John Dean and Elizabeth Holtzman Live on Impeaching Bush
Posted in Latest Stories & Articles by H.L., Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2006 7:06 pm by HL
Last night The Nation Institute put on a talk at UCLA’s Royce Hall featuring John Dean, the former Presidential Counsel to Richard Nixon, and former New York Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman. The event was sponsored by Hamilton Fish, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, and Nation books. There was a reception beforehand where an impressive array of high-powered people who are dedicated to seeing George W. Bush impeached got to exchange ideas with Mr. Dean and Ms. Holtzman.
I got to meet a very nice lady named Norma Barzman, the author of “The Red and The Blacklist†and a new book, “The End of Romance.†Norma was a writer in Hollywood in the 40’s until she was blacklisted, and spent the next 30 years in exile in France. Norma introduced me to Cindy Asner, who is fighting to keep Diebold out of L.A. County.
After we filed into the Royce Hall auditorium Hamilton Fish came out and introduced the guests. John Dean is the author of several books including “Worse Then Watergate†and “Conservatives without Conscience.†He was Nixon’s attorney and the key figure in bringing down his Presidency, and he has studied past impeachments including Nixon, Clinton, and Andrew Johnson. He also served as a guest host to Keith Olbermann during the Clinton impeachment. Elizabeth Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee that held the Nixon impeachment hearings, and helped draft the articles of impeachment.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:27 am
Impeach Bush yourself! No Joke.
This is much more than just a petition.
There’s a little known and rarely used clause of the “Jefferson Manual” in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.
That’s where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org, part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.
STOP WAITING FOR YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ACT FOR YOU.
You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in.
http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
More information on the precedent for submitting an impeachment
memorial, and the House Rules on this procedure, can also be found at
the above address.
If you have any doubts that Bush has committed crimes warranting
impeachment, read this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/
If you’re concerned that impeachment might not be the best strategy
at this point, read the bottom of this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.”
Bush, June 18, 2002
“War is Peace.”
Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984
September 15th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Thanks for the great information and post.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:49 am
The corrupt Bush administration and cronies need the real thing. They’ve lied enough and falsified data, concealed the truth about practically everything (including Iraq), they’ve made materially false statements to the UN, false documents pertaining to Nigerian yellowcake and on and on and on. Each member of the administration should have the following statute applied:
U.S.C. TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 47 § 1001.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, WHOEVER, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by ANY trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or USES any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
September 16th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Here is some evidence of Bush criminal conduct (manufacturing false evidence for an unlawful attack on Iraq):
The Secret Downing Street Memo
—–
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL – UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards,
CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale
was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justiï¬ ed by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being ï¬xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity†to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justiï¬ cation for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The ï¬ rst and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difï¬ cult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the ï¬rst, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warï¬ ghting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any ï¬ rm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
September 19th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
No comments from the republicans on this one, I guess that means that they know Bush is in the shi**ter, they just will never admit they were wrong no matter how stupid it makes them look.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:55 am
The only posts that Republicans make are either misguided or blatant lies. As far as this thread, their silence is predictable.
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
It’s amazing to me how John Dean, counselor to Richard Nixon, has been reborn as a crusader against government corruption. They say jail does not rehabilitate criminals but it seems to have done a world of good for Mr. Dean. He’s now something of an honest expert to be consulted whenever impeachment comes up, such as recently with Judge Jay Bybee.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-21/should-the-judge-who-wrote-the-torture-memos-be-impeached/