Madam Speaker: Bush Betrays Trust

Madam Speaker, he betrayed our trust when he and Vice, among others, lied us into an illegal, unjust war.

Now he is involved in a continuing cconspiracy to obstruct justice.

Is impeachment still off the table?

A Betrayal of Trust of the American People

July 2nd, 2007 by Speaker Pelosi

The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.
The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Pelosi and Reid Aren't Gonna Wait For September

Why wait for another pack of lies?

Dems to confront Bush again on Iraq pullout

Pelosi, Reid say House and Senate will vote in July --
won't wait for report on surge

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Saturday, June 30, 2007

Washington -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi threw down a new gauntlet Friday before President Bush and Republicans in Congress, saying the House will vote in July on legislation to withdraw almost all American troops from Iraq by April.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said there also will be votes on the future course of the Iraq war next month, although he said he is consulting with other top Democrats on exactly what the legislation might entail.

The statements by Congress' top two Democrats mean that the renewed confrontation with Bush over Iraq won't wait until September, when the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, are scheduled to issue a report on how the surge of American troops has worked to quell sectarian violence in the Iraqi capital and other cities.

Pelosi and Reid, talking to reporters in the Capitol as Congress left town for its weeklong July Fourth break, made it clear that they want to pressure Republican members on their continued support for the war. They think a major break in GOP support for Bush is possible, after statements this week by senior Republican Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio, who said Bush's strategy isn't working and called on him to start withdrawing the 160,000 U.S. forces in Iraq.

"We will put everyone on record,'' Pelosi said. "We're encouraged by the public demand for this. Hopefully, it will be heard by the president and the Republicans in Congress. I see some signs that that is happening."

The Democratic leaders recognize their July efforts could end the same way as last spring's showdown with the president over a withdrawal plan for the war, now in its fifth year at a cost of more than 3,500 American lives and an estimated $500 billion.

Bush vetoed the withdrawal plan, and Republicans stood solidly behind him in the narrowly divided Congress, blocking the needed two-thirds margin in both houses to override a veto.
Democrats eventually passed, and Bush signed, a bill providing about $96 billion to pay for the Iraq war through the end of the federal fiscal year on Sept. 30 -- with no provision to withdraw troops.

Criticism from their own base rained down on the Democratic leaders for giving in, but Pelosi and Reid say they will try again and again, hoping for Republican defections or the election next year of an anti-war Democratic president and Democratic Congress.

"The American public is sending the message to their representatives that we need to change direction in Iraq,'' Pelosi's top deputy, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said. "The American public sees the current direction is not working.''

The Democrats admit that public frustration with the continuing war in Iraq has hurt their popularity after six months in control of Congress, especially after they campaigned on a platform that promised a new direction in Iraq policy.

The new withdrawal legislation in the House would require a troop pullout beginning within 120 days of enactment and completed by April, Hoyer said. It may be a stand-alone bill, meaning it could be considered separately from military appropriations legislation. Democrats also may offer other proposals seeking to wind down U.S. involvement.

The only troops that would be allowed to stay in Iraq would be those needed to directly combat al Qaeda, train Iraqi forces and protect the U.S. Embassy complex in Baghdad.

The Senate's vehicle for any proposals will be the fiscal 2008 military authorization bill, which Reid said Friday will be taken up when the Senate returns July 9.

"We're hoping Republicans will want to join us,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who heads the Democrats' 2008 campaign effort to keep their newly won House majority.

Some Republican leaders, even after the statements by Lugar and Voinovich, are appealing to Congress to give the surge strategy more time.

"I've believed all spring and I continue to believe that we ought to allow General Petraeus the opportunity to succeed,'' House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said this week. "Now, he has a plan in place. He's had his full reinforcement of troops only about two or three weeks.''
Boehner added, "At the end of the day, making sure that we have a secure Iraq is in the best interest of all Americans, and for that matter, the rest of the world, because losing in Iraq will allow al Qaeda and their like-minded souls around the country to expand, to increase their ranks.''

His deputy, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he doesn't see a major fissure in House GOP ranks, at least not yet.

"I believe our members will largely reserve their decision on what needs to happen in Iraq until September. I believe that's a reasonable position to take,'' Blunt said.

E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Pelosi On Bush Lawlessness: "The American people really don’t even know the half of it"

Just could be.....

There is more in store for the Buhsites than impeachment!

Get rid of the Bushites, the NeoCons and the Republican Party with hearing after hearing!

Damn, that sounds good!

Then we can go to work on the Democrats.

BobGeiger.com: Pelosi On Bush Lawlessness: "The American people really don’t even know the half of it":

Asked by writer Dave Johnson of Seeing The Forest about the blatant lawlessness of the Bush administration and their apparent belief that they're above the rule of law, Pelosi reinforced the difference a Democratic Congress has made on executive-branch oversight and said that we only see part of just how bad the Bush White House really is.

'The American people really don’t even know the half of it,' said Pelosi in discussing what further oversight efforts might ultimately uncover. 'In every aspect of the rule of law, and respect for the Constitution and checks and balances and how they conduct themselves, it's impossible to exaggerate how bad they have been.'

Live Earth Pledge!

Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid Sign ‘Live Earth Pledge’
June 28th, 2007 by Karina

Today, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signed the “Live Earth Pledge,” created by former Vice President Al Gore. The pledge is in conjunction with the global “Live Earth” event to be held on every continent on July 7th.

Speaker Pelosi stated that “by signing this pledge, I rededicate myself to the prevention of dangerous global warming. The climate crisis is as local as our neighborhoods and as global as the planet. We must act swiftly to protect God’s creation from dramatic changes that threaten our national security and health, our crops and coastlines, and the very survival of many species on earth. Reducing global warming is also an opportunity to stimulate new and innovative technologies, create new ‘green’ jobs, and reduce pollutants that are harmful to human health.”

This morning, Speaker Pelosi announced the House’s “Energy Independence Day” legislation to make the nation energy independent and reduce global warming.

I PLEDGE:

1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral;”

3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;

4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Pelosi To Sue Bush?

Whatever works, Madam Speaker!

Pelosi threat to sue Bush over Iraq bill
By Jonathan E. Kaplan and Elana Schor
May 09, 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill. Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said.

“Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”

A lawsuit could be seen as part of the Democrats’ larger political strategy to pressure — through a series of votes on funding the war — congressional Republicans to break with Bush over Iraq.Democrats floated other ideas during yesterday’s weekly caucus meeting.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) suggested that the House consider a measure to rescind the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq. Several senators and Democratic presidential candidates recently have proposed that idea.“There was a ripple around the room” in support of the idea, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.In order to hear an argument, a federal court would have to grant what is known as “standing,” meaning that lawmakers would have to show that Bush is willfully ignoring a bill Congress passed and that he signed into law.

The House would have to demonstrate what is called “injury in fact.”

A court might accept the case if “it is clear that the legislature has exhausted its ability to do anything more,” a former general counsel to the House of Representatives, Stanley Brand, said.

Lawmakers have tried to sue presidents in the past for taking what they consider to be illegal military action, but courts have rejected such suits. A law professor at Georgetown Law Center, Nicholas Rosenkranz, said Bush is likely to express his view on the constitutionality of the next supplemental in writing.

Whether Bush has leeway to treat any provision of the supplemental as advisory, however, depends on the wording Congress chooses, Rosenkranz added.

Bruce Fein, who was a Justice Department official under President Reagan, said Democrats seeking to challenge a signing statement would have to try to give themselves standing before filing a lawsuit.“You’d need an authorizing resolution in the House and Senate … to seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court that the president, by issuing a signing statement, is denying Congress’s obligation to [hold a veto override vote],” Fein said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to that end last year, but the idea of a lawsuit has yet to gain traction in Congress.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that “the odds would be good” for a signing statement on the next supplemental, considering that Bush has in the past shown a predilection for excusing his administration from contentious bills. But Levin did not offer any clues as to how Democratic leaders would counter Bush.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Some Still on Fire For Impeachment

Nothing would please us more, but there is still the time constraint. There is also the certainty of a deal of some kind, just as there as for Nixon; like a full pardon for crimes, both known and unknown, at the time.

Impeachment is, quite frankly, too good for this bunch. I want them free to be arrested the minute they leave office; no immunity, no pardons, no deals of any kind.

John mentions that the Democrats came out better for forcing Nixon from office. Actually, the Republicans did in the long run. Also, this is not the '70s. The political landscape has changed drastically over the past 30 years.

I say, let them twist in the "Winds of Congressional Hearings" for the next two years, let crime after crime be revealed!

Impeachment Fever Rises
by JOHN NICHOLS
[from the May 7, 2007 issue of The Nation]


When Nancy Pelosi announced last fall that impeachment was "off the table," official Washington accepted that the primary avenue for holding lawless Presidents to account had been closed off by the new Speaker of the House. But the Republic's citizenry has not been so inclined. And now, with the Administration's troubles mounting, they're preparing to tell Pelosi that America and the world cannot wait until January 20, 2009, to put an end to Bush's reign of error. When Pelosi arrives at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego on April 28--the same day that activists nationwide will rally for presidential accountability--she'll find on the agenda a resolution that declares that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney "warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office." Delegates are expected to endorse the measure.

Pelosi fears that impeachment would distract from the Democratic legislative agenda and provoke an electoral backlash. History suggests she is wrong: The Watergate Congress was highly efficient, and Democrats had one of their best years ever at the polls after pressuring Richard Nixon out of office. But aside from Dennis Kucinich, who is particularly fired up about Cheney's misdeeds, few in Congress have even hinted at bucking Pelosi's ban.

Outside Washington, however, an "impeachment from below" movement is gathering steam. The President's troop surge into Iraq and his refusal to consider exit strategies has caused many to react like GOP Senator Chuck Hagel, who has observed, "The President says...he's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him." Hagel's remarks go to the heart of the surge in interest in impeachment: It stems from Bush's ongoing disregard for the demands of the electorate, the Congress and the Constitution. Legitimate impeachment initiatives are organic responses to the realities of a moment rather than purely legal procedures. Talk of impeachment gains traction when it becomes clear that an Administration is unwilling to respect the system of checks and balances or the rule of law. This explains why the allegation that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, apparently with White House approval, pressured US Attorneys to politicize prosecutions has added so much fuel to the fire, with activists like Vermont's Dan DeWalt now saying, "I don't have any trouble getting people to agree that impeachment is necessary."

DeWalt engineered a campaign in March to get town meetings in his state to pass resolutions calling on Congress to impeach and remove Bush and Cheney. Three dozen towns did so, including Middlebury, where GOP Governor Jim Douglas found himself presiding over a meeting that voted overwhelmingly in favor of going after the two for misleading the nation about the threat posed by Iraq, condoning torture and approving illegal electronic surveillance.

The goal of the town meeting movement was to get the state legislature to forward articles of impeachment to the US House. Citing Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which makes reference to the authority of state legislatures to propose impeachment, legislators in at least ten states, including Vermont, have now done so. But the real success of the initiative was to illustrate the popular appeal of impeachment--an effort helped along by Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who devoted a week of strips to the town meeting votes--and to tell members of Congress like Vermont's Peter Welch that they might want to take their cues from constituents rather than Pelosi. Welch has responded by meeting with activists and asking them for more details of Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors.

DC Democrats still put forth anti-impeachment arguments--particularly the old saw that going after Bush would just give the presidency to Cheney. Activists have countered with an "Impeach Cheney First!" campaign and a reminder that the Constitution in no way prohibits holding more than one official to account at the same time. They've also picked up an argument made by Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, who says it was the threat of impeachment that got Richard Nixon to bend to pressure from Congress to wind down the Vietnam War. "If you want to move Bush on Iraq," says Ellsberg, "get serious about impeachment." Millions of Americans are doing just that.

John Nichols


....and the truth shall set us free.