November 9, 2007
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Conyers
I am writing in support of H. Res. 799, the Articles of Impeachment which were referred to the committee relative to the Impeachment of the Vice President of the United States of America.
Recent reports indicate that the Vice President is attempting to shape the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran to conform to his misperceptions about the threat Iran actually poses. Much like his deceptive efforts in the lead up to the Iraq war, the Vice President appears to be manipulating intelligence to conform to his beliefs.
If the reports are true, they add additional weight to the case for impeachment. I believe impeachment remains the only tool Congress has to prevent a war in Iran. This information relates directly to the Article III charges in the resolution. I urge your timely consideration.
Member of Congress
Your goal is not to bring some troops home, maybe, if we let you have your way now. Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal. You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.
In a town hall meeting in Bloomsburg, Pa. this week, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a 12-term congressman, said that shortly before Congress was scheduled to vote on authorizing military force against Iraq, top officials of the CIA showed select members of Congress three photographs it alleged were Iraqi Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), better known as drones. Kanjorski said he was told that the drones were capable of carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical agents, and could strike 1,000 miles inland of east coast or west coast cities.
Kanjorski said he and four or five other congressmen in the room were told UAVs could be on freighters headed to the U.S. Both secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and President Bush wandered into and out of the briefing room…
…Until he saw the pictures, Kanjorski said, “I hadn’t thought that Iraq was a threat.” That second meeting changed everything. After he left that meeting, said Kanjorski, he was willing to give the President the authorization he wanted since the drones “represented an imminent danger.”
Several years later, Kanjorski said he learned that the pictures were “a god-damned lie,” apparently taken by CIA photographers in the desert in the southwest of the U.S.
Read the rest of the story: Counterpunch
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 were a series of demonstrations led by students, intellectuals, and labour activists in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) between April 15, 1989 and June 4, 1989. While the protests lacked a unified cause or leadership, participants were generally critical of the ruling Chinese Communist Party and voiced complaints ranging from minor criticisms to calls for full-fledged democracy and the establishment of broader freedoms. The demonstrations centred on Tiananmen Square in Beijing, but large-scale protests also occurred in cities throughout China, including Shanghai, which stayed peaceful throughout the protests. In Beijing, the resulting military crackdown on the protesters by the PRC government left many civilians dead or injured. The toll ranges from 200–300 (PRC government figures), to 400–800 by the New York Times, and to 2,000–3,000 (Chinese student associations and Chinese Red Cross), although the PRC government asserts and most independent observers agree that the majority of these deaths were not in the square itself but rather in the streets leading to the square.
Following the violence, the government conducted widespread arrests to suppress protestors and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, banned the foreign press from the country and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the PRC press. Members of the Party who had publicly sympathized with the protesters were purged, with several high-ranking members placed under house arrest, such as General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. The violent suppression of the Tiananmen Square protest caused widespread international condemnation of the PRC government
A Special Comment about the Democratsâ€™ deal with President Bush to continue financing this unspeakable war in Iraqâ€”and to do so on his terms: This is, in fact, a comment aboutâ€¦ betrayal.
Few men or women elected in our historyâ€”whether executive or legislative, state or nationalâ€”have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:
Get us out of Iraq.
Yet after six months of preparation and executionâ€”half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:
* The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a presidentâ€”if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our historyâ€”who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats â€œgive the troops their moneyâ€;
* The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
* The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
* The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.
You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directionsâ€”Stop The Warâ€”have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected youâ€¦ for a handful of magic beans.
You may trot out every political clichÃ© from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the â€œbeginning of the endâ€ of Mr. Bushâ€™s â€œcarte blancheâ€ in Iraq, about how this is a â€œfirst step.â€
Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning… is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.
Because this â€œfirst stepâ€â€¦ is a step right off a cliff.
And this President!
How shameful it would be to watch an adult… hold his breath, and threaten to continue to do so, until he turned blue.
But how horrifying it isâ€¦ to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so, until innocent and patriotic Americans in harmâ€™s way, are bled white.
You lead this country, sir?
You claim to defend it?
And yet when faced with the prospect of someone calling you on your stubbornnessâ€”your stubbornness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbsâ€”you, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats donâ€™t give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands.
How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic.
Any other president from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personallyâ€”first, last and alwaysâ€”that the troops would not suffer.
A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he has already, not to manipulate an overlap of arriving and departing Brigades into a â€˜second surge,â€™ but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated, if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safeâ€”even if the only safety to be found, is in getting them the hell out of there.
Well, any true President would have done that, Sir.
You instead, used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.
Not that these Democrats, who had this countryâ€™s support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago, have not since earned all the blame they can carry home.
â€œWe seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame,â€ Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich accords with Germany in 1938. â€œMy feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in, a little laterâ€¦â€
Thatâ€™s what this is for the Democrats, isnâ€™t it?
Their â€œNeville Chamberlain momentâ€ before the Second World War.
All thatâ€™s missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee â€œpeace in our time,â€ but which his opponent would ignore with deceit.
The Democrats have merely streamlined the process.
Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it, with impugnity.
And where are the Democratic presidential hopefuls this evening?
See they not, that to which the Senate and House leadership has blinded itself?
Judging these candidates based on how they voted on the original Iraq authorization, or waiting for apologies for those votes, is ancient history now.
The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided… tomorrow.
The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the Presidentâ€™s dishonest construction â€œfund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy,â€ the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.
Those who seek the Democratic nomination need toâ€”for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troopsâ€”denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.
For, ultimately, at this hour, the entire government has failed us.
* Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer, and the other Democrats… have failed us.
They negotiated away that which they did not own, but had only been entrusted by us to protect: our collective will as the citizens of this country, that this brazen War of Lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible.
* Mr. Bush and his government… have failed us.
They have behaved venomously and without dignityâ€”of course.
That is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted.
We are the ones providing any element of surprise or shock here.
With the exception of Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidates have (so far at least) failed us.
They must now speak, and make plain how they view what has been given away to Mr. Bush, and what is yet to be given away tomorrow, and in the thousand tomorrows to come.
Because for the next fourteen months, the Democratic nominating processâ€”indeed the whole of our political discourse until further noticeâ€”has, with the stroke of a cursed pen, become about one thing, and one thing alone.
The electorate figured this out, six months ago.
The President and the Republicans have notâ€”doubtless will not.
The Democrats will figure it out, during the Memorial Day recess, when they go home and many of those who elected them will politely suggest they stay thereâ€”and permanently.
Because, on the subject of Iraq…
The people have been ahead of the media….
Ahead of the government…
Ahead of the politicians…
For the last year, or two years, or maybe three.
Our politics… is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question.
Mr. Bush has failed.
Mr. Warner has failed.
Mr. Reid has failed.
Who among us will stop this warâ€”this War of Lies?
To he or she, fall the figurative keys to the nation.
To all the othersâ€”presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either partyâ€”there is only blameâ€¦ for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.
“He woke up every morning, pinching his chubby little flanks, and thinking I’ve got away with it again. I think he was a conscious charlatan, villain and fraud.”
Representative Linda T. Sanchez, Democrat of California, wanted to know about the departure of still another United States attorney, Debra Wong Yang of Los Angeles. Ms. Yangâ€™s office was investigating Representative Jerry Lewis, Republican of California and the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, last year before she resigned to take a position in a private law firm.
Ms. Sanchez noted that Ms. Yang was reportedly paid a $1.5 million signing bonus by the firm, which is also representing Mr. Lewis in an inquiry about his ties with lobbyists. â€œDoes that coincidence trouble you at all?â€ Ms. Sanchez asked.
â€œNot at all,â€ Mr. Gonzales replied. He said that the actual nuts-and-bolts work of prosecution is handled by assistants rather than by the United States attorneys themselves. Ms. Yangâ€™s departure did not halt any investigation, he said, though he emphasized that he was not confirming that Mr. Lewis was a â€œtargetâ€ of an investigation. (Mr. Lewis himself has denied any wrongdoing.)
In any event, Mr. Gonzales said, any firm getting Ms. Yangâ€™s services is lucky because of her outstanding abilities.
The new job that Yang landed raised more red flags. Press reports say she got a $1.5 million signing bonus to become a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a firm with strong Republican ties. She was hired to be co-leader of the Crisis Management Practice Group with Theodore Olson, who was President Bush’s solicitor general and his Supreme Court lawyer in Bush v. Gore. Gibson, Dunn was defending Lewis in Yang’s investigation.
Via:Crooks and Liars