Choice America Network Online

Personally, I think this is a really good time not to keep up. The more you try, the less sense it makes, although getting us used to having it all make no sense at all may be an extremely sneaky Karl Rove ploy to justify the war in Iraq. Hard to say.

The latest development to which the only appropriate response is, “Huh,” is the news that the “mobile weapons labs” introduced to us by President Bush before the war as conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were not evidence—conclusive or otherwise—of WMD and were not, in fact, mobile weapons labs.

The only thing new here is the news that George W. Bush likely knew a couple of days before he talked about them in public that the Defense Intelligence Agency had found they were not mobile weapons labs.

OK, given everything we already know about the lies before the war, this is not particularly startling—although I do think it’s long past time we stopped referring to the campaign of disinformation and false information that we were fed as anything but lies. No, the startling and funny part of the “mobile weapons lab” lie is the administration’s defense of it, which is so batty it’s an instant classic.

According to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, the DIA report debunking the “weapons labs” is “a complex intelligence white paper and it’s ... one derived from highly classified information (and) takes a substantial amount of time to coordinate and to run through a declassification process.”

If I understand what McClellan is saying, Bush leaked bad information from a classified intelligence report because there wasn’t enough time for the contradictory DIA report to go through a declassification process. All of which would make more sense if we hadn’t just gone through this Valerie Plame episode, where the White House says if the president leaked it, then it’s legal to leak it. No problem, the president can declassify at will, they said. I don’t know about you, but none of it is becoming clearer for me. Does anyone understand why we have to bomb Iran yet?

Meanwhile, Congress can’t figure out how to do a deal on immigration. I’d like to stick my two cents in here to say the reason that deal fell apart and the reason it won’t come back together is because of American business, which hires the illegals and donates the campaign money. Bless your sweet heart if you think the deal came unglued over the Republicans ignoring their base or some other political problem. Money, my friends, talks, and bull walks. Look at who wants illegal workers here. Look at who controls Congress.

Courtesy of the Daou Report on salon.com, I found this item on a blog called The Shape of Days, about the recent demonstrations: “There’s really no other way to say it: Being here is weird. To be surrounded by a crowd of thousands of people, all of whom look alike, none of whom look like me, many of whom are decorated with our flag, none of whom are speaking our language, on our national Mall ... it’s a surreal experience. Despite my best judgment and best intentions, I feel the inklings of xenophobia bubbling up inside. This place isn’t for me; I don’t belong here. It’s time to go.”

I suppose this citizen deserves credit for honesty, but I’m so much more amazed by his or her provincialism. I feel one of those rants about suburbia coming on. Never been in a public place before surrounded by people who speak a different language and look different from you? Can you live in a city and not have experienced that?

I was high just from seeing them all—500,000 in Dallas! Of course, most of us know the immigrants are there—it’s just so interesting to see them en masse. If you’ve ever wondered what this country would be like without illegal workers, now you’ve got the answer. It would come to a halt.

Let me point out again, I don’t have a dog in this fight. There are just some things I know from living in Texas all my life. One is, don’t bother to build a fence. Two is, if you want to stop illegal immigrants, stop the people who hire them—quit punishing people who come because there are jobs. Three, this border has always been porous, and it has always worked to the advantage of the United States.

If you want to do the smart thing and look for a long-term solution, try fixing NAFTA and helping with economic development in Mexico. Meantime, I could do without the drivel about how these people are so different. Of course they’re not. Try getting out a little more.

Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In?

© 2006 TruthDig.com, LLC

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

RANDOLPH – Despite the impassioned pleas of nearly two dozen Democrats to involve the General Assembly in an effort to impeach President George Bush, the party's central committee on Saturday decided to take their case directly to Congress.

The Vermont Democratic Party became the fifth in the nation to call for the president's impeachment, following the lead of party affiliates in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina. Although the resolution urges Congress to begin immediate impeachment proceedings, the party also informed the Vermont Legislature of its decision so that it could take "appropriate action."

The 100 people who crammed into an elementary school in Randolph all but acknowledged the futility of their call to oust Bush.

But after nearly three hours of robust debate, in which the state's trailblazing efforts to end slavery in the 18th century and its granting of rights to same-sex couples in the 20th century were invoked, the Vermont Democratic Party agreed to add its voice to a growing chorus of impeachment imperatives that have already been approved by Democrats in four other states.

"You know in your own hearts and minds that something is terribly wrong in this country," said Margaret Lucenti, a longtime party member from Montpelier. "Our voices today need to be heard."

Whether anyone is paying attention is another matter. The grassroots impeachment drive got its Vermont start in tiny Newfane, where political debate is more likely to erupt over school budgets or road repairs than geopolitical concerns. It has since spread to at least six other towns, with Rockingham joining the call late last week.

At their meeting Saturday – called in haste after the Newfane resolution gained national press attention – the state's Democratic leaders agreed to urge the U.S. House of Representatives to begin immediate impeachment proceedings against Bush. In a room strewn with American flags and copies of the Constitution, party officials debated whether to send the impeachment call to the state Legislature under an obscure provision of national law or to send the request to Congress directly.

In the end, they decided that there were "ample grounds for his impeachment" and they asked "Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President George Bush." They also agreed to send the results of their vote to the General Assembly so that it can "take whatever actions it deems necessary."

Many of the people jammed into the cafeteria were there to endorse the so-called Rutland Resolution. That resolution took note of an obscure provision of House rules authored by Thomas Jefferson that allows a state legislature to start the impeachment of a president.

"We're fed up with what is happening to our country," said the author of the resolution, Jeff Taylor of Clarendon. He was an attorney at the Justice Department at the time Richard Nixon was impeached. "Nixon said that when the president does it, it's not illegal. Here we have George Bush reading out of the same playbook."

With a population smaller than all but one other state and a political mainstream considered far to the left of the rest of the country, Vermont's role in Republican-dominated national politics is almost nonexistent. That did not dissuade any of the more than 30 people who spoke out in calling for Bush's removal.

"Vermont has a long tradition of speaking out on issues beyond our borders," said Dan DeWalt, the 49-year-old woodworker who drafted the Newfane impeachment resolution. "This is far bigger than a fringe movement on the left."

Most of the state's mainstream Democrats have downplayed the impeachment movement, instead urging their party to concentrate on winning enough seats in Congress to end the Republican majority.

The crowd Saturday wasn't buying that message. Many said to do nothing wasn't just cowardly, it was unpatriotic, particularly given that their counterparts in four other states have already moved forward with calls for impeachment.

"People say this is a symbolic act," said Dan Close of Underhill. "But, upon thinking about it, even if it is just a symbolic act, there are times for symbolic acts. The Boston Tea Party was a symbolic act. The Declaration of Independence was a symbolic act."

© Copyright 2006 Rutland Herald

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for scheduling this hearing. I know you recognize that this is a serious issue, and I thank you for treating it as such. I want to welcome and thank our witnesses, some of whom – Mr. Fein, and Professor Turner -- were with us just a few weeks ago, and one of whom -- Mr. Dean -- last appeared before a congressional committee in 1974. I am grateful for your participation, particularly given the short notice that you were given of this hearing.

There is a time-honored way for matters to be considered in the Senate. Bills and resolutions are introduced, they are analyzed in the relevant committee through hearings, they are debated and amended and voted on in committee, and then they are debated on the floor. We have now started that process on this very important matter, and I look forward to seeing it through to a conclusion.

Mr. Chairman, I have looked closely at the statements you have made about the NSA program since the story broke in December. We have a disagreement about some things, but I am pleased to say we are in agreement on several others. We agree that the NSA program is inconsistent with FISA. We agree that the Authorization for Use of Military Force did not grant the President authority to engage in warrantless wiretapping of Americans on U.S. soil. We agree that the President was and remains required under the National Security Act of 1947 to inform the full Intelligence Committees of the NSA program, which he refuses to do.

Where we disagree, apparently, is whether the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution allows him to authorize warrantless surveillance without complying with FISA. You have said you think this is a close question. I do not believe he has such authority and I don’t think it’s a close question. We will continue to debate that I’m sure. But I think the fact that you have proposed legislation on this program undermines your argument that such presidential authority exists. Because if it does exist, then nothing that we can legislate, no matter how carefully crafted, is worth a hill of beans. For starters, your proposed bill may or may not cover what the NSA is now doing. You and I have no way of knowing because we have not been fully briefed on the program, and I am a member of the Intelligence Committee as well. But regardless, if the President has the inherent authority to authorize whatever surveillance he thinks is necessary, then he surely will ignore your law, just as he has ignored FISA on many occasions.

If Congress doesn’t have the power to define the contours of the President’s Article II powers through legislation, then I have no idea why people are scrambling to draft legislation to authorize what they think the President is doing. If the President’s legal theory, which is shared by some of our witnesses today, is correct, then FISA is a dead letter, all of the supposed protections for civil liberties contained in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act that we just passed are a cruel hoax, and any future legislation we might pass regarding surveillance or national security is a waste of time and a charade. Under this theory, we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government, we have a monarchy.

We can fight terrorism without breaking the law. The rule of law is central to who we are as a people, and the President must return to the law. He must acknowledge and be held accountable for his illegal actions and for misleading the American people, both before and after the program was revealed. If we in the Congress don’t stand up for ourselves and for the American people, we become complicit in his law breaking. A resolution of censure is the appropriate response – even a modest approach.

Mr. Chairman, the presence of John Dean here today should remind us that we must respond to this constitutional crisis based on principle, not partisanship. How we respond to the President’s actions will become part of our history. A little over 30 years ago, a President who broke the law was held to account by a bipartisan congressional investigation and by patriots like Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson and yes, John Dean, who put loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law above the interests of the President who appointed them. None of us here can predict how history will view this current episode. But I hope that thirty years from now, this Senate will not be seen to have backed down in the face of such a grave challenge to our constitutional system.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK