing statements go all the way back to Monroe, all presidents before Bush only totaled to 600 that Constitutionally damaging or violating and Bush alone has generated over 800 alone.
After several Dem reps talked about the various areas of neglect and abuse of the Bush admin and the bills they've introduced to try to combat these abuses, Elizabeth Holtzman, author of the book, The Impeachment of President Bush and former US rep. from New York laid out a forceful case on numerous legitimate sounding "high crimes and misdemeanors."
It is worth remembering that Bob Barr, the 2nd public witness before the committee, is a strident conservative and had been one of the key players in the Clinton impeachment process. He said there are "legions of instances ... where, to be most generous, the understanding of liberty are lacking." Barr, speaking with purposefully dispassion, clarifies that the Bush usurpations of presidential power and Constitutional abuses did not start with Bush, but his administration has taken it to new extremes. And further this is first the first step for future presidents who, he noted, typically use the excesses of previous presidents "not as a ceiling, but as a floor." Unlike the vast majority of the actual testimony in the hearing, Barr's testimony was available online within hours of the hearing and can be found here.
Former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson focused the way the extensive secrecy the Bush admin has invoked suggesting that the sheer number of things we don't know due to the intensive secrecy of the Bush Admin is perhaps the scariest part of the matters at hand. Due to that secrecy, without Congress pressing for investigation the world may never on the possible scope of "the monstrous human rights abuses" of the Bush admin.
Noted Conservative, Stephen Presser, the Northwestern University law professor who had provided the definition for the Constitutional concept of impeachment during the Clinton Impeachment in 1998, served the same role in these hearing and, in order, threw out the all 6 of the major issues that those calling for impeachment had championed: including signing statements, willful defiance of congressional subpoenas, the politicalization of the Justice Dept., the whole signing statements debate, the misrepresentation of WMDs, misuse of authority and even torture.
Assertions which the next witness, Bruce Fein, former Reagan Deputy Attorney General also a Constitutional law expert, intensely disputed, claiming the executive branch has pillaged our Constitution and civil liberties as thoroughly "as the barbarians sacked Rome."
Next celebrity DA/author, Vincent Bugliosi, whose current bestseller is called The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, attempted to summarize his whole book in a short five minute time limit and focused on the now widely documented lies the Bush Admin used in the run-up to the Iraq War, opened by saying at this stage of his career he doesn't have time to mess around: the lies that Bush has told have led directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. At this the crowd in the hearing room burst into applause. Rep. Lamar Smith returned to his role as designated killjoy asked the room be cleared. Conyers, ever polite, declined to do this, but admonished the crowd politely.
As if brought in to be a balancing act to Bugliosi's vitriol, Jeremy Rabkin, a George Mason University law professor, acknowledged he had been called in by the minority contingent, even though he didn't want to be put in a position of defending the Bush Admin. He then quite clearly dismissed the efforts of various witnesses to bring in additional issues such as FISA and signing statements, since those lesser abuses pale in comparison to the charges of lying to the public and Congress on WMD. That charge alone is enough though he personally rejects it to the point of treating it as laughable. (Coincidentally the 2nd round of Kucinich's impeachment attempt took that very other same approach and whittling the initial 35 charges to one: liar us into war.) In conclusion Rabkin condemned the hearings themselves as disloyal and out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, noting "the rest of the country is not in this bubble to think it is OK to refer to the president as Caligula."
Frederick A. O. Swartz, who had serious objections to the Bush Admin, repeatedly referred to torture and the suspension of habeas corpus among other things, noting that the "US should not adopt the methods of our enemies," called for further investigation before America completely loses her "moral luster." Still, despite his concerns with Bush's abuses, he explained that he does not support impeachment, because of the timing, not enough time before the election and the regrettable invariability of the process becoming even further political.
Lastly, Elliot Adams, president of the Noble Prize winning Veterans for Peace, opened by recounting the famed Benjamin Franklin quip from the Constitutional Convention that America now had a republic, "if we can keep it." After listing the various good works of his organization, he explained he had to break away from that stuff to focus on the war crimes of the Bush Admin, and as a soldier, he was outraged.
When given a chance to restate or give additional comment, Holtzman again called for the rejection of lesser measures because the president has been able to evade all lesser efforts to rein him in. Bob Barr comically had a heavily redacted version of the Bill of Rights warning that if we don't stop Bush we won't be able to stop some later president.
Rocky Anderson addressed points brought forward by Presser and Pence went so far as to use the word "Fraud." Presser, while complimenting the process, flatly dismissed the suggestion that the 944 false statements the Bush admin made were intentional lies. There was no proof, he contended, that the president acted "with lack of good will."
Bruce Fein warned that the shape of the war on terror and the expansion of presidential powers are timeless, timeless threats to America. Following Bugliosi's second reiteration of the lies Bush told and the contention that all subsequent deaths based on those lies, Americans and Iraqis alike, audience member Cindy Sheehan got herself ejected, in the new round of audience applause.
Rabkin simply yielded his time saying that he was not impressed with people repeating their alarmist statements with greater emphasis, so he did not intend to repeat telling them "to calm down." Frederick Swartz's second reminded us of the importance of action.
Next came the committee members turn to ask questions. When ranking Republican Lamar Smith, R-TX, cross-examined he focused, too little surprise, on Presser and Rabkin, the witnesses that supported his assertions that the whole thing was an overblown waste of time and stain on the great Republican Administration of George Bush. Presser was focused on the non-criminal nature of Bush abuses of power. Rabkin simply listed other presidents who had led the country into wars on less than truthful statements (such as McKinley, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson) doubted that the public would take accusations against those presidents either.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler D-NY flat out rejected Presser's and Rabkin's defense of Bush lies as innocent unintentional mistakes based on good intentions and pointed out that there is considerable proof (such as the Senate Intelligence Committee report of June 4th or the Center for Public Integrity's exhaustive listing of 935 documented "false statements.") that Bush consciously lied to Congress in Oct. of '02, and so it doesn't matter what his intentions were, a lie is a lie. Next, cross examining Bruce Fein, Nadler explored possible future Constitutional remedies for presidential abuses and ways to limit presidential pardon powers, to which Fein replied that the necessary and proper clause, our friend from Article I, Section , 8, paragraph18. Nadler, feeling very enthused, then moved on to Holtzman to compare the current process to her role in Nixon's aborted impeachment. Again animated Holtzman exclaimed the process started with the Saturday night massacre and the American people." She further noted that back in the day, parties were more willing to address the issues of the president's behavior, not their own party loyalties. "Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist ... Impeachment inquiry itself handled fairly with the full participation of the minority party ... with everyone participating ... with Constitutional scholars there so no one has feel that we're out to get someone ... it can work, we have to make it work for the good of the country."
Rep. Steve King, R-IO, noted Holtzman's call for non-partisan participation of both parties. He then scolded that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Dems wouldn't play along well, either. He then focused on the famous 16 words from the 2003 State of the Union address, you remember the whole Nigeria yellow cake issue, noting that Joseph Wilson's original debriefing from his fact-finding trip to investigate the claim Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa appears to support the contention, though it is worded as heresay. He later showed a previously secret report claiming that in 2007 the US army shipped 550 tons of yellow cake uranium from Iraq, showing that the government was just in their claims. He then attempts to use the old Republican ruse of pointing out all the Dems who signed on the Bush wagon including Obama back in 2004.
Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA, asked if there were available measures short of impeachment since there are clear abuses that should be redressed. Scott also dismissed Presser and Rabkin's dismissals of the importance of Bush's abuses, especially torture issues and the politicalization of the Justice Dept. and used a variety of witnesses, including Fein, Barr and Holtzman, to show they are important after all. First Fein clarified that during discussions in the Watergate hearings, the Justice dept. concluded that a president couldn't be criminally prosecuted while in office, impeachment was the only recourse. Holtzman agreed and further went on to note that on the issues of torture, or any deaths resulting from that torture, there are "no statutes of limitations for any US national including the people at the highest rung of our government." She concluded, "The real remedy for a president who continues to act as if he believes he were above the law is impeachment and there is no running away from that." Bugliosi stepped in to remind all present that though Bush is protected from prosecution while in office, the Jan. 20th he is fair game and America has the right to start pursuing the prosecution now.
Trent Franks stuck to his message of dismay that the terrorists are winning and that there were many notable Democrats who also called for a War on Iraq based on claims of WMDs. He also did a rousing review of quotes to demonstrate how much the terrorists hate us for our freedom. "And somehow we're going after this president you has done everything in his power to protect us." Of course, in putting together his terror routine, Franks failed, as so many GOP leaders do, to mention that the American public and politicians were operating on intelligence supplied by Bush in the first place. When Swartz tried to comment Franks concluded his turn rather than let him speak. He also mentioned that by focusing on "fairytales" instead of terrorists, all there that morning should be ashamed.
Mel Watt, D-NC, asked who was protecting us from those who claimed they were protecting us from the bad guys. After a quick shout out to his old buddy Bob Barr, Watt stated he would not lead a call for impeachment, having been through the Clinton impeachment. Watt felt it wasn't worth attempting to impeachment when there could be no nonpartisan investigation, even though "this is the most important issue I believe this Congress could be pursuing ... I am convinced the Republicans were wrong when they did it, I'm not saying we would be wrong to try it ... but I'm not sure it would be a practical matter ... it's clear to me we would not have the votes ...I wish we could raise the standard for the president ... If somebody brings the resolution I'll be right here ... I want the American people to 'impeach' this president in November of 2008 and this whole administration ... and the idea that a president can protect me from terrorists by doing whatever the hell he wants."
Rep. Louie Gohmert R-TX condemned most of the witnesses, reminding them that if misleading to congress is a criminal offense they should consider their "brash allegations." Gohmert focused on Clinton's earlier failures and poor President Bush who "naively" "accepted" "Clinton's lies" about Iraq WMDs. He further claimed that Joe Wilson started speaking out to protect his friends in France who were scamming the UN oil for food deal. He also added, like Franks that the focus of the day should have been on the terrorists, not the innocent, though naïve president. The biggest problem right now is that the Supreme Court had just voted to "release terrorists on American soil."
Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, who also was on hand for the Watergate hearings, hoped to use the current hearings to "curb future abuses." Lofgren reflected on watching when, Chuck Wiggins, a major Nixon supporter on the Watergate committee finally realized that Nixon had been lying and "his faith and his president had been betrayed." She wasn't sure she wanted to support impeachment as a practical matter considering the time available, but was unsure of other means of address. She still laments when Congress abdicated habeas corpus because the president said he was trying to make us safer.
Swartz, finally getting to comment, laid out some precepts of how a commission could created to investigate the Bush admin after they've left office. Barr got a nod to champion his proposed methods of redress if he should become president. "It's hard to know where to start," Barr chuckled. He talked about repairing a variety of abuses including revising the "doctrine of state secrets," FISA and signing statements.
Dan Lungren, R-CA, addressed Holtzman and Bugliosi and returned to the popular Republican phrase, the criminalizing of political difference of opinion. He looked back to earlier presidential abuses including the little mentioned tale of Wilson having political cartoonists imprisoned for unfavorable cartoons..He also likened Japanese Internment to Nixon's post-presidential tax investigations and said the Democrats were "tantamount to overcharging the case." He asked if impeachment is the proper tool. Turning to Rabkin and Presser for support, Lungren interrupted Presser and himself to complain that people in the audience were holding signs. Aides and security then circulated through the crowds until members of the crowd broke out in loud, but unfocused protests, including, of all things, paper throwing. After a couple of minutes of chaos, Conyers asked upset audience members to just leave. King again recessed for a recess. Then Presser pressed on despite the background noise. "Do you have a president who acted in good faith or do you have a president who just wasn't interested in doing that?" Rabkin disputed the assertion that there were no other recourses other than impeachment. He further suggested that if we were to impeach the president, there are numerous others who should also get the boot.
Sheila Jackson Lee, D-TX, echoed Barbara Jordan (who had the same congressional seat, and seat in the Judiciary during Watergate) that the role of the hearings was to protect the rights of "simple people." Jackson Lee briefly returned to the issue of signing statements then explained, while she wouldn't call directly for impeachment, she "believes we have a very firm basis for suggesting high crimes and misdemeanors," but she did call for other lesser commissions to look into abuses, though timing is an issue. She asked Fein to clarify the president war powers of congress, as opposed to the powers of the president. Fein noted that the founding fathers asserted that a president who either lies or conceals information from Congress, thus preventing Congress from acting properly, has committed a great crime against the country and that is an impeachable offense. "A popular government without popular knowledge is a farce." Bush concealed information from Congress, thus impairing Congress' ability to responsibly act on their power to declare war.
Jackson likened Bush Iraq run-up to the current Whitehouse effort towards Iran. Fein also took the opportunity to note the president's limitation of WMD info in 2002-2003 set the tone for the whole nations' interpretation of the issue at the time. Jackson Lee also gave Bugliosi a chance to expand on the Bush concealment of dissenting opinions by 16 different US agencies who each said Hussein was not an imminent threat as Bush and company continued to insist that he was and needed to be stopped by force. According to Bugliosi, the WMD issue is less important than the Bush charge of imminent threat.
Mike Pence, R-IN, choose to use his time to prop up the credentials of Steven Presser, presumably to reinforce Presser's legal opinions as law, Pence, "fascinated with [Presser's] analysis," also lauded Madison and Mason at length, noting the founding fathers' rejected "maladministration" as an impeachable offense because we couldn't have presidents impeached over policy issues. Pence then, tossed off a couple of props for of all people Dennis Kucinich, then revisited the distinction between the obstruction of justice charges against Clinton and those against Bush. Presser again asserted Bush had not pursued personal interests.
Robert Wexler, D-FL, one of the co-sponsors of the Kucinich's impeachment measures, refuted that torture, among other offenses, are not simple "policy issues, they go to the issue of abuse of presidential power." No matter what else Congress looked at, wasn't the president's repeated instructing his staff to refuse to cooperate with Congressional investigations. That is not a policy issue, it is a Constitutional action." After reiterating that the president cannot put himself above the law, he gave the floor to Rocky Anderson who also listed a litany of ways where the president and his staff have clearly and repeatedly refused to even appear despite numerous congressional subpoenas while Congress "cavalierly ignored" it. Fein weighed in that all by itself Bush's refusal to cooperate with Congress is all enough for a quick, clear-cut, impeachment. Holtzman adamantly concurred, noting that refusing to appear on congressional supeonas 'subverts the Constitution" which is, all by itself, an impeachable offense.
Steve Cohen D-NY asked first if Holtzman was sure Bush had committed clear impeachable offenses; then if the vice-president is impeachable and could be actually done at the same time, despite the Whitehouse assertions that the vice president cannot be impeached because of his Constitutional, though underserved, role as president of the Senate. Holtzman smiled as she explained they could "do a two-for." Cohen concluded, "There's not a method to their madness, just madness." Bruce Fein came back on to discuss whether disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales himself had committed impeachable offenses and then built on the idea that there was still plenty of time for a full-scale impeachment since many of Bush's clear actions on FISA, habeas corpus, and other "blatant" refusals to follow US law are widely documented, would be easily proven, and "rise to the standards of high crimes and misdemeanors." Fein further explained that an impeachment on various Bush actions which were clearly in violation of Congress are indeed crimes where Bush has already confessed. "You don't need an archeological investigation."
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-GA, brought Presser back to clarify the difference between impeaching Clinton for lying and impeaching Bush for lying and, despite Presser's repeatedly saying that he "didn't see the facts the same way." "It seems to me that you take the position that we shouldn't even be looking at the facts. Is that it?" Johnson eventually got Presser, through extensive use of double negatives to eventually acknowledge that the gravity of the issues at hand and the possibility of "probable cause" showed it would be responsible to further investigate, which is the purpose of an impeachment in the first place. Johnson then asked the same question to Holtzman who said Congress would be shirking their responsibility if they did not hold impeachment hearings.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA, opened by lamenting that "Congress has become an advisory board to the president;" then made some sort of joke about Jesse Jackson and his threat to the nuts of Barack Obama. When no one laughed along, Sherman focused in on the Bush Admin's "nonfeasance" to see if that was an impeachable offense. Bruce Fein started to give a long answer, which Sherman helped him summarize as "yes." He talked further on how to protect future congresses from future signing statements. Sherman also visited Holtzman asking if it was proper for a prosecutor to press for a trial when they knew they couldn't get a conviction, but she wouldn't bite and declined a clear answer.
Tammy Baldwin, D-WI, addressed the concerns of Bush's expansion of the presidential powers with a metaphor based on Washington building a toolbox out of the cherry tree he did not actually chop down, and then asked about Congress's lack of action to prevent it. Once again Bruce Fein was brought in explain that the Congress has its own self to blame. Fein contended "the founding fathers would be shocked to find one man claiming the power of war." Baldwin further noted that she has no reason to trust Bush to behave during these the last six months of his term and wonders if we should use an impeachment proceeding to contain him. Rocky Anderson said nothing short of "criminal sanctions" could stop Bush from attacking Iran and Bugliosi when called on to expand, declined to speculate.
Adam Schiff, D-CA, called for an investigation, a Church-style inquiry, and not one limited to this term of Congress and asked "what steps can we take today?" He further wanted to focus on the issue of signing statements and the Office of Legal Counsel and their use of legal opinions to protect Bush staff from accountability. "is there legal accountability? If not how do we instill legal accountability?" He brought back Frederick Schwarz to clarify that the secretive nature of the OLC and Bush's use of signing statements. Schiff, then worried about running out of time, asked if Schwarz felt that suit could be brought against members of the Bush admin to get them to release more info. Schwarz, referring to the district court efforts to get Harriet Miers to stop refusing to cooperate with Congressional subpoenas. Fein explained that he had been in the OLC earlier, and all the earlier work of that office was public, and Congress should insist on a return to that practice "shoddy scholarship is so embarrassing they change their mind ... Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-FL, revisited the GOP complaints about the 45 different hearings the committee, noting that "members on the other side of the aisle are lamenting" the massive workload had to do with the backload from the first six years of the GOP dominated Congress ignored Bush abuses. She then asked for an opinion on the degree of egregiousness of Bush's use of singing statements. Schwarz explained that the breadth of the president's use of signing statements to contradict and often negate Congressional laws (nearly 1100 so far and still counting). Schwarz contended the president's use of signing statement could be, by itself, sufficient cause for impeachment and "unprecedented in its audacity." Wasserman Schultz then asked if signing statements could be removed altogether. Schwarz was unsure, but Bruce Fein suggested that Congress simply cut the purse strings for any law a president countermands the intent of with his signing statement. Wasserman Schultz quipped, "This president has no shame."
The next questioner, Keith Ellison, D-MN, got Fein to clarify that even if Congress were to pass a law restricting the use of signing statements, Bush could still write a signing statement refusing to follow the law. Fein wryly grinned and acknowledged it could happen.Ellison then brought Kucinich back to the microphone, to reiterate his initial claims he made of purposeful deceptions on the Bush Admin's part regarding WMDs, a Hussein/ Al-Qaida link, and other claims Bushies made that contradicted existing intelligence. Kucinich started to slowly explain to how he had analyzed the two versions of the Oct 2002 in which Congress passed its war-making powers over to the president. Ellison hurried him along. Kucinich laid out the list of claims Bush was making in the laws that the Whitehouse already knew was untrue even as they were pressing for war. Kucinich compared the existing prewar intelligence compared to the claims that Bush was making at the time. Ellison then asked Stephen Presser to whether or not Kucinich's assertions, if accurate, "would form the basis for an inquiry for impeachment." Presser agreed; but Jeremy Rabkin would not accept Kucinich's charges enough to even consider whether or not if true, they were impeachable, though if Kucinich was correct it would justify an impeachment inquiry. "The only reason I'm here is to get to the truth. Let's get to the truth."
The last to speak, Dan Lungren, R-CA, came back to the microphone to say that "there is an essential difference between an misstatement of facts and an intentional misstatement;" and as a former prosecutor he knows such allegations are easily made and hard to prove, it's "a long road;" only to find himself cross-examined by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, on whether or not the faulty and misleading intelligence reports Bush gave to Congress rises to the level of lying. Again Lungren used the opportunity to complain about the crowd behavior. Conyers apologized for the crowd's behavior and said disrupters would not be invited back to this chamber. After that, citing Eisenhower's memoirs, he justified Bush's choice to have faith in the intelligence we had and we should accept his good will and intentions. Like Eisenhower, Bush merely "made a decision based on the best intelligence he had."
"The way this has been portrayed as a president chomping at the bit to violate the Constitution is just unreasonable," Lungren concluded. Nadler countered that the issue wasn't about the quality of the intelligence Bush had, but that prima fascia Bush selected the information he wanted to use and hid the rest from the world community. Lungren stuck to his guns despite a final effort to challenge him by Rep Scott.
Conyers concluded the hearings by echoing Mel Watt in calling the hearings the most important that the committee had held. Immediately following the hearing CNN continued to broadcast an interview with John McCain that did not address the hearings. Headline News cut away from a fluff piece on salmonella in Mexican jalapenos, to dismiss briefly the hearings and erroneously report that the Judiciary had held "hundreds of hearings and none had lead to any action." Obviously ignoring the committees own count of 45 hearings, which among other things, have led to the ouster of Alberto Gonzales.
Later that evening when CSPAN ran the hearings a second time I was able to fine tune some of the notes and check on the major coverage of the hearings. As expected, none of them actually interrupted ad time TV to do the public service of covering the hearings, though Keith Olbermann ran a segment in the 3rd slot of Countdown, disparaging the sincerity of the hearings and mostly giving Bob Barr who left the hearings early a chance to campaign. An occasional scan of various network scrolls showed no evidence of the hearings whatsoever, EXCEPT by 11:16pm AZ time (after 2am in DC) a brief scroll "Kucinich Presses for Bush Impeachment, Republicans Scoff." A final check of the major network websites showed ABC had the hearings in the lower portion of their homepage, while CNN had it as their lead article thought, their rendition discussed nothing more than the opening two remarks by Conyers and Smith. There was no mention at all on CBS, NBC or MSNBC.
--mikel weisser writes from the left coast of AZ
Born the son of a nightclub singer, Mikel Weisser watched anti-war hippies getting beaten on TV during the Vietnam War and decided to devote his life to protest against unreasoning authority, but not to getting beaten. Though he spent almost two (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
AFTER 6 years of no oversight and no hearings, not even one, by the Republicans on the Bush administration, the first Hearing on the potential and probable abuses of excessive executive powers and potential remedies thereto, Video Links attached:
Submitted by LanceCiepiela on Sun, 2008-07-27 15:25.
Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz tackles the extensive and abusive use of signing statements by the Bush Administration Link CLICK HERE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQScXo7lawQ
by
Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 3:34:05 PM
Unfortunately, I think the problem is that democracy (in this case American democracy) is populated by people who are (mostly) just not paying attention.
Worse than that, now, post the Bush administration, pretty much every political scoundrel will see that the people aren't paying attention.
Saddly it seems like violence and imminent threats are the only thing that most people are sentient enough to pay attention too.
And violence and imminent threats are real now - Americans are doing them to foreigners as part of national policy.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:17:50 PM
The people who truly pay attention have always been in the minority, but there are a larger number of people who may not be paying much attention but are somewhat aware. It is not clear to me that the ratios have changed much.
What has changed is that the people who are paying close attention (the ones who should become opinion leaders) have been marginalized to a greater degree than in times past. The MSM has learned that they can ignore the educated, thinking people and just promote the propaganda favored by the rich and powerful.
The one thing that gives me hope is that the MSM has lost its credibility with an increasing number of people. What is needed is a serious effort at providing an alternative. About a month ago I wrote an article proposing one alternative and I would invite others to think about other possibilities.
by
PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:32:33 AM
When told no direct mention of bush or cheney would be allowed I would of gone out of my way to purposely, loudly and definitely done so and have them have to drag me out screaming at the top of my lungs calling those that made those rules as guilty as the ingrates that they're protecting.
Think that would of gotten media attention?
It's civil disobedience time. We keep playing by their rules we lose. Every one of us need to just stop doing what we're told and what needs to be done. We need to get arrested, beaten, water-hosed, and killed, because if we keep playing it nice, we'll be rounded-up, tortured and killed, but not on our terms, but theirs.
We're at war folks. You don't fight wars with words - you fight them with action.
And any of you that don't think we're in a hot war with people how want to kill us than what in the hell do you call the murder of 3,000 of us on September 11, 2001? These people, "these" being cheney, bush and the whole cabal of neo-cons, want us dead. It's that simply. They don't want us any other way. Not imprisoned, not silenced - dead.
So please tell me why we have to play nice? Why should we obey them? Why should we sit quietly and be told what words can and can not be used?
Am I advocating violence?
No.
But violence is going to be unavoidable when we protect ourselves. But never should we start it.
What I'm advocating is peaceful civil disobedience in every and any form it can take. Disruption of events, sit-ins, placing of signs, and not just in the same old way, but to take these things to another level. MSM has made it an at not to cover protests, or at least slander and diminish them, they want sensational - fine - make them sensational.
Case in point. Shell Oil was brought to it's knees in Nigeria by a handful of women that showed-up at the Shell Oil shipping nude. The publicity generated by this act focused on Shell's abuses and brought them to the table.
Am I suggesting we do the same? Why not? We need to do something. IF anyone has got a better idea, bring it. One naked person has to be as good as 100 clothed ones. If a hundred naked people had a sit-in at Conyers office do you think it would get covered?
But this is just one idea. We need to get creative, aggressive and defiant. And we need to do it now and we need t stop being nice. Wars are not nice. They're messy and people get hurt. It's time we put our words aside and act.
by
Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 4:36:38 PM
You asked if anyone had a better idea. Well the problem is that not only is the Bush administration against us, but the MSM is against us too. They are not going to report on peaceful demonstrations. They are trying to force us to do our protesting in a vacuum. Protesting can not be viral in a vacuum. Protesting is going on all the time, but it's simply not reported. The only way they're going to report it is if somebody does something stupid. Then they will focus all their cameras and attention on those stunts and make everyone else who protests look complicit in those actions. They will make sure that one bad apple spoils the bunch. They will interview only those protestors who hold the most extreme views and those who are the least intelligent so they can appeal to public ridicule. This is how it's always been done.
I suggest a different course of action. I suggest we combine our efforts and create a disinformation awareness coalition. One of the purposes being to record, analyze, organize and document every piece of disinformation and propoganda that assaults the minds of the public. We will keep a permanent record of the lies and disinformation propogated by the MSM and have them widely available to all. No more will the MSM be allowed to rape the minds of the people in a pseudo-anonymous drive-by shooting manner. We will always know who said what and how they said it. Right now, the MSM knows they can assault us and get away with it, that we will soon forget who assaulted us, but that their disinformation will live on permanently in our brains. Let's say no more and hold them accountable for what they say forever.
The other purpose of this coalition would be to wake up the people from this Orwellian nightmare and teach them and give them the tools necessary to recognize disinformation before it has the chance to enter their brains. I'd like for everybody who watches the news or reads the newspapers to be able to recognize ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, appeals to ridicule, and every one of the logical fallacies used by the MSM to distort the truth. With this subliminal shield implemented, people will be less likely to fall victim to the propoganda of the MSM.
I would love to work on a program like this. I'm sure if we got enough of us together we could accomplish a mammoth task of this kind. I think it's one of the only ways that we can make a long-term difference, whereas a demonstration only highlights the most current of issues, and every demonstration has to be started from scratch.
by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:17:15 PM
If "we" is Americans, you already have started violence - the invasion of Iraq was violence and torture is violence.
When an American President does violence using the powers of the President that you the American people have imbued in him, and not taken from him, then you the American people have done violence.
You may say that you did not approve - okay, but disapproval isn't enough unless you are also disclaiming being part of the "we" that IS the United States of America.
In the end it isn't possible to completely renounce violence as a moral course of action unless one is willing to be both a victum of violence AND to sit by and watch whilst OTHERS are victums of it.
The prohibition against violence isn't absolute - it only makes sense in the context of supporting a rule of law.
Without a rule of law - violence can actually be the moral choice.
I disagree with you about 9-11 being an inside job. I think it was an outside job. (I accept that there is a very small chance that you were/are right about it being an inside job, but not a large enough chance to warrant lots of investigation of wild improbable theories when what is causing things to go wrong in democracies like the United States has a far more mundane explanation). Violence is not only something that Americans can do.
Terrorism is real. Its a real political tool. Its a desperate tool used by people who do not have confidence that the rule of law will provide justice.
Terrorism is a moral wrong only if there is a rule of law.
If you advocate that "we" should do violence (which you don't) or that "we" should use civil disobedience, you need to turn your mind to the question of who is "we"? What is the bond that will tie you and your confederates together into a "we"?
The United States Constitution is a social contract. The UN Charter is a contract. One can't (as a practical matter) contract with crazy people who don't (can't) understand what a contract is.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:41:22 PM
911 was merely a "warm up" of horrible things to come. I truely believe that the "powers that be" are about to unleash a "plague" that will decimate a majority of the global population. They've already tested it in Poland and are accumulating plastic caskets throughout the country. It's only a matter of time before the next phase begins....we are soooo screwed.
by
Galen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:43:38 PM
Reply: The President has to be amongst any sensible
set of "the powers that be" because his powers are laid out in black and white in the Constitution. The President can have his instructions carried out as though they are orders from the commander in chief, not because he is a charismatic individual, or even a personally impressive one necessarily, but simply because he IS the President.
There would be men and women in the Secret Service that would take a bullet for George W Bush not because he is George W Bush but because he is the President - and THAT is real power.
As for other "powers that be", most economic powers, it seems to me, have no interest in propagating plagues. Commodity prices (food, oil) are higher when there is more demand not less.
Truly believing (of itself) isn't something that is communicable. *Reasons for* truly believing may be.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:50:40 AM
If you still think that leaders of Western and European countries aren't anything more than bobble-heads for a "new world order" and you don't know anything about Eugenics, Monsanto, GODEX, Bohemia Grove, or anything else that's been exposed, then please, go do some homework.
And before you call me a tin-hat paranoid, tell me why all these things exist?
by
Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:03:36 AM
I do know something about eugenics (no capitals) and Monsanto. If you want to tell me something you think I don't know and should know be my guest.
In my comments to you, I am not trying to put you down. I suspect that you are mistaken if you think 9-11 was an inside job, but there is no disrespect coming from me to you in thinking that. Most people are frequently mistaken about a lot of things.
If you think that all the leaders of Western and European countries are reading from the one play sheet and are intentionally working towards one new world order rather than a variety of new world orders then I think you also mistaken. I think a new world order and a world government are inevitable myself but I am not part of any Bilderburg conspiracy. Logic alone is enough to see that one common environment suggests that one world government to oversee that one common enviroment would be better. But the form of that government is unlikely to be one that all the current crop of Western and European leaders would agree on.
My concern Mr M, is that when basically good folks think we are already 99% of the way to hell already, then they aren't turning their mind to a situation that could stop us ever getting that far gone.
I think 9-11 was NOT an inside job. But if the population doesn't get better at sorting out evidence and presenting reasons and evidence to each other then the next 9-11 type event very well could be an inside job because scoundrels learn by watching what others do.
If we don't impeach Bush THIS TIME then we may get the sort of world in which 9-11 would be an inside job NEXT TIME because the public may be regarded as manageable dupes by those interested in politics.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 7:00:54 AM
One of the tragedies is how little spine the mainstream media have, how they lapped at the administration's plate for so long, and then failed to cover the anti-war marches. I believe there was 9-10x more coverage of Bush's reasons to invade, then protestor's/anti-war commentary. The drumbeating continues w./the non-impeachment hearings. The media have been relatively quiet. And, while we can't call it a conspiracy, the leading dems don't want impeachment--and Obama was drawing media attention in his Iraq/Afgh./Europe trip. It is sad when the media do not act as the Founding Fathers demanded--as a watchdog upon government. AT least Kucinich and several hundred thousand (maybe by now several million demand justice, knowing Bush will leave office and the nation and its media will continue as always.
walt brasch (college professor by daytime; social issues journalist all the time.)
by
Brasch (87 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:35:06 PM
ALL THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARE COMING HOME FOR SUMMER VACATION, HERES, WHAT WE CAN DO, PUT UP NOT WELCOME SIGNS ALL AROUND THEIR HOUSES AND THERE DISTRICT, AND WHEN YOU SEE THEM BOO THEM GIVE THEM THE HIGH SIGN, DON'T INVITE THEM TO ANY TOWN HALL MEETING, BLACK BALL THEM EVERY CHANGE YOU GET EVERY BODY, MAKE THEM FEEL UN WELCOME, AND I SURE SOME CREATIVE MINDS CAN COME UP WITH A LOT MORE . OK START MAKING YOUR SIGNS AND BE CREATIVE, AND IN YOUR TOWN PUT UP A BANNER ACROSS THE MAIN STREET WITH THEIR NAME , AND A BIG NOT WELCOME HERE SIGN. KEEP THEM UP AT NIGHT WITH SOME NOISE, ANYTHING, TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD (ENOUGH.)
by
RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:12:37 PM
Right on Mr M! I'm with you (except for the showing up nude part) For those that still don't know what globalization and the nwo is really about watch this. It's almost 3 hours long but it goes fast. A lot is covered and you will come away with eyes wide open. The presentation is from July 3, 2008.
of what was wooly nonsense too general and vague to be wrong but stopped when Icke started saying that microchips could control the body because the body works on electrical and chemical basis. It does but to dumb it down that far dumbs it down to meaningless nonsense.
As chance would have it I have an degree in information technology and I've studied molecular and cellular biology. I do understand microchip technology and I understand biology well enough to know for a fact that David Icke hasn't got a clue what he is talking about.
To control individual human behavior so that people would behave like robots (which is actually what Icke talks about as a current possibility or even a reality) with a microchip would be impossible even in principle. The adult brain is too complicated and too different from one person to another and microchips are necessarily manufactured assembly line fashion not one at a time as custom made jobs.
Some degree of cybernetics is possible. Indeed simple stuff has already happened. But brain control by implanted microchip isn't.
With complete confidence I will go on the record and say David Icke is full of sh*t. Period. His understanding of science relating to microchips and to neuroscience is on a par with someone who thinks the moon is made of cheese. Whatever else he is selling he is selling snake oil.
Science is not a closed shop. Anyone with a methodical mind and a will to learn can learn about the real world but most people don't make the effort so they doom themselves to live in magical mystery lands where snake oil salesmen catch them like fish in dragnets.
Sorry I can't be gentler but bunk is bunk.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:36:20 AM
"I disagree with you about 9-11 being an inside job. I think it was an outside job. (I accept that there is a very small chance that you were/are right about it being an inside job, but not a large enough chance to warrant lots of investigation of wild improbable theories when what is causing things to go wrong in democracies like the United States has a far more mundane explanation). Violence is not only something that Americans can do." says Brett Paatsch above.
Mr. Paatsch, I urge you to look up on the web the talk given by Richard Gage, AIA, on the fall of the three WTC towers. It is as good a brief summary as I know of the certainty that the towers were blown up by controlled demolition. I also urge you to read any of David Ray Griffin's books--preferably all of them. If you think that Osama Bin Laden entered all three towers weeks or months before 9/11 to wire them for destruction, then why, pray tell, did he then bother to highjack planes and crash them into the twin towers, which had been over-engineered to withstand such impacts and the resultant fires? If you wanted to bring the towers down for any reason, controlled demolition was one of the few methods that would actually work.
I think you will find that the only "wild improbable theory" of the 9/11 events is the government's.
by
Carol Cleveland (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 7:54:17 AM
Mr. Paatsch, I urge you to look up on the web the talk given by Richard Gage, AIA, on the fall of the three WTC towers.
I have seen a video in which the fall of building 7 is shown, along with, for comparison, other buildings reported to have been demolished by controlled explosives.
In the video I saw, an alleged European demolition export is shown a video of building 7 coming down on, if I recall correctly, September 11, so on the same day as the other buildings. The significant thing being that he, that supposed expert, (I don't know if he was or wasn't an expert) thought that there would not have been time for a demolition crew (that worked like his crew) to have placed those explosives after the other two towers cames down. Ergo (he doesn't say but the implication is made) the controlled demolition charges must have been placed there already.
The video (I saw) raises fair questions if one trusts that the video is itself truthful and that the expert is a genuine expert, but it isn't proof. And I can't accept on faith that the video I see and the experts that are presented as experts are not themselves distortions or mischievious deceptions. I'd have to do a lot of work to check non obvious things to take the video on face value. I have doubts about the 'chain of custody' around the supposed evidence and doubts about the expertise of alleged experts.
I personally don't know if building 7 could be brought down as it was by collateral damage incurred by the falling debris from the other buildings. I don't know that there are not some specialist demolition teams perhaps with military training that could not bring down a building like building 7 even after the other buildings were brought down. I can't rule out completely the possibility that the government might have ordered building 7 demolished by specialist teams AFTER the other buildings were hit by the two planes.
It is my understanding that at least one of the principle authors of the official 9-11 report has voiced dissatisfaction with material or facts presented to or kept from him (I can't remember the details) so I accept that something very well may be wrong with the official story, but a great many small somethings could be wrong without making the hypothesis that 9-11 was an inside job more likely than that it was an outside job in which insiders got involved in covering up parts of for reasons of controlling the evidence at a crime scene or for perhaps taking steps to control the falling down of building (7) that was going to come down anyway. I simply don't know is my position.
What I do know as a person that has studied science and the law and psychology is that people frequently get things wrong. I do know that people (generally) tend to leap to conclusions.
I don't know you, and I mean you no disrespect, but I have heard some arguments that wt7 was brought down by power weapons (rays) from space. That IS a MORE wildly improbable theory (more improbable than the official story) but that sort of theory based on ignorance of what is practically possible gets pushed by some 9-11 official version questioners because THEY don't know enough to rule out some things that are just plain impossible.
If 9-11 truthers could present there cases like Kucinch presents his articles of impeachment or like the witnessess in the non-impeachment hearings presented their cases then 9-11 truthers telling the truth would have a better chance of being heard. But the burden always falls on those wishing to persuade. That may not seem fair - but that is the reality of the human condition. We don't give other people an endless supply of our attention because we don't have an endless supply of attention to spare.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 9:16:37 AM
The web sites seem to be long gone, but I remember shortly after 9/11 there was a guy who worked in the World Trade Center who came forward with information related to the weekend before 9/11. He was a computer operator and he was trying to get some work done for the weekend in the WTC. All the security systems and cameras were shut down. There were what he considered strange, unidentified workers who had complete unhindered access to the WTC over the weekend. They didn't wear name tags but they had freedom to come and go as they pleased. On Monday 9/11 he slept in instead of returning to work. He tried to get the Port Authority and other officials to listen to his story, but nobody was interested in his eyewitness account. I have never seen this issue addressed. Nobody ever said who these unidentified workers were or confirmed or denied his account. George Bush's brother was in control of the WTC security on this day. If that isn't enough to raise suspicion, I don't know what is. Unfortunately as every day goes by the 9/11 truth movement loses valuable knowledge as sites come and go.
by
Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 152 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:09:29 PM
Reply: Lots of things are possible that aren't probable
The (non) impeachment hearing provides good examples of people and testimony that is properly ordered.
It also provides good examples, from the Republican members, of the sort of difficulties that will be faced by getting party political types to even look at the evidence that is well prepared and right under their noses and presented by well credentialled experts who collective sanity is not questionable.
With all of those credibility adding things going for them the Republican members still did not get persuaded. Or at least still did not show that they were persuaded - perhaps there is a difference.
The only way that questions about 9-11 are going to become important enough to enough people to put the evidence and testimony together clearly as was done with the (non)-impeachment hearing is if you have a political climate in which it is possible to consider impeaching a President.
Given the extent to which the Bush administration has tried to avoid accountability and disclosure I am not surprised that wild theories abound. And its not impossible that some wild theories are true. But the point is we have to triage.
There is enough obviously impeachable offences (torture, aggressive invasion are my hot issues) that it isn't necessary to push the 9-11 inside job theory and it probably isn't helpful to building public credibility.
Perhaps the person who reported the unusual happenings at the WTC was absolutely truthful and absolutely reliable (though those things would be challenged and should be later if one really cares about that specific area of truth) but right now, I submit, that sort of stuff doesn't actually matter in relation to other stuff even if it is true. Its not necessary to getting impeachment happening and the rule of law restored.
Attention is a finite resource for all of us. The Republican House Judiciary Committee members are not alone in not wanting to pay attention to impeachable offences placed right in front of their noses.
To be effective at persuasion we have to consider how to be effective at persuasion. Their can be no persuasion without getting the attention of those we need to persuade no matter how true or just we think our issue or cause.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:04:01 AM
I sometimes feel like Diogenes looking for someone with their head on straight!
I'm not sorry about repeating myself and I'll keep doing it until I hear an echo!
A hearing is not good enough!!!We must have nothing but hearings until all accounts of alleged crimes are heard and satisfied.There is more than enough evidence to prove guilt and all who are guilty must be acknowledged and suffer the consequence because the viability of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are at stake!
NOTHING OF ANY VALUE, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN OR WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED UNTIL GEORGE W. BUSH AND DICK CHENEY ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CRIMES THEY HAVE COMMITTED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!!
by
libertybill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:15:44 AM
Mr Paatch: I have no doubt that microchips would be able to control us to some extent in the future. I don't see how you can be that closed minded to science. But considering your take on 9/11 I'm not surprised. I had suspicions on that very morning when not one jet was scrambled. Then I went home that night and watched bldg 7 fall when no plane hit it and it was not in flames. I was the only one I know who actually saw it fall. What's very odd is it was never shown falling on tv again. EVER. The twin towers we saw fall over and over but bldg 7? Only once at 5pm on 9/11. Odd isn't it? Just another Mystery of 911. Speaking of which 911 Mysteries Part I demoltions is an excellent film for you to watch. It should still be on Google videos.
As for Mr Icke, He's been doing research on what he lectures about for over 20 years and every prediction I've seen of his to date has happened. Sometimes it's painful to look at the whole picture and learn the total truth but it's time we all did.
by
jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:16:14 PM
I have no doubt that microchips would be able to control us to some extent in the future. I don't see how you can be that closed minded to science.
Jersey girl I don't know you well enough to know what you know and so showing you so you can understand for yourself isn't easy. I do know though that if you look at the Icke video you provided about 55min to 1 hour in you will see Icke talking about microchips and control "like Robots". Like robots is not "able to control us to some extent in the future" (quoting you above). To have us controlled like Robots would require the microchip interface with a lot of different parts of the brain. If you look at people their heads are different sizes and so are their brains and so the "wiring" will be different distances apart. If you look at a microchip like a CPU that gets plugged into a motherboard on a computer you will see they are manufactured to be one common size. The pins go into specific slots that are specific distances apart. Whilst microchips are cheap (because they can be mass produced) the factories to produce them are very, very expensive. Producing customised microchips to control brains that are not standard would be impossibly expensive.
The problem of interfacing is not by any means limited to problems relating to variable brain sizes. I'm just using one example.
I only have to assume that you are of average intelligence to know that you can find out for yourself now (if you want to, if it is important to you) that Icke is not reliable. You don't have to accept that I know anything about microchips or about neuroscience because if you want to you can learn for yourself.
I've given you fair warning about Icke what you do with that fair warning is up to you.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:17:01 PM
THERE WILL BE(NO) IMPEACHMENT OF ANYBODY.......................PERIOD. TALK IT TO DEATH ALL YOU WANT, ITS YOUR TIME AND YOUR INK, YOU CAN WASTE YOUR TIME ANYWAY YOU WANT.
by
RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:27:46 PM
To spend one's time working for the cause, or even merely the call, of freedom is not a waste. Even if you never achieve the freedom yourself, or if the world is not freed from your trying, your soul and the souls of those you touched will be that much freer and that is certainly worth the time.
by
mikel weisser (49 articles, 3 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 87 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:35:42 PM
MIKEL OUR HOUSE AND SENATE, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, AND ALL THE ABOVE ARE NOT IN CHARGE, THE GLOBAL ELITE ARE IN CHARGE, WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO SINK IN. AND IMPEACHMENT IS NOT IN THEIR AGENDA, SO ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN,WHY ARE THE MEDIA NO COVERING THIS, BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS OWNED BY THE GLOBAL ELITE, THE ROYALS. THEIR AGENDA IS SET, AND WE THE PEOPLE ARE ALONG FOR THE RIDE, NOTHING WE TALK ABOUT IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR AGENDA. BUT IF WE WERE TO TAKE ACTION, AND START TO REBEL, THEN YOU WILL SEE THE REALITY, OF WHAT ALL THESE NEW LAWS ARE FOR. THEY WILL LET US TALK ALL WE WANT.
by
RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 5:23:53 PM
Thank you all for this amazing string of ideas. I am honored to have touched you all so.
Couple of replies:
Like many, many Americans i have strong suspicions on 9/11, am aware of Bilderbergs, Alex Jones, the Federal Reserve, etc. All of it incredibly overwhelming and prima faci, undefeatable. That is why i tend to work on more mainstream issues: if we can get the torture to stop then we can do this, if we can unravel the secrecy then we can do that, etc, all of which are handily addressed in impeachment.
I will not get my neighbor to accept the network of secret detention facilities around the country waiting for the names on the terrorist watch list until i can get him to see WMDs were a lie, refusing congressional subpoenas is a crime, and war in general, and this war in specific, is an abomination.
As Rep. Mel Watt and Ms Holtzman both strongly noted: The American People need to act behind the impeachment for it to work. The public awareness and outcry has increased through our efforts so far, but not enough, until Congress hears Watergate-size thunderous disgust from Americans we need to stay in hard-pressed PR mode and publicize the ambiguity out of this issue. Bush succeeds because though people don't like what he's doing they keep being told, it's OK. Well, what he's done is not OK and it is our job to make sure that everyone knows it.
So i call you back to action. Several posts urged increased agitation and this sounds great to me. As i say in my bio, i don't like being beaten for a cause, especially if i can outsmart the tyrant.
Mr. M is right, outlandish actitivism in civil disobedience is the key right now. We have to out shout the media, both in spectacle and sincerity. (I'd streak to see you protest nude, Jersey Girl!) Not just write or call congress on a regular basis or have gripe sessions with friends. We have to confront the enforced ignorance.
Make and handout flyers yourself.
Here's an idea i read in an oped out of Florida and have adopted: Hand write an Impeach Bush flyer on a sheet of typing paper and tape it to your car. Make it gaudy, let it be ugly. The more of these on the streets the more the general public has to think about impeachment. This is a saturation thing. Why did the Bush admin lie 944 times about WMDs, because repetition works.
In addition to occasional street corner standing with protest signs i have also incorporated using disposable "Impeach Bush" signs and stapling them to abandoned buildings with high visiblity.
ALSO, harrass the press for their lack of accountablity. They are less likely to be true believers than GOP politicians and need to be called to account when they propagandize. Here is a link for FAIR's media contact list. They deserve the attention as much as congress.
Just be Sure: While I am not advocating violence, i believe this is a time for hostility, or at least to push beyond silence even when its uncomfortable. This a time for purposeful confrontation of the Bush propagandists, even when that means one-on-one in the grocery store with someone wearing Bush/GOP propaganda. the people need to confront for themselves what the Bush admin has been proven to stand and what their alliance to the junta says about their personal character. For to endorse Bush is to endorse tyranny, lying, torture, greed, heartlessness, etc., even to the pesonal level of still having a red white and blue "W '04" sticke on your SUV.
I am about to go out this aftenoon and do some more street corner action with my sign that says: "Senate Says Bush Lied, Call Congress to Impeach," and lists our congressman's name and number.
What does your sign say?
When are you going back out?
--mikel
by
mikel weisser (49 articles, 3 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 87 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:30:16 PM
My sign said: "The 2000 election was stolen. 9/11 was an inside job. The 2004 election was stolen. Who do you think is going to save you?"
I didn't get much attention with it on 9/11/07 on the campus of the large university where I work, but there is a good deal of awareness out there, and it is waiting for some leadership.
By leadership, I mean someone to tell us when to hit the streets en masse. I have been convinced for several years that the only way out of the mess we are in is a general strike. One man I know thinks it wouldn't take more than about 5 days to bring the country to a halt. They cannot run their businesses without the mass of workers. They cannot run this country without the cooperation of the mass of citizens. We need a few people to give us a week's notice, so we can make some preparations, and then we stop working, stop cooperating, and declare our independence from our own government.
Thanks very much for your work in providing a good account of the hearings, and, as we used to say in the sixties, Keep the Faith, baby!
by
Carol Cleveland (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:37:13 PM
'For to endorse Bush is to endorse tyranny, lying, torture, greed, heartlessness, etc., even to the pesonal level of still having a red white and blue "W '04" sticke on your SUV."
I can't believe, just today, coming home from work I saw an suv with that freakin' W sticker on the back.. I swear, I wanted to run into him ! I'd be so embarassed if I were a bush supporter. I'd certainly have taken that sticker down years ago !
by
jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 7:35:21 PM
Reply: Those tortured and killed during invasions suffer more.
Its just that they aren't regarded as part of the "we". Foreigners don't vote so they are treated like they don't matter. But there are 6.7 billion people in the world and only just over 300 million people in the United States of America.
300 million that don't uphold their own constitution can't be 300 million united, they must be 300 million divided.
The President of the United States is a world leader because of the power that is in the office and because of the power of the United States but at present the President is a NEGATIVE role model. At present the Congress, is allowing corruption to consolidate and 6.7 billion people in the world with televisions can see that the rule of law that prohibits torture and that prohibits aggressive invasion (what Bugliosi - who does know how to separate facts from speculation - calls murder).
If only 1 in a million of the 6.4 billion becomes a terrorist because they have lost confidence in the rule of law to provide justice then you have 6,400 new terrorists. And those 6,400 don't have to be in contact with each other or to agree with each other they just have to want to get the bad guys.
Currently, the United States ARE the most conspicuous and dangerous bad guys.
In failing to repudiate the Bush administration, Congress is guaranteeing the escalation of terrorism against Americans. Governments come and go on four year terms and terrorists are human beings they have to grow up and learn to do the things they want to do. It is not possible to stop people from learning about science and technology and so it is not possible to stop people from training themselves to be terrorists if they choose to be. The only way to remove terrorism is to remove the desperate motivation behind it.
The only way to really effectively oppose terrorism is to show the rule of law working and applying to all. That is the only way that people will have confidence in the rule of law and stop taking the law into their own hands.
Mortals die anyway. Desperate mortals prefer to die taking impediments to the chances of a fair go for their children and friends with them.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:15:43 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
