On July 22, 2005, Special Forces Colonel Patrick Lang said before a congressional committee that, as a result of the exposure of Valerie Plame, our ability to know when terrorists would "carry 10-pound bags of explosive in subway stations" would "go right down the drain."  The media never reported this.  Instead it was busy chasing the White House spin that Plame was not a covert agent.  It was crucial to the White House that Plame's job description be fogged up.  Even on the right, there was speculation that this was one scandal from which the Bush administration would not recover.

Playing hardball with critics like Joe Wilson, Plame's husband, was one thing.  Exposing an undercover informant network was another.     Although many details about Plame's career are still classified, we know her job consisted mainly of detecting the movement of weapons of mass destruction.  If she was only a bureaucrat, why would a Special Forces Colonel, Middle East specialist, and professor of Arabic like Lang sit before a committee and say that Plame's unmasking was an "assault" on our ability to prevent terrorist attack?

So how about a replay of that scrimmage?  After all, it only involves our safety from attack, according to Colonel Lang.  The focus in the Plame Affair was always political payback to Wilson and all the Nigerian yellowcake stuff.  So what?  This is Washington.  Payback is everything.   The focus was never how, within hours of her exposure, every hostile intelligence service in the world had run Plame's name through its databases.  That would include Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, which we know is shot through with Al Qaeda sympathizers.

The snap!  Plame betrayed by someone in Cheney's office, maybe on orders from Cheney, as payback to Wilson for exposing a lie.  Fumble: Plame's job turns out to be weapons of mass destruction.  Spread the word that Wilson gave John Kerry a campaign donation, and that Plame had an office at CIA headquarters.  She was a paper pusher!  At all costs make people forget she spent nearly 30 years as the most secret kind of operative, a non-official cover (NOC), which basically means the government can deny your existence if you are killed.

Recovery.  That was very, very close.

The White House spin machine is good at seizing on something which, in logic, is called "irrelevant."  Like a campaign donation to Kerry, and building it into something that has nothing to do with the price of eggs in China.  Why are we talking about John Kerry?  Did Plame have undercover networks, yes or no?

Special Prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald referred to "national security" no less than three times in his first press conference on Plame.  Inexplicably, he settled on the lower charge of violation of the Intelligence Identity Act, rather than the higher charge of treason.  

Colonel Lang spoke of a violation of "trust" which spread like a "shockwave" among the foreigners who had worked with Plame.  When she was exposed, they were exposed too.  The message to those who would help us against our enemies was: the Americans cannot be trusted to protect their informants.  How can you help people like these?  

Bush's pardon of Libby sent the bigger message: partisan politics trumps everything for Americans.  It even trumps their own safety.  The Founders pondered outlawing political parties.  They feared that parties could blind people to the difference between what's good for the party, and what's good for the country.  

The pardon of Libby means old Scooter has no incentive to talk about really happened, to save his own rear end.

Now that powerful Florida congressman Robert Wexler has called for impeachment hearings to begin "immediately" against Cheney, let's hope people start to see the difference between party and country.  And that Cheney's chickens have come home to roost.  By its inaction on impeachment, Congress is rapidly becoming complicit in the crimes of Dick Cheney.

With the original First Amendment "Freedom of Speech" looking on, admirers of the U.S. Constitution in the Washington D.C. National Archives Building today were ordered to leave for wearing tee-shirts reading "Impeach Bush and Cheney." Many of the tourist-activists were in town to hail the arrival of impeachment marcher John Nirenberg, the 61 year-old college professor who has just walked from Boston to D.C. to call attention to the need for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.  

In a telephone interview, one of the participants, Susan Serpa, age 56, told me she was looking at the displays when a female security guard approached her and said "You need to go speak to that man over there" indicating a burly security guard.  When Serpa asked why, the woman said: "Your shirt."  Serpa's shirt reads on the front: "Impeach Bush and Cheney, Change History."  On the reverse it says: "MaineImpeach.org."

Other security guards then approached Serpa and told her: "You need to leave because of your shirt."

The ranking security officer present at the incident gave his name as Captain Judd.

An impeachment resolution against Dick Cheney was introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and is now sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers.  Despite pleas from growing numbers of Americans, Conyers has continued to keep the resolution bottled up, and steadfastly refuses to move it forward.  The number for Conyers' office is  202-225-3951.

A contact list for Conyers' major campaign contributors has been compiled by YaliesForImpeachment, along with a full contact list of Judiciary Committee members.

In addition, Rep. Robert Wexler, another Judiciary Committee member, has undertaken a campaign to sway his colleagues on the committee to support the initiation of impeachment hearings against Dick Cheney.  He has spent significantly from his own funds for an advertising campaign to combat the  near total media black-out on the building pressure for impeachment, and is asking for help in financing further advertising.

Audio interviews of some of those whose rights were violated were taken by a DC Indymedia reporter, whose write-up is posted here.

I barely knew who Wexler was a month ago and he's quickly becoming my hero.  His drive to gather 50,000 signatures to throw in Pelosi's and John Conyers' face, as proof Americans want impeachment ON the table, has topped 175,000 sigs so far.  A quarter million is looking do-able.  Rep. Wexler understands he's up against a major media black-out, so he's asking for help to buy ads on impeachment.  The following was received from Wexler by impeachment activists this week.

In other news, how long will the prosecutor in the CIA tapes take to make the Padilla connection, or is his job to bury it?  One of the subjects of the tapes is the guy whose tortured testimony convicted Jose Padilla, whose rights had already been grievously violated by Bush's declaration of him as an "enemy combatant."  The kind of justice planned for dissidents?  (Of course the first allegation will always be related to "terrorism," which, - surprise! - you can't answer because you are incommunicado!)

Give a late Christmas present to yourself: Your Bill of Rights.  Help Wexler.  I'll always love Kucinich for his courage on this, but having senior Judiciary member Wexler up against them is a different problem for the White House entirely.  Letter:

Dear Ralph,

In my last email to you I wrote how your support for our efforts to hold impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney has helped us get some attention from the mainstream media. My editorial was recently published in the Philadelphia Inquirer...and newspapers from coast to coast have covered our success. 175,000 supporters have now signed up at WexerWantsHearings.com and the number continues to build...Over the past weeks, I have put significant financial resources...behind this effort, including advertising, multimedia, blog ads, and technical support for WexlerWantsHearings.com. Thank you to the hundreds of people who have already generously supported the cause.

Now, with your help - I want to expand this effort.

With your support I want to make a major Internet advertising buy on Google that will guarantee that for the next two weeks, every person that looks up "Dick Cheney" on Google sees an advertisement for our petition. With your help we can own "Cheney" on the web.

In addition, I want to publish blog ads, such as you see to the right, throughout the web to galvanize Americans in support of our cause. (You may have to right mouse click and select "Download Pictures" to see the ad).

It is time to reach beyond those that are regular readers of the political blogs, and expand the number of people mobilized to help push for impeachment hearings. The truth is that the number of Americans who support our efforts is immense and we need to do everything possible to reach out to them and maximize our strength.

I cannot do this without your support, so click here if you'd like to contribute to our work.

When Congress reconvenes on January 15th I will deliver the hundreds of thousands of names we have collected to my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and I will do everything I can do to convince them to support immediate impeachment hearings. I will also be entering all of the collected names into the Congressional Record and present them to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

The mainstream media has not done enough to cover this effort but with your help we will force the issue into the national dialogue.

Click here if you'd like to help sponsor this effort.

We must now redouble our efforts to ensure that Vice President Cheney and the Bush Administration are held accountable.

In order to continue funding this effort we need your help. Please consider making a financial contribution to help us expand our advertising advocating impeachment hearings for Vice President Dick Cheney. Your help will go a long way toward stopping the out of control Bush Administration.  

Click here if you are willing to contribute today.

Thanks for your help and keep up the fight!

Congressman Robert Wexler

Slicing through the major media's typically vapid analysis of how Pakistan changes the presidential race, Obama alone seems to get what got us here.  On the day the Boston Globe's ever-flatulent Peter Canellos wrote that Hillary and Giuliani would be the winners, based on a month-old poll which links them in voters' minds with more "foreign policy experience,"  Obama aide David Axelrod said voters should draw the conclusion that his candidate is the best choice.  

Why would Hillary and Giuliani, the strongest supporters of the war which Michael Scheuer calls "the never-to-be-hoped-for-gift" to bin Laden, the Iraq War, be the best candidates to trust with foreign policy?   That's like choosing Barry Bonds to be the commissioner in charge of getting steroids out of professional baseball.

Canellos bloviates:

Voters view the candidates of both parties differently depending on whether the spotlight is on foreign policy or domestic policy.  And the beneficiaries of a renewed focus on terrorism are clear, according to polls conducted late last month by the Pew Research Center: Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republicans John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani.

Axelrod said it was the Iraq War which fueled the religious extremism which now threatens to make Pakistan a domino for bin Laden.  This is a debate which needs to take place, if we care about our own hides and want to prevent what is truly looking like the End of Time.

Canellos' eight-grade take on the Bhutto assassination is a mirror of American naivety after 9/11.  Go out and kick ass, any ass, just keep the "thems" out "there" scared so they don't fuck with us.  Never admit you did a damned thing wrong, that's blaming the victims.  Don't count civilian casualties.  Who cares?  

We have exactly ZERO time left to get this, folks.  Bin Laden is on a roll.  He wants no change in American foreign policy whatsoever.  Only for us to keep doing exactly what we have been doing.

YaliesForImpeachment.org

It's not being reported in the corporate media, which also refused to publish an opinion piece penned by six-term Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). But a whopping 50,000 people responded in just one day to Rep. Wexler's call for people to sign his on-line petition supporting an immediate start to hearings on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's Cheney Impeachment bill (H Res 799).  Among the corporate media refusing to publish the piece by three U.S. congressmen are the NY Times, the L.A. Times, and the Washington Post.

As of Sunday morning, 54,000 people had signed the petition at WexlerWantsHearings.com calling for action now. Names are being added at a rate of one every one or two seconds.

Wexler has said he wanted at least 50,000 signatures. But why stop there? If people get behind this, and if the impeachment movement spreads the word, he could easily get closer to 500,000 signatures over the next few days.

And if each of us were to send out a call to sign to ten of our friends, then we'd have half a million signatures, which would be hard for Conyers and the Democratic leadership, Speaker Nancy Pelosi included, to ignore.  Go to WexlerWantsHearings.com and sign the petition!

Kucinich's impeachment bill was filed on April 24 and has been ignored now for almost eight shameful months. On Nov. 7, a bipartisan majority of 218 members of the House voted to send it from the floor of the House back to the Judiciary Committee for action. Now it's sat there for over four weeks.

We need to tell Congress, and particularly the Democrats who are stalling on this important defense of the Constitution and of democracy itself that time's up. We the American People want action. We want impeachment hearings!

Email small-town newspapers to please cover this (forget the major media, they do not care about their country.)  Hit the street corners and shopping malls with flyers.  Once you get out there you'll realize that a tiny fraction of the population gets it news from the progressive Internet.  Most people do not have a clue about what's going on with impeachment, BUT WILL IMMEDIATELY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY RESPOND!  This happens fast.  Remember that in 1776 there was suddenly electricity in the air as a subjugated and repressed people took to the streets and won their freedom!

(This diary based on a report by David Lindorff, Democrats.com)

Fox News has refused to air an ad produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights that criticizes the Bush administration for "destroying the Constitution" by the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. The ad, "Rescue the Constitution," which is narrated by actor Danny Glover, can be viewed here.

In an email provided to Media Matters for America by the Center, Fox News account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, the Center's e-communications manager, that Fox would not run the ad:

Hi Owen --

   We cannot approve the spot with it being Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that.

   Sorry about that,

   Erin

If the most glaring clause, against "cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't float Fox's boat, here is more "documentation."

The Sixth of the Amendment of the US Constitution, the "Bill of Rights" states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

On May 8th, 2002, the government arrested Jose Padilla on American soil on allegations, but not formal charges, of terrorism.  George W. Bush ordered the military to take custody of Padilla as an "enemy combatant," in the June 9, 2002 Presidential Order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

"I, GEORGE W. BUSH, as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces, hereby DETERMINE for the United States of America that...Jose Padilla, who is under the control of the Department of Justice and who is a U.S. citizen, is, and at the time he entered the United States in May 2002 was, an enemy combatant...Accordingly, you are directed to receive Mr. Padilla from the Department of Justice and to detain him as an enemy combatant. "

In his Dec. 17, 2005, President's radio address George Bush admitted to reauthorizing illegal NSA warrantless surveillance over both American citizens and foreign nationals more than 30 times:  

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

Bush's elevation of the radical, never-before-seen doctrine of "wartime powers" in a war that lasts forever, and placing this doctrine on the mantle along with the Constitution, is like putting lipstick on a pig.  

Fox's info:

Fox News Channel
1211 Ave. of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Fax: (212) 301-4229
comments@foxnews.com

It's also fun to call your congressman to ask them to look into yanking Fox's broadcast license.  It won't happen, but it might serve to generate publicity for this downright fascist decision.  I have always said that what is in store for the country is a blurring of traditional left and right and the emergence of "Constitutionalist" versus "Corporatist" forces, with alliances cutting across party lines like Bruce Fein, Ron Paul, Kucinich, and true progressives on one side, and the Giuliani-Hillary money machines on the other.  The money machines will spar on social issues, but never say a word about the subversion of the republic taking place before our eyes.

II.  Impeachment Walker Now Headed to Providence

60-year-old John Nirenberg's one man walk to Nancy Pelosi's office in Wash. DC is headed toward Providence, RI, after leaving from Boston last week.  Everyone is welcome to join him for a few miles or as long as they like.

His website in marchinmyname.org  A nice AP write-up on John is here.  From John's blog yesterday, when he was in Pawtucket:

We stopped in the spanking new police headquarters in Attleboro for a pitstop. The officer kindly welcomed us to use the facilities and we managed to fill up on cold water and had our lunch beneath the long eye of a hallway security camera. We picked up the crumbs we dropped and left the station as pristine as we found it. We were refreshed for the road ahead. The local police hospitality reminded us of the dedicated personage for the day, believe it or not, it is none other than John Ashcroft. Perhaps in another context he will serve as the villain of the day for his work on the ill-named Patriot Act, but today we remember him for his moment of conscience and resistance to the White House in their attempt to undermine domestic freedoms. His efforts did delay some rather nefarious maneuvers.

Common Sense II

Argue with this, Americans, if you can.  The Oath of Office for congressmen, required by Article Six of the U.S. Constitution to be sworn before entering office, is:  

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

If you do not swear this oath, you cannot take office.

The Sixth of the Amendment of the US Constitution, the "Bill of Rights" states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Period.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Period.

On May 8th, 2002, the government arrested Jose Padilla on American soil on allegations, but not formal charges, of terrorism.  The government's story on Padilla has changed more times than a paranoid chameleon.  George W. Bush ordered the military to take custody of Padilla as an "enemy combatant," in the June 9, 2002 Presidential Order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

"I, GEORGE W. BUSH, as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces, hereby DETERMINE for the United States of America that...Jose Padilla, who is under the control of the Department of Justice and who is a U.S. citizen, is, and at the time he entered the United States in May 2002 was, an enemy combatant...Accordingly, you are directed to receive Mr. Padilla from the Department of Justice and to detain him as an enemy combatant. "

They made Padilla sleep on a metal cot, sleep-deprived him,and gave him LSD, so he was useless in his own defense when he was released to the civilian courts. They didn't charge him with a crime until 3 and a half years later.

In his Dec. 17, 2005, President's radio address George Bush admitted to reauthorizing illegal NSA warrantless surveillance over both American citizens and foreign nationals more than 30 times:  

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

It makes no difference that in Bush's rationale for violating both the Fourth and the Sixth Amendments, he is employing the argument that A, we are in a war with no end and B, he has wartime powers as long as we are in a state of war.  A smart fifth grader could ask the questions: Aren't you giving yourself wartime powers forever?  And wouldn't that be the same as overthrowing the Bill of Rights?  And wouldn't that be against your oath to "defend" the Constitution?

As we have caught DINO Democrat Joe Klein lying, because people are waking up to the administration's true intentions, this has nothing to do with foreign nationals having the same rights as American citizens to freedom from search without a warrant.  This has to do with the NSA having the illegal authority, this very minute, to look at, listen to, to read, to record everything that is personal, without a warrant, as long as it is "reasonably believed" to "relate" to a terror investigation.  That's a long way from the Constitution's "probable cause."

The NSA is already empowered listen to anyone, anywhere, for a full 48 hours before getting a warrant. Bush does not want relaxed oversight. He wants no oversight whatsoever.

According to the Founders of our country, such power will always be turned against your political opponents. That would include government whistleblowers. There will be a black market in secrets akin to Stasi Germany. When Bush admitted to re-authorizing the NSA program 16 times, in the Dec. 17 radio address, he should have been impeached the next day

Count One: The president has betrayed, i.e. is a traitor to, his solemn oath to "the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," the obedience of which comes before ALL other duties.  The Oath says not a single, solitary word about pertekin' the American people.  That's why the Founders enshrined the Second Amendment of said Bill of Rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, so we could protect ourselves.  Including against tyrannical governments.  

II.

On July 12, 2007 Bush said of "that person" Valerie Plame: "Somebody in this administration leaked the name of that person"  

Special Forces Col. Patrick Lang, in the July 22, 2005  Dorgan-Waxman Committee Hearings on the damage to the national security done by Plame's identification, said:

"The possibility of penetrating these groups, the possibility of knowing that they're going to carry 10-pound bags of explosive in the subway stations, will go right down the drain."

A former diplomat quoted by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, October 4, 2003 said:

"A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities."

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said of the Plame betrayal, (not "outing," you don't "out" war plans, you "betray" them):

"The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security."

Fitzpartick managed only to try an underling, Scooter Libby, and to convict him of perjury.  When Bush pardoned Libby, he gambled that the outrage would blow over and the pardon would torpedo any strategy Fitzpatrick may have had to flip Libby as he sat doing jail time for his bosses.  He won.  So far.  One of the big mysteries of the Plame trial is why Fitzpatrick didn't go for the higher charge, treason.  Plame was an asset, despite Spin Radio's attempt to paint her as a bureaucrat.  Even James Bond had to go visit "M" and had an office somewhere, right?  That doesn't mean he's not secret.

Count Two: Betrayal of the national security.  The definition of treason in the Constitution includes giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.  Surely tipping off Al Qaeda to our networks for catching them smuggling nukes is giving "aid."

If congressmen take the solemn oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and they do not perform this duty, are they not collaborators to treason, and thus traitors themselves?

Article II section four of the Constitution commands:

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Note the operand says "shall" be removed, not "may" or "might."  Is a congressman a civil officer?

At Iwo Jima the American death rate was a man per minute for the first 60 hours of the assault, about 3600 men dead in less than three days.  At Omaha Beach the death rate was even more appalling.  In both instances, these men believed they fought against forms of government where you could be swept off the street in secret, kept in secret, tortured, released, or imprisoned indefinitely according to the whims of a government which had proclaimed you an "enemy."

The world did not change on 9/11.  If we study the words of the Founders, it stayed much the same.  There will always be men who will attempt to "render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power...depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury...abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments..."

Sound like it was written yesterday?  No.  Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence.

If they do not do their duty, this 110th Congress will go down in history as the Collaborator Congress.  Is there any reason why the word "traitor" should not apply to those in it who will not impeach?  This nation has been through trials and turbulent times, but never, even through world wars and a civil war, has the Bill of Rights been permanently overturned.  The strength of the language must befit the gravity of the times.  If these congressmen do not impeach, then when the trials begin, be it in two years or twenty, perhaps after many more years of war, perhaps after domestic terror attacks that an attack on Iran will guarantee, after martial law and civil strife, the members of the 110th Congress will also be held accountable for the dereliction of their highest duty.