July 10, 2008
Statement by US Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Presenting an Article of Impeachment of the President
WASHINGTON — July 10 — Yesterday in the House, we had a moment of silence for the troops. Today it is time to speak out on behalf of those troops who will be in Iraq for at least another year, courageously representing our nation while their Commander in Chief sent them on a mission that was based on falsehoods about the threat of WMDs from Iraq.
Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, the Congress, the media and the American people heard the terrifying drumbeat of fear from the Bush White House in the form of loud, well-advertised and orchestrated chanting by the President and his Administration about “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” “Nuclear Threats,” “Biological Weapons,” “Chemical Weapons,” “Threats of Imminent Attack,” all calculated to gain media attention, public support and Congressional support for a war against Iraq.
This afternoon I will introduce a single Article of Impeachment of the President.
The Article is entitled: “Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.” The Impeachment resolution focuses narrowly on what the President presented to Congress in the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It does not address the voluminous evidence of orchestrated deceptions which have been well documented by various governmental, non-governmental and media sources.
I understand that many members of Congress voted in good faith to authorize the use of force against Iraq. And I understand that many in the media supported that action. When the President of the United States makes representations on matters of life and death, we all want to believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt. Trust is the glue which holds the fabric of our nation together.
Those in Congress and in the media who acted on the President’s representations of the threat of Iraq WMDs did so trusting that those representations were honest. Unfortunately, they were not. We all know the consequences of the war, the loss of lives and injury to our troops, the deaths of innocent Iraqis, the cost to the American taxpayers. There has been another consequence: Great damage to our Constitution through an unnecessary, illegal war and the destruction of the superior role of Congress in the life of this nation.
Congress must, in the name of the American people, use the one remedy which the Founders provided for an Executive who gravely abused his power: Impeachment. Congress must reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government; bring this President to an accounting, and in doing so reestablish the people’s trust in Congress and in our United States system of government. We must not let this President’s conduct go unchallenged and thereby create a precedent which undermines the Constitution.
In the final analysis this is about our Constitution and whether a President can be held accountable for his actions and his deceptions, especially when the effects of those actions have been so calamitous for America, Iraq and the world. Unless Congress reasserts itself as the power branch of government which the Founders intended, our experiment with a republican form of Government may be nearing an end. But when Congress acts to hold this President accountable it will be redeeming the faith that the Founders had in the power of a system of checks and balances which preserves our republic.
DRAFT
AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN DENNIS J. KUCINICH
JULY 10, 2008
Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Article of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
An Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE ONE
DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDs TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, then acting in his capacity under Article II, Section II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief, to commit US troops to combat in Iraq.
To gain Congressional support for passage of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, the President made the following material representations to the Congress in SJ Res 45:
1. That Iraq was “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability. …”
2. That Iraq was “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. …”
3. That Iraq was “continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security.”
4. That Iraq has demonstrated a “willingness to attack, the United States….”
5. That “members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. …”
6. The “attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations…”
7. That Iraq “will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, …”
8. That an “extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack,. .. .”
9. That the aforementioned threats “justify action by the United States to defend itself; …”
10. The enactment clause of Section 2 of SJ Res 45, the Authorization of the Use of the United States Armed Forces authorizes the President to “defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq…”
Each consequential representation made by the President to the Congress in SJ Res 45, in subsequent iterations and the final version was unsupported by evidence which was in the control of the White House.
1. Iraq was not “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability…”
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. … There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has–or will–establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq–Key WMD Facilities–An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
“Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information. June 5, 2008. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/…
“In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, Administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances. Shortly after the (mobile trailers were found, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was disclosed later that engineers from DIA who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. A former senior intelligence official reported that “only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion.” House Committee on Government Reform- Minority Staff. Iraq on the Record: Bush Administration’s Public Statements about Chemical and Biological Weapons. March 16, 2004. Available: http://oversight.house.gov/…
Former chief of CIA covert operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, has said that the CIA had credible sources discounting weapons of mass destruction claims, incuding the primary source of biological weapons claims, an informant who the Germans code-named “Curveball” whom the Germans had informed the Bush Administration was a likely fabricator and including the Niger Yellowcake forgery. Two other former CIA officers confirmed Drumheller’s account to Sidney Blumenthal who reported the story at Salon.com on September 6, 2007.
“In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons (BW) weapons quickly. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level. In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons. … ISG harbors severe doubts about the source’s credibility in regards to the breakout program.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
2. Iraq was not “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability.”
The key finding of the Iraq Survey Group’s (ISG) Report to the Director of Central Intelligence found that “Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date. Saddam Husayn (sic) ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.” Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/…
Claims that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger were not supported by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002.
The CIA had warned the British not to claim Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger prior to the British statement that was later cited by President Bush. George Tenet, July 11, 2003
“One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use n centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have been — it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourthly, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment program. As I stated above, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will naturally continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.” ElBaradei, Mohamed. Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency. Statement to the United Nations Security Council on The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update. March 7, 2003. Available: http://www.iaea.org/…
3. Iraq was not “continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States.”
“Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of [Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear] programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an ‘imminent’ threat.” Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Former CIA Director George J. Tenet at Georgetown University. February 5, 2004. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
“We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq … We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction have had some controls on them … it’s been quite a success for ten years.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Interview with Face the Nation. February 11, 2001.
“[British Secret Intelligence Service Chief Sir Richard Billing Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. … The Foreign Secretary (of England) said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.” Rycroft, Matthew; Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Memo to British Ambassador to the United States David Manning. July 23, 2002. Available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…
4. Iraq did not have the “willingness to attack, the United States.”
“The fact of the matter is that both baskets, the UN basket and what we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. His forces are about one-third their original size. They really don’t possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Transcript of Remarks made to German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. February 2001. Available: http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/…
The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
5. Iraq had no connection with the attacks of 9/11, or with al-Qaida’s role in 9/11.
“The report [of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] documents significant instances in which the Admnistration went beyond what the Intelligence Community knew or believed in making public claims, most notably on the false assertion that Iraq and al-Qaida had an operational partnership and joint involvement in carrying out the attacks of September 11th. The President and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against al-Qaida as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the Nation to war on false premises.” Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Additional Views of Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. Page 90. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/…
Richard Clarke’s memo of September 18, 2001, titled Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks, and that there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons http://www.9-11commission.gov/… (page 334).
On September 17, 2003, President Bush said: “No, we’ve no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th. What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.” Available: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/…
On June 16, 2004, a Staff Report from the 9/11 Commission stated: “There has been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. … Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.” Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
“Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon’s inspector general.
“Feith’s office ‘was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,’ according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith’s activities as ‘an alternative intelligence assessment process.’” Pincus, Walter and Smith, R. Jeffrey. “Official’s Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted, ‘Dubious’ Intelligence Fueled Push for War.” Washington Post. February 9, 2007. A1.
6. Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer to anyone.
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:
According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if “sufficiently desperate” because it feared that “an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable… ”
“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks — more likely with biological than chemical agents — probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
“The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.
“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida — with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States — would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
“In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.” Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
7. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and therefore had no capability of launching a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so…”
Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:
According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if “sufficiently desperate” because it feared that “an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable…” October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/…
“Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks - more likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.”
“The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.”
“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa’ida - with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.”
“In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
As reported in the Washington Post on March 1, 2003, in 1995, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel had informed US and British intelligence officers that “all weapons–biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.” Lynch, Colum. “Iraqi Defector Claimed Arms Were Destroyed by 1995.” Washington Post. A15. March 1, 2003.
“A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. … There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has–or will–establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq–Key WMD Facilities–An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/…
8. There was not a real risk of an “extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack” because Iraq had no capability of attacking the United States.
“Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) War. … [Iraq is] not threatening America.” Powell, Colin. Secretary of State.
9. The aforementioned evidence did not “justify the use of force by the United States to defend itself” because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, or have the intention or capability of using the non-existent WMD’s against the United States.
10. Since there was no threat posed by Iraq to the United States, the enactment clause was predicated on lying to Congress.
Congress relied on the information provided to it by the President of the United States. Congress provided the President with the authorization to use military force that he requested. As a consequence of the fraudulent representations made to the Congress, the United States Armed Forces, under the direction of George Bush as Commander in Chief, pursuant to Section 3 of the Authorization for the Use of Force which President Bush requested, invaded Iraq and occupies it to this day, at the cost of 4,116 lives of US service men and women, injuries to over 30,000 of our troops, the deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, the destruction of Iraq, and a long term cost over $3 trillion.
President Bush’s misrepresentations to Congress to induce passage of a use of force resolution is subversive of the Constitutional system of checks and balances, destructive of Congress’ sole prerogative to declare war under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and is therefore a High Crime. An even greater offense by the President of the United States occurs in his capacity as Commander in Chief, because he knowingly placed the men and women of the United States Armed Forces in harm’s way, jeopardizing their lives and their families’ future, for reasons that to this date have not been established in fact.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and of those members of the Armed Forces who put their lives on the line pursuant to the falsehoods of the President. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Afghanistan,
Colin Powell,
Condoleezza Rice,
Dennis Kucinich,
Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld,
George W. Bush,
Homeland Insecurity,
Iraq,
Press Releases,
September 11,
U.S. Congress,
United Kingdom & N.I.
July 4, 2008
Oh, yeah, I remember now.
I watched this press conference live, by the way — poor Barry always sounds like he has a mouthful of marbles when somebody asks him a question and he has to go off-script.
Anyway, about that 16-month timeline for pulling out of Iraq:
Obama Might ‘Refine’ Iraq Timeline
Original Post | 2:28 p.m.: FARGO, N.D. — Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.
Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain. …
As he arrived for a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday that he intended to conduct “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during a forthcoming trip to the country. He stressed that he has long called for a careful and responsible withdrawal of American forces, but he declined to offer a fresh endorsement of his plan to remove one to two combat brigades a month. …
It’s been more than two years since Mr. Obama has visited Iraq, which Republicans have used as a point of criticism. After dismissing an invitation from Mr. McCain to visit Iraq together this summer as a “political stunt,” Mr. Obama began making preparations for his own trip to Iraq. …
Update | 4:15 p.m.: Republicans seized on Mr. Obama’s remarks, saying he was stepping away from the position he took in the Democratic primary campaign. …
Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, issued the following statement:
“Since announcing his campaign in 2007, the central premise of Barack Obama’s candidacy was his commitment to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq immediately. He campaigned in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country reaffirming this pledge to the American people.
“Today, Barack Obama reversed that position proving once again that his words do not matter. He has now adopted John McCain’s position…
“Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him for accepting John McCain’s principled stand on this critical national security issue. …”
Update | 7:50 p.m.: FARGO, N.D. — As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama has not been known for holding an abundance of news conferences. That was not the case here on Thursday, when he called two in a span of four hours. …
“We’re going to try this again,” Mr. Obama said, standing behind a lectern that was hastily set up on the lawn of a park here. “Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq.” …
So does Mr. Obama still stand behind his proposed timeline to withdraw the majority of American combat troops in 16 months, at a pace of one or two a month? …
“I’ve also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that pace would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position, I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.”
Mr. Obama’s positions on Iraq have never tilted as far left as many Democrats would have preferred — remember a debate last year when he declined to say specifically when troops would be out of Iraq? — his statements here provided the latest indication of the way changing circumstances in Iraq have added fresh challenges to keep anti-war supporters on his side while pursuing what he calls a responsible end to the war. …
In the end, one of the biggest differences between Mr. Obama’s first and second appearances in front of the cameras here on Thursday was his emphasis. The first time, he did not include a line saying that he specifically intended to end the war. By the time he returned for Take Two, that line was a prominent one. …
I’m not going to quibble about this — after all, I never believed his overly-optimistic timeframe to begin with (and I still don’t). And I’m sure he hasn’t actually flip-flopped on this one; rather, nobody ever pressed him to make the specifics of this — or any other action he had in mind — clear until after he became The Presumptuous Nominee. (You Obama supporters just kept repeating to us mean ol’ skeptics: “Go to his site! Read his site! It’s all on his site!” Newsflash: It wasn’t “all on his site.”)
And now? Now, he’s just showing his true colors — and shortly, he’ll “clarify” what he said today, and it will be everybody else’s fault that they misunderstood what “have our combat troops out in 16 months” really meant. It could mean he’ll have them out of Iraq, and into Iran. Or Pakistan.
But, hey, at least he’s being as honest as he can be for the moment, so you can’t blame him if we’re all too stupid to have understood what he meant in the first place (or the second, or the twenty-third…). And it’s not his fault his followers elected to be misled… right?
So, what’s left for him to use to dismay and betray his increasingly disillusioned fan base? Umm… Oh, yeah! He hasn’t come out in favor of torture. Yet.
That would be the last bean in the enchilada. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to wake up tomorrow to hear that he’s done just that.
I know: Bitch, bitch, bitch, moan, moan, moan, and where’s my answer to the question, “How Do You Solve A Problem Like Obama?”
There is no answer — anymore. The answer was to vet the guy properly before believing all his sweet talk, before you discovered he’d left before morning, and isn’t calling you back.
Mr. Conservative Democrat is all there is now, and there’s no turning back the clock.
That’s why I finally contacted Cynthia McKinney’s campaign tonight to get some info. If she can satisfy my dealmaker prequisite — a firm and irrevocable commitment to marriage equality, on the federal level (as the rest of her positions are, so far, A-OK with me) — I’ll not only vote for her, but I’ll work my ass off for her.
And while I’m not wild about the organizational structure of the Green Party, it’s the only viable (and worthy) third-party contender there is. If enough of us put the kind of muscle (and money) into the Greens as we’ve wasted on the Democrats since 1996, a Greenie could be in the White House within a generation.
And that’s what irks me about the Greens: They refuse to accept that taking the White House isn’t an overnight deal — building a party takes many years.
(So why bother with McKinney now? Honestly, because I don’t not vote, and since I will vote, I’m going to vote my conscience. And what if McKinney is a wash-out on LGBT equality? I’ll figure that out if it happens. Hey, as a Democrat, I learned not to plan too far ahead. They took Kucinich away from me, and Gravel… and then the Libertarians took Gravel away from me all over again. So, the answer is: I don’t know yet. And I’d sooner jam hot fireplace pokers through my skull than vote for McCain or Barr.)
For now, however, I am happily independent. Believe me, it feels as liberating as leaving the Catholic Church did.
Only… I don’t think I ever did as much Penance as a Catholic as I did as a Democrat.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Election 2008,
Green Party,
Iraq,
John McCain
June 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — June 23 — Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) today released new data showing that while women make up approximately fifteen percent of the armed forces, they account for nearly half of all “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) discharges from the Army and Air Force. Women have always been disproportionately affected by the law forbidding openly gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans from military service but the 2007 data shows a significant increase in the ban’s impact.
“Women make up fifteen percent of the armed forces, so to find they represent nearly fifty percent of Army and Air Force discharges under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is shocking,” said SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis. “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is often used as a weapon of vengeance against service members. Women in particular have been caught in the crosshairs of this counterproductive law.”
In FY 2007 women accounted for 14% of the Army’s active duty force while making up 46% of DADT discharges compared to FY 2006 when women represented 17% of the Army and made up 35% of DADT discharges. Similarly, FY 2007 data from the Air Force shows women are 20% of the force but made up 49% of DADT discharges. That number is up from FY 2006 when females made-up 20% of the Air Force and 49% of DADT discharges.
“Our nation is safer and more secure because of the contributions made by all women, including lesbian and bisexual women, in the armed forces,” said Commander Zoe Dunning, USNR (Ret.) and SLDN Board Co-chair. “The time has come for the Pentagon and military leaders to recommend Congress repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The ban disrupts troop morale and weakens unit cohesion by forcing commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world, to separate qualified and well trained personnel for no other reason than they are suspected of being gay,” added Dunning.
According to statistics obtained from the Pentagon for Fiscal Year 2007, the armed forces continue discharging nearly two service members per day. The separation data shows the number of discharges under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ have fallen by 50% since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the beginning of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In FY 2007, at least 627 military personnel were dismissed under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on openly gay service members, up from 612 in FY 2006.
In 2007 the Army discharged 302 soldiers, up from 280 the year before. The Air Force dismissed 91 airmen, down slightly from 102 in 2006; the Navy discharged 166 sailors, the same as the previous year; and 68 Marines were discharged, up from 64 the year before. The Coast Guard, which discharged 11 service members in 2006, has not responded to SLDN’s requests for data filed with under the Freedom of Information Act.
The military’s need for qualified and experienced personnel continues to grow. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently released data showing the Army has doubled the number of waivers it grants to recruits convicted of violent felonies including manslaughter, rape and kidnapping. In an attempt to meet personnel goals Pentagon leaders have recently relaxed enlistment standards regarding age, physical fitness, education and criminal records. The discharge of lesbian and gay Americans, however, continues.
A bipartisan coalition in Congress supports legislation to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1246), is currently co-sponsored by 143 lawmakers. The bill would repeal the current law and allow lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel to serve openly in the armed forces.
Compiled statistics on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are available from SLDN Communication Director Adam Ebbin at aebbin@sldn.org. Additional information is online at www.sldn.org.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is a national, non-profit legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and related forms of intolerance. For more information, visit www.sldn.org.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Afghanistan,
Military/DADT,
Press Releases
June 21, 2008
| House Approves Unconstitutional Surveillance Legislation
WASHINGTON, DC — June 20 — Following a vote in the House of Representatives sanctioning warrantless wiretapping and handing immunity to telecommunications companies for their role in domestic spying, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage at representatives who voted for the unconstitutional legislation. The bill, H.R. 6304, or The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed the chamber by a vote of 293-129, and is expected to be voted on in the Senate next week.
The following may be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office:
“It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution.
“No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.
“More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House.”
For more information, go to: www.aclu.org/fisa
To read the ACLU’s letter on H.R. 6304, go to: www.aclu.org/safefree… |
Did you really think I wouldn’t take Obamaniacs — not mere supporters, but Obamaniacs — to the woodshed on this one?
I’m not talking about his AIPAC speech, his endorsement of (and TV ad for) warmongering, Bush-tax-cuts-loving, right-wing Democrat John Barrow, or even the appalling notion that DADT darling Sam Nunn really is on his short list of VP picks — all blogworthy topics, but all of which pale in comparison to Obama’s sell-out on…
…you know what I’m going to say. G’head, say it with me: FISA.
Grab a cold one, sit back, and get comfortable.
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA “Compromise”
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance — making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”
So, how ya feelin’, Obama supporters, now that your guy, Mister “Constitutional Lawyer,” has just peed all over the Constitution — or, more acurately, driven a stake through the heart of the Fourth Amendment?
Sorry (no, actually, after the rotten way you’ve treated me and every other non-Obamaite, I’m not sorry at all) to rub salt into your freshly opened wounds, but I told you so: He was bound to disappoint you, in a big, big way. Me, I’m not “disappointed” or at all surprised, because this is exactly the sort of behavior I — and more real Democrats than you want to know about — have expected of him. The signs have always been there. You just stuck your fingers in your ears and went “Lalalalalalala! I can’t hear you! Lalalalalalala!” — that is, when you weren’t channeling the dis-ease of cognitive dissonance into making schoolyard-bully, ad hominem attacks on the people who have been trying to force you to see Obama for what he is: just another slick, old-school politician — and worse, in my book, a gen-u-ine DINO.
| What Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Fred Hiatt mean by “bipartisanship”
Telling Americans that we have to give up basic constitutional rights — and allow rampant lawbreaking — if we want to save ourselves from “the grave threats we face” sounds awfully familiar. He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the “compromise.” Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. …
Nobody should be fooled by Obama’s vow to work to remove telecom amnesty from this bill. Harry Reid is already acknowledging that this “effort” is likely to fail and is just pure political theater: Reid said: “Probably we can’t take that out of the bill, but I’m going to try.” The article continued: “Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to ‘express their views.’”
We should continue to demand that amnesty is removed from the bill — and fight it to the bitter end — but this whole separate vote they’ll have in the Senate on whether to remove amnesty is principally designed to enable Obama, once he votes to enact this bill, to say: “Well, I tried to get immunity out, and when I couldn’t, I decided to support the compromise.” It’s almost certainly the case that Hoyer secured Obama’s support for the bill before unveiling it.
Either way, Obama — if amnesty isn’t removed — is going to vote for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, and his statement today all but sealed the fate of this bill. There is no point in sugarcoating that, though we ought to continue to fight its enactment with a focus on removing amnesty in the Senate.
|
I kept telling you: Obama is no liberal. Obama was never a liberal.
But you let him pull the wool over your eyes. And we are all going to pay for it.
Today, from what I’ve been observing on the pro-Obama blogs and boards, half of you are sick to your stomachs over Obama’s FISA sell-out (and those rational Obama supporters who dare to criticize Teh Chosen One are getting eaten alive by the Obamaniacs; wade through the hysteria at Democratic Underground yourself if you want evidence), while the other half are still in denial, grasping desperately at straws; i.e., “Obama probably knows something we don’t, and he just can’t talk about it publicly right now! This is all part of a big plan that’s for the greater good! We have to trust him!” (And where have you heard that kind of talk before? I’ll tell you: from Bush supporters.)
And then there’s this oft-seen apologist justification: “Obama can’t be seen as soft on terror! Once he gets into the White House, then he’ll roll back FISA, completely! We have to trust him!“
So you’re worried about being seen as “soft on terror,” eh? So the Obamapologists, like the spineless, mealy-mouthed House Democrats who passed this ugly thing, are stuck in the same old groove: always running defense, in the position they allow Republicans to put them in. Some leadership. Some change.
If you can’t hold Mr. Accountability accountable now, do you really believe he’s going to give two shits what you think when he’s the one basking in all that unfettered power he’ll have inherited from Bush? (How’d ya like the juxtaposition between “the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people” and “I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary …”?)
In short, Barack doesn’t want to forfeit all that nice, juicy, limitless power George W. Bush has right now.
I know y’all are sick to death of us gays and our silly little civil-rights “wedge issue,” but damn it anyway, I’ll say it again: Didja notice how Obama didn’t give two shits about what the gay community had to say during the Donnie McClurkin flap? That was a sign — a big sign to those of us on the receiving end of Barack’s blatant F.U. But you wouldn’t sit up and take notice then, because it didn’t impact you. Well, now, this FISA thing impacts everybody. How’s it feel to know Obama doesn’t give a damn about your civil liberties anymore than he does our civil rights?
| The Odd Assity of Hope
I agree with my man Thoreau that telecom immunity is a genuine test of Barack Obama’s bona fides on civil liberties. It’s also a genuine test of the liberal side of any liberal-libertarian fusionism.
I think it’s very possibly a test that Obama has already failed. I have a sneaking suspicion that, as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, Obama could have kept the bill from getting even this far with a quiet word or two. Nothing stopped him from dragging Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid into the same corner where he buttonholed Joe Lieberman. If the House and Senate leadership really did sneak the bill past him last week, which I’m not inclined to believe, still nothing stopped him from shutting them down this week. E |
