Speaker Pelosi Declares That There is No Evidence of Any Crime by President Bush

After blocking any serious investigation or impeachment hearings on crimes committed by President Bush, Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally addressed the allegations of presidential crimes on that forum of deep intellectual and legal thought: the television show The View. She agreed to answer a question from Joy Behar, who will have to suffice as a substitute for Peter Rodino. In a perfectly bizarre moment, Pelosi stated that there is simply no evidence of any crime committed by the President despite the findings of the International Red Cross, various international groups, and a legion of constitutional experts. It seems that America has now had its impeachment hearing before the august body of Whoopi Goldberg, Barbara Walters, Joy Bahar, and Elisabeth Hasselbeck. If you feared that our democracy is de-evolving into a caricature of itself, just watch this video.

Here is what will suffice as the impeachment hearing of George Bush as the Speaker of the House of Representative is questioned by a comedian:

JOY BEHAR: You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think that it—I think it was important, when I became Speaker—and it’s, by the way, a very important position—President, Vice President, Speaker of the House—I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country.
In terms of what we wanted—set out to do, we wanted to raise the minimum wage, give the biggest increase in veterans benefits to veterans in the seventy-seven-year history, then pass research for stem cell research, all of that. This week, we’re going to pass equal pay for equal work. It has been a long time in coming—pay equity. We’re going to pass legislations for product safety, for toys that children put in their—there’s an agenda that you have to get done. You have to try to do it in a bipartisan way. The President has to sign it.

If somebody had a crime that the President had committed, that would be a different story.

BEHAR: Can they still do it after he is out?

BARBARA WALTERS: When, when we first- when I interviewed you last year, you had just begun, and you were going to clean up the mess, remember?

PELOSI: We did.

WALTERS: You, you look around this country, 75 percent of the country, forget George Bush, thinks that Congress is doing a lousy job.

HASSELBECK: I think it’s 91 percent now.

PELOSI: Well, I don’t disagree with that because largely it’s predicated on ending the war in Iraq. That’s the main question, and we were not successful. In our House of Representatives, I’m very proud of our members because they voted overwhelmingly over and over again to bring the war to an end, to bring the troops home safely and soon, send it to the Senate, and it hits a dead end. But in terms of that particular standard, I would say I disapprove as well. But we do, we passed some of the things I just mentioned, the energy bill. We worked in a bipartisan way, and ovation, agenda, we have to create jobs, expand health care, protect the American people, and educate our children. And you can’t do that if you’re trying to impeach the president at the same time, unless you have the goods that this president committed these crimes.

BEHAR: They did it to Clinton.

PELOSI: But they didn’t have the goods and it was wrong, and it was wrong, and it was wrong when they did that. Not that I- I have total disagreement with president on the war, the reason why we went in, which was based on a false premise. But that’s a different story than saying “can we try to get something accomplished for people,” have concerns about the economy and the rest.

For the video, click here and here.

Ironically, even this statement only came about because Pelosi was trying to sell her new book, “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters.” It appears that the message is that you should not let principle get in the way of politics when it comes to such issues as presidential crimes.

It is obviously a very frustrating and insulting moment for many. The International Red Cross warned the president in 2002 that his administration was committing a war crime for which prosecution was possible, click here. A federal judge (before Pelosi and the Democratic Congress barred further judicial review) declared that the domestic surveillance program was clearly illegal, click here. The Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Bush officials in criminal contempt and referred the matter for prosecution. Dozens of constitutional experts (including myself) have detailed impeachable offenses over the years. Yet, Speaker Pelosi insists that there is no evidence of crime while refusing to investigate that allegations.

What is particularly troubling is that the Speaker is now on the record as suggesting that torture and illegal surveillance are simply not crimes. That will be a useful fact when future president decides to engage in the same unlawful conduct.

Obviously, the Speaker is fully aware that respected organizations and experts have detailed crimes ordered by this President. Indeed, it took repeated interventions by Congress to keep courts from continuing to rule on such illegality — destroying any notion of plausible deniability that Democrats have no knowledge of alleged crimes. The Constitution foresees that, once credible allegations have been made (as here), the House would investigate (which Pelosi has blocked). Instead of the proceedings envisioned by the Framers, Speaker Pelosi has reduced the matter to a fun exchange with a comedian on a gossip and gripe show. In next week’s episode, Elisabeth Hasselbeck will work out the details of the Iraq appropriations budget with Pelosi.

The Speaker had to compete on the home page for the View with pictures of male strippers and a segment “Sheri Can’t Cook!,” click here. Now, that is a perfect forum for discussing one of the most important constitutional questions of our time.

61 thoughts on “Speaker Pelosi Declares That There is No Evidence of Any Crime by President Bush

  1. This is your brain on drugs. My opinion of The View just rose. I suggest every group send Ms. Pelosi the “missing” evidence of crimes.

    “If somebody had a crime that the President had committed, that would be a different story.” Oh really,

    LETS ALL SEND NANCY THE EVIDENCE–flood her office and tell her to live up to her promise on The View.

  2. Finally someone comes out and says what needs to be said to put this impeachment talk behind us once & for all:

    “And you can’t do that if you’re trying to impeach the president at the same time, unless you have the goods that this president committed these crimes.”

    The left’s evidence of crimes boils down to nothing more than Bush having different opinions than the left on a multitude of issues.

  3. Pelosi is a bigger disappointment than Bush. I was against Bush from the beginning, back in 1999, but I held out hope in 2006 that a Democrat majority in Congress would turn the tide, hold Bush and his minions accountable, and restore America as a land of freedom and justice. Instead, usual rotten politics gave us Pelosi and Hoyer and Harry Reid to lead the Congress, and all of them have proved to be inept and corrupted by their status as an incumbent in our political system. Pelosi has done the worst disservice to America by acting like a cohort of Bush, both of them ruling like dictators in their respective branch of government. Neither of them seems to remember that it is our government and not theirs – government of the people, by the people and for the people. Instead, Pelosi and Reid have conducted congressional business as usual for their own benefit, and not for the good of America. People everywhere, be they in California, NY or Florida, should send contributions to candidates running against Pelosi, such as Cindy Sheehan, and running against Reid and everyone else that deserves to be run out of DC on a rail. Almost all incumbents have proved themselves to be poor public servants. If we cannot vote them out of office, the system must be changed to restore representative government. We do not need professional politicians who stay forever. Let’s set a 4-year term for both houses of Congress and fix a 1-term limit and set compensation at $50,000. per year; maybe then we will have senators and representatives who truly want to serve the nation and our people instead of just lining their own pockets. For now, concentrate on getting rid of Pelosi as a first step; she must go!

  4. Dundar,
    Different opnions than the established law of the land on torture? Different opnions than the established international law on torture? Wake up Dundar. Being on the same page as Nancy Pelosi doesn’t win you any prizes. As Prof. Turley stated, Bush admitted on TV that he violated FISA. That was a crime. Rigging the intelligence to get us into war in Iraq was a “high crime and misdemeanor”. Impeachment should be on the table….for Pelosi.

  5. Professor, thank you for saying that!!!!! That jaw-dropping statement by Pelosi is an absolute insult to the Constitution and the American people. We really aren’t that stupid, and many of us have started to pay closer attention as a result of these last 8 years. That’s why I tune in here to your blog, and I’m never disappointed.

  6. Here’s Nancy’s mailing address. People with evidence can send it there and Dundar can send his campaign contribution.

    District Office – 450 Golden Gate Ave. – 14th Floor – San Francisco, CA 94102 – (415) 556-4862
    Washington, D.C. Office – 235 Cannon HOB – Washington, DC 20515 – (202) 225-4965

  7. I thought Bush had a higher approval rating than Congress because those Americans in favor of him were whackjobs. I was wrong, Congress has the lower approval rating because it is full of the whackjobs. I hope Obama removes her as Speaker and tries to find someone with ethics and courage (if such an animal exists).

    If I was more cynical, I would swear she was in the pocket of Bush or being paid off by someone else.

  8. zak, Obama can no more remove Nancy Pelosi as speaker than he can move mountains. Oh excuse me, maybe Obama can move mountains. I think some that believe in him think he can.

  9. Nancy Pelosi is starting to make Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Eliot Spitzer, and Ted Stevens look pretty good right now.

    For those who haven’t looked at Pelosi’s background, I’d encourage you to do so. I’d post the info here, but I don’t want to be further labeled as an “anti-Semite”. Suffice it to say, I wondered why she was such a strong Zionist.

  10. The left’s evidence of crimes boils down to nothing more than Bush having different opinions than the left on a multitude of issues.

    There are plenty of libertarians who recognize that violating FISA, to which Bush has admitted, is a crime. It doesn’t have anything to do with “the left” or “the right.”

  11. U.S. judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed
    A federal judge has sided with Congress in its fight with the Bush administration over whether top White House aides can be subpoenaed by Congress. The House Judiciary Committee wants to question the president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers, about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

  12. I am confused. The Bush Administration has admitted to at least 3 instances of waterboarding detainees which is a violation of U.S. law and international law. This isn’t a crime? Pelosi and the neocons need to open their eyes and realize they are backing a felon who is going to be held accountable at sometime for these crimes. As to Pelosi, she may have trouble in November.

  13. Um:
    1) abolished habeas corpus, the big pappa bear
    2) illegal spying on Americans [4th Amendment]
    3) signing a law that gives retroactive immunity [no ex post facto law]

    Those are three crimes against the Constitution that Bush swore to uphold and protect against all enemies foreign and domestic. That’s an oath he swore at least twice. In public with -VERY MANY- witnesses.

    And those are just three of them.

    I could have mentioned torturing: no unusual and cruel punishment.

    That would make Bush the worst politician alive today if it wasn’t for Pelosi who clearly defends him after he clearly perjured himself twice. Once in a time of war.

    If Bush is not held to the standard of the law, why would anybody else have to suffer its consequence?

  14. Earlier today I heard Dennis Kucinich tell Thom Hartmann during Hartmann’s radio show that he (Kucinich) has appointment with Speaker Pelosi later this afternoon. He will be presenting her with evidence of Bush’s crimes (in one case by public admission) and a reminder of the 35 articles of impeachment now being considered by various House committees.

  15. We know the REAL reason: she’s complicit in the US torture policy and program development and implementation. She took impeachment off the table to protect herself from being prosecuted and impeached.

    It ALWAYS boils down to self-interest. That’s why the Constitution was designed the way it was, and in theory, still should be operationally functional.

    When the elected officials uncouple from the citizenry, this is the inevitable result.

    The question in my mind is only on how we recover and restore it?

    We didn’t revolt – the government revolted from the people.

  16. Annie,
    We can work to get Pelosi thrown out by her own District and even if she wins, we need to start emailing Obama to tell him that she has to go as Speaker. I do not need a “light” Democrat as Speaker. I need someone like Dennis Kucinich as Speaker. Now that would be fun.

  17. We’re obviously at a Constitutional Crises here, the system’s broke. Do you suppose the American people are fed up enough to call for a Constitutional Convention? Further more what all would that entail? IS there any sort of process in the Constitution, or would we be working from the precedent of the Philadelphia Convention?
    There’d have to be representatives from all the states, as well as the existing branches of the Fed. Government, the military, and maybe a few “independents” with no particular agenda other then re-establishing the rule of law.
    I imagine that just setting the whole thing up would take at least a year, not to mention the actual convention itself. Would we continue with our current government or establish an interim government like they had in Iraq?

  18. [I’m resubmitting, since it wasn’t posted before]

    Professor Turley,

    I am a former adjunct law school professor and a practicing attorney. I am deeply concerning about our country’s constitutional state of affairs, and am grateful for your cogent statements in this regard.

    I have a question: If the Democratic leadership fails to take any steps to curb the unconstitutional actions of the executive branch, do the American people have any remedy? Is there a way to remove, impeach or recall congress people who are blocking impeachment? Is there another way to hold a rogue executive branch accountable?

    I asked this question to Professor Tribe from Harvard, and he replied that there was no redress, and that “that’s the way the constitutional cookie crumbles” (actual quote).

    Do you agree? I hope that Professor Tribe e is wrong, and that the American people do have some procedure for obtaining a remedy.

    Thank you in advance for considering my question.

  19. Alex:

    “If the Democratic leadership fails to take any steps to curb the unconstitutional actions of the executive branch, do the American people have any remedy?”

    PROFESSOR TURLEY:

    “The President’s political authority is controlled by the impeachment decision while the President’s (and Vice President’s, etc.) individual accountability is controlled by STATE and federal law. The accountability of all federal officers as citizens to the CRIMINAL LAWS is the unifying theme of our system. This point was made most eloquently in 1882 in United States v. Lee:

    ‘No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.

    It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy. . . .”
    ( From Pillar to Post: The Prosecution of American Presidents, by Professor Jonathan Turley, 37 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1049)

    “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.” (William Munny)

    http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent

  20. The only way forward to to have half of the senate and half of congress randomly selected.

    Who would you trust more: someone randomly selected, or someone who has crawled their way into the political system one lie at a time.

  21. Pelosi is more like Wolfowitz than Bush, but all three have the same goals. If her own district doesn’t get rid of this utter neocon, Obama HAS to replace her. Don’t worry too much about Pelosi, when she’s gone she’ll get a cushy job from AIPAC, Fox, or some Republican or Zionist affiliated organization.

  22. Bob Esq.,

    Did you emphasize the STATE law? If so, do you have some ideas? There are judges who will take on this administration but getting the federal justice dept. to do anything except protect the guilty seems impossible. As Susan pointed out, that’s no accident. And as Gyges and other say, it is a Constitutional Crises.

    rcampbell,

    Will Kucinich be giving info about how his talk with Nancy went? I’m certain she’ll be just SHOCKED to hear that any laws were broken by this crew!

    Jill

  23. Jill,
    I am anxious to hear what Kucinich has to say after his meeting with Pelosi. I don’t expect her to change her mind, but Kucinich will probably tear her a new one. Pelosi’s comments on “The View” are unreal.

  24. Jill:

    “Bob Esq.,

    Did you emphasize the STATE law? If so, do you have some ideas?”

    Just the same ideas I’ve had for years; concisely presented by Vincent Bugliosi:

    “You’ve got to realize, there’s no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. So this could very well happen. At this stage of my life, I cannot engage in fanciful reveries. This is a very real thing that we’re talking about here. I’ve established jurisdiction on a federal and state level for the prosecution of Bush for two crimes: conspiracy to commit murder and murder. On a federal level, we’re really only talking about the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., operating through his Department of Justice. But on a STATE level, I’ve established jurisdiction for the attorney general in each of the fifty states, plus the hundreds of district attorneys in counties within those states, to prosecute George Bush for the murder of any soldier or soldiers from their state or county who died fighting his war in Iraq.”

    http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent

  25. rafflaw,

    I also think her comments are surreal. Some of what she said didn’t hang together, ie: the word “ovation” in the middle of nowhere. I was only half kidding about, “this is your brain on drugs”. I really don’t know what to make of it. She does seem out of touch with reality (in addition to being a flat out liar). It’s quite disturbing.

  26. Pelosi said a lot of things to get into office…this was just something to ruffle the feathers of democrats like FISA when they really agreed with Bush all along…we were duped.

    If people would think about it, everything that comes out of Pelosi’s mouth gets the dems all fired up…but there never is any follow through….FISA is wrong…I will filibuster FISA (Obama)…and when it came to voting the dems agreed with Bush…they new that it really was needed and that it did not infringe on everyday Americans…there are so many things I could point out that Pelosi and the dems have done this on….think people…Pelosi was hurting the republicans in the polls and in the approval ratings in doing this…never any follow through…it is just a power struggle and we were being used to help her get more…Well the surge worked, FISA was needed, Did Bush do anything that they really could impeach him for? How in the hell would we really know because we have been being lied to and used…Now it is Pelosi who has the low ratings and she deserves it…

    we have to try to get both sides of the story and stop being fed what Pelosi and her Washington buddies wants us to believe.

    If you are reading this you have the internet, there is no excuse to not look things up for yourself…look into the oil lease thing and find out if the land is being used or not and if not why? You will be surprised…..duped again!

  27. ‘Evidence’ of a crime, creates an obligation to charge, which further allows Bush to pardon. Strategy at work, maybe?

    ‘1000 Lawyers’ statement sent December 21, 2007…

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=262693

    We are lawyers in the United States of America. As such, we have all taken an oath obligating us to defend the Constitution and the rule of law…. We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws…. Moreover, the administration has blatantly defied congressional subpoenas, obstructing constitutional oversight …. Thus, we call on House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution…. We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into the offices of the President and the Vice President. — American Lawyers Defending the Constitution

    Over one thousand lawyers – including former Governor Mario Cuomo and former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein – have signed onto the above statement demanding wide-ranging investigative hearings into unconstitutional and potentially criminal activity by the Bush administration.

    In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and winner of the 2007 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship, said: “The majority of lawyers in this country understand that the Bush administration has really gone off the page of constitutional rights and off the page of fundamental rights, and is willing to push the Congress to restore those rights.” Ratner said he was “dismayed” that a Democratic majority has failed “to push on key illegalities… the torture program, and now the destruction of the tapes involving the torture program; the warrantless wiretapping, the denial of habeas corpus, the secret sites/rendition program, special trials, and of course what we now know is the firing of US Attorneys scandal…. The minimal that absolutely is needed to get us back on the page of law is to have serious investigative hearings that go up the chain of command and figure out who is responsible for what.”

    Ratner noted that even with regard to the US attorney’s investigations, where Congressional committees held Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove in contempt, leadership has failed to enforce these actions by bringing the resolutions to a vote. “Just announcing that investigations will be held and subpoenas will be issued is terribly insufficient unless Congress is willing to enforce the subpoenas by issuing contempt citations,” Ratner said. “Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee the activities of the executive branch and our entire system of government is threatened when Congress simply folds before an obstinate executive. Issuing contempt citations against Bolten, Miers, and Rove should be Congress’s first order of business in 2008.”

    Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, discussed the administration’s torture program violating three US-ratified treaties and the US torture statute; the illegal War in Iraq violating the US-ratified UN Charter as a war of aggression; and Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s conflict of interest in overseeing investigations into the torture program and the destruction of the CIA interrogations tapes.

    Also speaking with reporters was Jesselyn Raddack, a former Justice Department ethics lawyer who served as an advisor during the interrogation of John Walker Lindh (the “American Taliban”). Raddack said, “My e-mails documented my advice against interrogating Lindh without a lawyer, and concluded that the FBI committed an ethics violation when it did so anyway. Both the CIA videotapes and my e-mails were destroyed, in part, because officials were concerned that they documented controversial interrogation methods that could put agency officials in legal jeopardy…. ” Raddack pointed to the Department of Justice’s investigations of Enron and Arthur Anderson for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence, and the need for the same aggressive oversight and legal proceedings in these scandals.

    This is a vital effort by those charged with defending our constitution, as Ratner said, “This lawyers’ letter and the growing number of signatures we’ll have on it, and prominent people – it’s a way of saying to Congress, ‘You need some backbone. You need to have a serious investigation, wherever it might go, on these issues that really have taken the United States out of the mainstream of human rights.’ It’s absolutely critical… We’ve opened up the door to illegality…. Unless we have accountability on those illegalities, we’re going to be facing a very bleak future in which fundamental rights will not really be obeyed.”

    Comments (235)

  28. I think Annie was the first here to get to the heart of the matter. Pelosi and other Democrats high in the House and Senate ranks were convinced to sign on to all of the Administration’s unlawful/unconstitutional activities during secret national security briefings. They were bamboozled, misled and mistakenly believed that in a time of nationwide insecurity bi-partisanship was needed. By believing and signing off on the lies of a rogue Administration they became co-conspirators. Since I know that stupidity and vanity (they were so proud being able to get the inside dope) are not valid defenses against criminality they find themselves stuck into having to play along with a criminal administration. This to me is the most elegant (simplest) explanation of the bizarre behavior of the Democratic Congressional leadership.

    As Prof. Turley and others have said we are definitely in a Constitutional Crisis. Since insurrection won’t work for us, we are limited to the Law and the Ballot in the short term.
    While the legal process grinds on we must turn to the electoral process and get Obama in there. We can hope that as a Constitutional Law Professor he has a clearer understanding of the separation of powers. If McCain prevails, he has shown enough obeisance to the Imperial Presidency Crazies, to continue down the same road towards the destruction of the Constitution.

    This battle doesn’t end with a Democrat being elected this November though, it only marks the beginning of a long process. We must work to empower and elect people who have appreciation for what this Country, under Constitutional law can be. Party or political philosophy not withstanding.

    Along with this though comes the re-education of our citizenry and establishment of a truly free press/media. This means the return of Social Studies and Civics to our schools, a re-imposition of the “Fairness Doctrine” and the use of anti-trust laws to break up media conglomerates. I don’t know if this is at all possible, but to not try, or settle for less means that we must bear a share of the guilt for the loss of our civil liberties.

  29. posted Jun 25. The last article’s sentence is the most important ie
    an appeal is expected and the subpoenas expire with a new Congress
    in January.

    14 Responses to Bush Administration Officials Bar Lawyer Applicants on the Basis of Political Beliefs

    Patty C 1, June 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Front Page News type material right here, rafflaw. It’s the end of June, already. Where’s JT?

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/06/24/judge_challenges_bushs_immunity_claim/

    Judge challenges Bush’s immunity claim
    Privilege asserted for top advisers
    By James Rowley
    Bloomberg / June 24, 2008

  30. Michael Spindell,
    You are right that we have been complicit in allowing our rights to be taken away. I don’t know if I would be as kind to Pelosi and the other Democrats who thought that these Republicans would ever work in a bi-partisan manner. The Democrats cannot agree to anything with these felons. I would rather see the Congress come to a halt then to allow the Republicans to destroy the Constitution. You are also correct that we have alot of work ahead of us. A Democrat in the White House is just a start and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate would also be helpful in getting the country back on the right track.

  31. whooliebacon,

    I noticed the same thing. I have heard little of it anywhere. I think this is a very big deal as it’s an attempt to rebalance powers, would provide vital information on many important issues, and we need to know what the justice dept. will do. I thought this was strange as well. I will look at the Brad Blog. Thanks,

    Jill

  32. Dundar,
    I wonder if you would be such a strong Bush advocate if YOU were in Iraq for the last 15 months, with another “term of service” looming.

    I wonder if you would continue to blindly support the idiot in the white house if YOUR family was targeted by wiretapping programs?

    I wonder if you would continue to blithely walk thru life with your neocon blinders on if your family member had been killed in a war that never should have been started in the first place?

  33. Rahn; You are mistaken; these people are cowards and would never put themselves in harms way. They elected the King of the Cowards Bush, who went AWOL from the National Guard and now want to elect another coward whose claim to fame is that he was captured and made a POW while he was in a jet, bombing civilians. These people don’t understand sacrifice, because it’s other people that are asked to do the killing and be killed.

  34. Wow what an incredible cop out. Sorry, I just think there are many different reasons for impeaching the President and Vice President that are far worse than what President Clinton did. Bush decided to kill thousands of people under false reasoning, Clinton comitted adultry, in this country, which one is worse? Apparently Adultry, what a sad Government we have.

  35. We got an automated call from (at least I hope it was) Kucinich’s office to press 1 if you were for impeaching bush, 2 if not. His campaign site has an e-mail petition to sign. Most likely he was unable to present any real crimes that Nancy could believe in. She’s in the faith based crime determination process I guess!

  36. Reasons Why I’m No Longer a Liberal #18: Willful Ignorance…

    This weekend I asked a Democrat family member what he thought about Nancy Pelosi’s behavior on the House floor Friday afternoon: banging the gavel right in the midst of an oil drilling debate, having the lights, the microphones, and C-SPAN’s……

  37. Nothing to see here Nancy…move along…

    PR Push for Iraq War Preceded Intelligence Findings

    “White Paper” Drafted before NIE even Requested

    For more information contact:
    John Prados – 202/994-7000

    http://www.nsarchive.org

    Washington, DC, August 22, 2008 – The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq, according to a documents posting on the Web today by National Security Archive senior fellow John Prados.

    The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the “White Paper” ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.

    A similar comparison between a declassified draft and the final version of the British government’s “White Paper” on Iraq weapons of mass destruction adds to evidence that the two nations colluded in the effort to build public support for the invasion of Iraq. Dr. Prados concludes that the new evidence tends to support charges raised by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its long-delayed June 2008 “Phase II” report on politicization of intelligence.

    Visit the Web site of the National Security Archive for more information about today’s posting.

    http://www.nsarchive.org

  38. Nothing to see here Nancy…move along…

    PR Push for Iraq War Preceded Intelligence Findings

    “White Paper” Drafted before NIE even Requested

    For more information contact:
    John Prados – 202/994-7000

    http://www.nsarchive.org

    Washington, DC, August 22, 2008 – The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq, according to a documents posting on the Web today by National Security Archive senior fellow John Prados.

    The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the “White Paper” ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.

    A similar comparison between a declassified draft and the final version of the British government’s “White Paper” on Iraq weapons of mass destruction adds to evidence that the two nations colluded in the effort to build public support for the invasion of Iraq. Dr. Prados concludes that the new evidence tends to support charges raised by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its long-delayed June 2008 “Phase II” report on politicization of intelligence.

    Visit the Web site of the National Security Archive for more information about today’s posting.

    http://www.nsarchive.org

  39. More non-evidence from the Center for Constitutional Rights:

    Please tune in this Wednesday, September 17, 2008 to hear an interview with Canadian rendition survivor Maher Arar and CCR attorney Maria LaHood on Fresh Air from WHYY.
    Hear Arar and LaHood speak to Fresh Air’s Terry Gross about how U.S. officials sent Arar to Syria to be tortured, his struggle for justice, and the Second Circuit Appellate Court’s extremely rare order last month that approximately 12 judges will rehear Arar’s case on December 9, 2008.
    Mr. Arar and CCR seek to hold accountable the high-level administration officials responsible for sending him to be tortured and detained in Syria for a year – a practice known as extraordinary rendition.
    In 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was detained at a New York airport on his way home from a family trip. He was interrogated by U.S. officials about alleged links to al-Qaeda and was prevented from getting assistance from a lawyer. He was then delivered to Syria, a country renowned for torture. Mr. Arar was interrogated, brutally tortured and held in a grave-like cell in Syria for over ten months. No country, including the U.S., has ever charged him with any crime.

    CCR originally filed the case in the Eastern District of New York in January 2004; the first ruling, in February 2006, dismissed the case because letting it proceed might harm national security and foreign relations. CCR appealed the decision, arguing before a three-judge panel in November 2007, but the Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in June 2008 along similar lines. The dissenting judge found that the majority decision gives federal officials the license to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity.”
    In stark contrast to the response of the U.S. government, the Canadian government conducted an exhaustive inquiry in response to public outcry, found that Mr. Arar had no connection to terrorism, and, in January 2007, apologized to him for its role in what happened and awarded him $10 million compensation.

  40. I just received an update from Center for Constitutional Rights. The interview in the prior post above will not take place today. It will be tomorrow.

  41. […] UPDATE:  Here — from July of this year — is one of the more remarkable quotes of the Bush era; it’s from Nancy Pelosi, who was explicitly briefed on the CIA’s torture program in 2002: Q:  You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed? […]

  42. Sorry. It’s takin’ whatever comes your way, the good AND the bad, that give life flavor. It’s all the stuff rolled together that makes life worth livin’. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Stock trading company. I found only this – day trade stock picks. Mind confinement is a skin of simple year trading dirt and an clear cargo trading retirement, stock trading. Stock trading, simple sites in media money are pegged when the brokers part keeps then forget whether the buying company government will cancel or find. Best regards😮, Ramla from Islands.

  43. well,thank you for share your article
    I like your article very much, and I would appreciate it if you can write more article about this. We have the same opinion about this, so I think that you may have the same interest in
    mbt
    emuboots

  44. well,thank you for share your article
    I like your article very much, and I would appreciate it if you can write more article about this. We have the same opinion about this, so I think that you may have the same interest in
    Louboutins

Comments are closed.