Four Directions

Introduction: Four Directions

"I have noticed no definite progress in any religion. The world would not be the shambles it has become if the religions of the world were progressive. " -- Gandhi

Three days ago, I posted an essay on how the neoconservative movement influenced US policy in the Middle East. It is interesting for me to consider the range of responses I get from the three political forums that I participate on. The Middle East, and US policy there, can be emotional topics. People can have very different ways of viewing the same thing; for example, I have had different people tell me that they believe I am either pro-Israel or anti-Israel, based upon the same post.

There is an old saying that when two people think just alike, only one is thinking. Because progressives and democrats tend to think for themselves, I'm aware that people will see things differently than me. I often have serious differences of opinion with my best friends when we discuss political and social issues. Thus, when a lady on one forum questioned what she believed was my focus on the religious/ethnic background of some neoconservatives, I was more than happy to discuss it. While on some issues, she and I will probably always disagree, I respect what she had to say. And in response to her suggestion that I might do well write something that more clearly expresses my view, rather than simply provide a well-documented history of the neoconservatives, I've given it some serious thought.

This essay is a result of her suggestion. As always, some will agree and others will disagree with my opinions. And that's the way it should be.

Part One: The White Roots of Peace

"All people whose minds are healthy can desire peace, and there is an ability within all people, especially the young, to grasp and hold strongly to the principles of righteousness."
-- The Peacemaker; Haudenosaunee

One of the issues that can create difficulties in discussing topics such as the Middle East is ethnocentricity, or the human tendency to be of the opinion that "one's own group is superior." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) And history is filled with examples of the confusion that has resulted when people face facts that do not fit well with their previously held beliefs. An obvious example would be the "New World" that Columbus "discovered."

There is a wonderful book (The White Roots of Peace, by Paul Wallace; University of PA; 1946) that documents the political philosophy of the Haudenosaunee, or Iroquois Confederacy. In a prologue to the 1985 edition of the book, John Mohawk notes that not "many writers on anthropology or oral history have found rational thought a prevalent theme among their subjects. Many professionals in this field operate on an expectation that rational thought is found only in the West." Yet those White Roots of Peace are a tradition based upon rational thought that go back approximately 2000 years.

As Mohawk explains, the political -social system of the Haudenosaunee dates back to an actual time in human history where society was under great stress. It was a period where there were blood feuds between distant peoples, which brought about violence between neighboring communities, and eventually within those communities. There was a break-down in the extended families, and this lead to violence within families. I'm reminded of Ecclesiastes 1:9, "The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun." We are at that time Mohawk described, again.

A man known today as the Iroquois prophet, the Peacemaker, began to travel throughout the territory that we call the northeast of the USA. He saw that each incident of violence created an atmosphere where there would be more hatred and acts of revenge. The violence spread like a disease. He recognized that spread of violent thought and behavior as irrational. It was irrational because it only led to a "spiral of vengeance and reprisal which found assassins stalking the Northeastern woodlands in a never ending senseless bloodletting."

Mohawk's description, which is the same as is taught by other Faith- and Wisdom Keepers in the Longhouse, tells of the Peacemaker seeking out the most violent clan leaders, and teaching a system based upon rational thought. Mohawk writes that "his words required considerable thought and understandably much discussion before his first students could take ownership of the ideas. He is not saying that human beings do not possess the potential for irrational thought. He is saying that all human beings possess the potential for rational thought. Unless we believe that all human beings possess rational thought, we are powerless to act in a way that will bring peace short of the absolute destruction of the other. We cannot negotiate with irrational human beings. In order to negotiate with other human beings, we must believe in their rational nature. We must believe they are not suicidal or homicidal by nature, that we can reason with them. "

This thought system recognized that rational thought was based on the common interests that held forth the promise of a bright future, in which people would put their minds together to attempt to resolve differences and deal with problems that arise in life. It is based on peace, justice, and righteousness. There is a focus on the welfare of the younger generation.

It recognizes that irrational thought is the result of pain, of fear, and of hatred. Irrational thought keeps us from working together with others in order to secure that bright future. It leads to violence that denies the possibility of peace and justice. It leads to what is known as self-righteousness.

I know that many people consider these ideas quaint, but unrealistic. Yet we find that Native American thinking has influenced our country and society in many ways. Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison were very familiar with the Iroquois Confederacy, as many of the ideas expressed in the Articles of Confederation shows. Jesuit diaries provide evidence that the Iroquois were practicing a form of group analysis of dreams for centuries before Sigmund Freud was born. The causes and consequences or rational and irrational thought are the same today as they were 2000 years ago.

Part Two: Reminiscences of War

"The guerrilla fighter is the Jesuit of warfare." -- Che Guevara; Guerrilla Warfare; page 12

One of the potential directions that we can head towards as human beings is warfare. At this time, I would like to examine the activities that are going on in Lebanon in the past few weeks. My use of some material from Che Guevara, to compare these events with, is not an endorsement or indictment of him; rather, it will be used to shed some light on what I believe is happening in Lebanon.

My goal is not to deny that human beings have a right to self-defense when attacked. I strongly believe that Israel has the right to exist without having the integrity of its borders attacked. I am repulsed by the suicide bombers that have killed and maimed the Israeli people. These attacks are examples of the irrational thought that Mohawk described. This form of violence, which includes kidnappings and missiles, is absolutely part -- though not all -- of the cause of the recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Yet the Israeli response is also irrational. Even from a tactical viewpoint, it does not make sense. There is a chapter titled "War and the Peasant Population" in Guevara's book "Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War." It describes the "benefits" to a guerrilla force of causing a larger state to react to a provocation by heavy-handed tactics. These include everything from indiscriminate killings to forced relocations. Such actions always cause a population to come to hate the state, and to identify with the rebel force.

A number of people have recognized that the recent events are not the Six Day War, when Israel rapidly defeated three enemies. This is a slower-paced war, and one in which we see Israel is losing the support of a growing number of people around the world. Blowing up ambulances and UN observers, no matter if done by "accident" or not, is very harmful in terms of public relations. Killing innocent women and children plants the seeds for generations of future violence.

There are people who believe that the actions of Hezbollah will reap positive rewards. There are others who feel that the Israeli's actions will make them safer. These are both examples of irrational thinking. This is what hatred, fear, and violence can do to people. As long as the cycle continues to spiral downward, both sides will experience more pain and suffering.

At some point, someone has to risk being creative, with a rational response. This is not to say that brave and sincere people from all sides of the struggle in the Middle East have not tried in the past. It is saying that the effort must be on-going, and requires a special dedication at times like these. More, it means that all people of goodwill must withdraw encouragement and support for the Jesuits of warfare. We cannot afford to invest energy into the cult of death. We need to look in a different direct.

Part Four: My Dungeon Shook

"Hate can only produce hate. That's why all these wars are going on, all this insanity. There's too much anger in the US. People are too afraid, too numbed out. We need to wipe out all this hatred, fear, distrust, and violence. We need to understand, forgive, and love."
-- Rubin "Hurricane" Carter

A few years back, I was able to assist a friend, who is a faculty member of the NY State University system, while she was writing a book on the power of forgiveness. She interviewed my friend Rubin, about how he found the need to forgive the people responsible for his being incarcerated for 20 years for a crime he did not commit. The above quote comes from that conversation.

Rubin's new book ("The Way of the One-Eyed Man") will be published in September. It will address the concept of the Power of the Good Mind. The message is the same as John Mohawk's, just in a slightly different cultural context. Quite a bit of that context is the American prison system. Many people know the basic story, from one of the four books or the movie about the Hurricane. I can tell a story that might be of interest in the context of this discussion.

Rubin lost the sight in one eye because of the medical neglect in prison. Now prison is a violent and dangerous place for any person, and losing an eye made Rubin feel more vulnerable to potential attack. In 1973, tensions in Rahway State Prison were on the rise, and part of it had to do with the neglect. There was a young man who was scalded to death, when a steam pipe broke in his cell in an isolation unit.

When tensions rise in a prison, everyone lives in the darkness. And when the danger of the darkness is the greatest, inmates begin to seek the safety of being part of a "group." In prison, those groups are also known as gangs. I was one of the people on the outside who Rubin discussed his concerns with, and I urged him to consider something he was hesitant to do. Shortly after the Attic riot, which had erupted into the infamous shoot-out, there was a riot at Trenton State Prison in New Jersey. At the time, Rubin was incarcerated there. During the riot, the Hurricane took steps to protect the lives of staff and inmate alike. Rubin and I discussed what steps he needed to take before the prison exploded.

In "Hurricane: The Miraculous Journey of Rubin Carter" (Houghton Mifflin; 2000; page 102), author James Hirsch writes, "Faced with these concerns, he decided to plunge into prison politics. Like most prisons, Rahway had conflicting factions -- Muslims, Italians, Hispanics, urban blacks, and others. Carter sought the support from the toughest man in each group, who collectively made up the leaders in prison. Promising to expand prisoners' rights and improve conditions, Carter was elected chairman of the Rahway Inmate Committee."

Rubin began a series of meetings with the Police Benevolent Union, church groups, and sociologists. He spoke out about problems including the lack of proper medical care, and drugs and weapons being smuggled into the prison. His efforts began to ease tensions between the guards and inmates. It was a heady time, when prison reform was a subject being taken seriously by the American public. I still have a large collection of the documents that Rubin sent me, mainly letters between the warden and Rubin.

The ability to get the most dangerous gang leaders in a violent atmosphere like a prison is the same type of power that must be harnessed in the Middle East. We will not find it in people like John Bolton, Condi Rice, or George Bush. There is an old saying that you can't teach what you don't know. The current "leaders" in the violence in the Middle East can only have their irrational thinking reinforced by the Bush administration, while being armed by the Cheney shadow government.

At this point, it will take leaders with the moral authority of a Nelson Mandela to deal with the current crisis. But it can be done. If it can be done in the ancient Iroquois woodlands, and in the jungle of a New Jersey prison, it can be done in the Middle East. In fact, it can be done in another important direction we might consider -- inside.

Part Five: The Search for Meaning

"To paraphrase what La Rochefoucauld once remarked with regard to love, one might say that just as a small fire is extinguished by the storm while a larger fire is enhanced by it -- likewise a weak faith is weakened by predicaments and catastrophes, whereas a strong faith is strengthened by them."
-- Viktor E. Frankl; Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning; MJF Books; 2000


Many years ago, Rubin introduced me to the power of Viktor Frankl’s thinking. Frankl (1905 – 1997) was one of the most influential psychotherapists of the past century. He believed that the basic drive of human beings was a “will to meaning.” Frankl was a survivor of the Nazi death camps; he recognized that people could transcend the horrors of life, and become stronger not because of them, but rather despite them.

Frankl’s works stand out as a wonderful example of rational thought. He could have been a bitter and hateful person. If any human being had the right to hate, Viktor Frankl did. But he refused to allow other people’s hatred to incarcerate his essence.

In the beginning of “Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning,” he tells of how people from prisons and mental institutions have shared stories of the drive he calls “will to meaning.” He discusses the human need to transcend one’s self. Clearly, that drive takes very different directions when fueled by rational or irrational thinking. In reading Frankl, I became aware that as difficult as it is to not hate, it is actually harder to hate. I am not saying that as sentimental fluff. Let me share an experience my family endured.

In the late 1990s, a white supremacist gang in rural upstate New York was involved in a series of attacks on primarily non-white victims. They also targeted white people who were friends with non-white people. Their violence included a number of savage beatings of isolated victims (3 suffered fractured skulls), a drive-by shooting, and more. Part of their terrorism included a series of cowardly attacks on Asian-American students at SUNY-Binghamton.

My nephew was one of the people this gang of thugs attacked. They were upset that a brown-skinned high school student was getting a lot of media attention for his athletic and leadership skills. The gang drove about 35 miles, and waited in a dark parking lot near my nephew’s vehicle. A group of 15 men attacked him from behind, and after knocking him unconscious, inflicted a severe beating. Then they left him for dead.

The doctors in the ER said most people would have died from the injuries he had. He lost the hearing in one ear, and more. It’s still difficult for me to remember sitting on the edge of the bed, looking at my unconscious nephew, and seeing what those people did to him. I will not lie now – I hated. I felt the same passion for revenge as do the families of victims in the Middle East, or in Ireland, or El Salvador, or any other place where the ugliness of man’s inhumanity to man raises its head.

It would have been easy to take that 35 mile drive in the direction of revenge. Yes, those thoughts went through my mind. There were many others thinking the same thing, including many of my nephew’s high school friends. The anger that drives irrational thinking made the thought seem attractive. Yet if we had, it only would have fueled a spiral of violence. It needed to stop.

In rural upstate New York, a gang of 15 white men that attacks a black teen is going to face very different legal consequences than a gang of black kids that attacks a white victim. We knew that. It might not sound nice, but it is true. So we were aware that there would not be “justice” from the court. (There wasn’t. The gang leader got a $50 fine for having an open beer, but nothing for punching and kicking an unconscious victim more than a dozen times.)

Instead, we used the court proceedings as a forum for public education on issues of race and violence. The regional chapters of the NAACP had people driving from as far away as Albany to attend the court hearings, which were a weekly event for five months. Television and radio stations, and all of the local newspapers, covered the story.

The community where the trials took place called in huge amounts of police reinforcements, because they were concerned about the potential for violence. But there was none. Our group was focused and disciplined. We were united in presenting a message of rational thought, and discussing what direction we as a society could head in, in order to create the best possible world for the younger generation.

Among the large crowds that gathered, there were always a number of Jewish and Muslim people. They were all unfortunately familiar with having relatives being the victim of the same irrational violence that harmed my nephew. (In fact, the FBI agent who investigated the case, and who advocated the Justice Department get involved, told my sister about his family’s experience as Jewish immigrants to the US.) There were no tensions among the members of our large and diverse group. We were united in common purpose.

I’ll end by saying this: some people may read this, and think, “What the heck does this have to do with the war in the Middle East?” My answer is that we are all connected. What happens there impacts our lives in the US, and what we do here impacts the Middle East. Each day, we face crossroads, and as individuals, we determine what direction the greater society heads in.

“I set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, so that you and your children may live.” – Deuteronomy 30:19

Necroconservatives

"This world and yonder world are incessantly giving birth: every cause is a mother, its effect the child. When the effect is born, it too becomes a cause and gives birth to wonderous effects. These causes are generation on generation, but it needs a very well lighted eye to see the links in their chain." -- Jalal-ad-din Rumi, Persian Sufi poet
As the violence in Lebanon continues, the United States's support of Israeli policy stands out against the global call for a cease-fire. Condi Rice's trip seems less an attempt to find a diplomatic resoltion to the war, than an attempt to justify the administration's policy. I think it is important to examine what domestic group's agenda that Rice is advocating. My goal is not to focus on which side is right or wrong in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, but rather, to consider the implications for the United States.
When we look at the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East, it is evident that it is largely the result of the influence of the group known as "neoconservatives." In the third book in his wonderful series on America in the King years, author Taylor Branch traces the genesis of the neconservative movement to the 1967 Six Day War. (At Cannan's Edge; Simon & Schuster; 2006; pages 615-624.) It is important to remember that 1967 marked a significant evolution in Martin's ministerial journey. On April 4, King delivered his greatest speech, "A Time to Break Silence" (aka "Beyond Vietnam") to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, at the Riverside Church in New York City. In his presentation, King connected the racism in the United States to the government policy in Vietnam.
While the connecting of the Civil Rights movement with the Anti-War groups may seem mainstream today, at the time it was not. The speech led to King being attacked more viciously than at any previous time in his ministry. In "Let the Trumpet Sound" (Mentor; 1982; pages 416-423), University of Massachusetts Professor Stephen Oates documents the reaction:
"But in April, 1967, most of King's country supported the Vietnam War, and his address provoked a fusillade of abuse from all sides. The Jewish War Veterans of America blasted it as 'an extremist tirade' that belabored an 'ugly parallel' with the Germans, revealed 'an ignorance of the facts,' pandered to Ho Chi Minh, and insulted 'the intelligence of all Americans.' The FBI claimed that Stanley Levison had shaped if not written the Riverside speech, and bureau documents denigrate King as 'a traitor to his country and to his race.' Taking his cue from the FBI, a Johnson aide remarked that King's argument was 'right down the Commie line,' and Congressman Joe D. Waggonner, in communication with the White House and the bureau, charged on Capitol Hill that King's 'earlier training at such gatherings as the Communist Highlander Folk School has called him on to another Communist end, mobilizing support for Peking and Hanoi in their war against South Vietnam'."
Newsweek, Life, and the New York Times all attacked Martin savagely for his speech. A few black leaders did, as well. Most seemed to view King's speech as wrong not because the necessarily supported the war, but because it was, in the words of Ralph Bunche, "a very serious tactical error which will do much harm to the civil rights movement. (King) should realize that his anti-U.S. Vietnam crusade is bound to alienate many friends and supporters."
Chapter 35 of Branch's book describes how the movement King was attempting to lead splintered in May and June of '67. He documents how the Six Day War led a number of the civil rights movements' "friends and supporters" to break from King's call for nonviolence when it applied to people other than black Americans. He uses the example of the "Shactmanite base" which had provided union support for leaders such as Bayard Rustin, as being among those groups that splintered.
The reaction to the Six Day War in this country was significant. Branch writes that, "A warrior's exultation hardened the awakening of Jewish spirit. 'We grew so fast into a visible central power that the seeds of arrogance as well came in,' observed David Hartman. First news of Israel's deliverance prompted a vulgar outburst from Abe Fortas in his Supreme Court chambers: 'I'm going to decorate my office with Arab foreskins.' The implications of the war were so fantastic as to be hushed in numb realization ..... For three hours on Day Four, Israeli war planes strafed and torpedoed the plainly marked U.S.S. Liberty spy ship in international waters off the coast of Egypt, killing thirty-four American sailors, wounding 170. Official statements of regret would leave the orgin and anatomy of the attack shrouded in secrecy, as if both sides needed to muffle the reprecussions." (page 618)
Then, regarding within the civil rights movement, "Michael Harrington split with Shactman over Vietnam, and he coined the word 'neoconservative' for Shactman's coalition thrust. As the term gained currency in the intellectual beehive of Manhattan, it suggested strong military purpose with a utopian residue focused on Israel. The powerful neoconservative school in American politics would grow from a merger of labor-wing Shactmanites into the larger movement associated with Irving Kristol." (page 620)
A number of books detail the neoconservative movement in the years following its genesis, as it would take shape through the offices of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Abraham Ribicoff. In "A Pretext for War" (Anchor Books; 2004), James Bamford writes, "Among Jackson's greatest supporters were members of the neoconservative movement. Predominantly Jewish, they were turned off by the counterculture movements of the 1960s, disillusioned with the Great Society, offended by the 'anti-American' sentiments of the left, and fearful of the expansionist aims of the United Nations. At the core of the movement was a small but prolific band of sedentary intellectuals and think tank warriors .... they wrote longingly of a muscular expansion of American power and influence around the world, a rollback of communism and an end to detente with the Soviets, and the creation of a seamless bond between Israel's interests and America's military and foreign policy." (page 272)
Senator Jackson produced impressive results for Israel."In fiscal year 1970, Israel received military credits from the United States worth $30 million. But thanks to a Jackson amendment, the next year the amount sky-rocketed to $545 million. By 1974, it had reached an extraordinary $2.2 billion, more than seventy times what it had been just four years earlier." (Bamford; page 273)
Senator Jackson was associated with a former RAND consultant, Albert Wohlstetter, who was employed at the University of Chicago. From their Political Science Department, Wohlstetter worked on nuclear weapons research, and in opposition to detente and disarmament. He had what has been described as a "cultlike following among some of his students and others within the right-wing establishment." (Bamford; page 275) Wohlstetter would bring people such as Paul Wolfowitz into the neoconservative movement. This influence moved the neoconservatives from the camp of democratic hawks like Jackson and Moynihan to the necroconservative growth within the republican party in the 1980s.
The mestatasis of neoconservatism involved bringing a number of people from the Jackson-Wohltetter cult into the Reagan and Bush1 administration. These include Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, and Paul Wolfowitz. These individuals were all closely associated with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. They were all outraged when President Bush1 ended the first Gulf War without taking out Saddam and setting up a neocon-friendly government in Iraq.
In 1992, Wolfowitz and Libby prepared a memo for Defense Secretary Cheney that called for an intensely aggressive military strategy for the US that would "set the nation's direction for the next century." The memo was leaked to the public, and there was a harsh response. President Bush1 distanced himself from the proposed policies, and for a time, it "was seemingly forgotten. But in September 2002, with Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Libby restored to power, theWolfowitz memo reappeared in an official document released by the White House, titled The National Security Strategy of the United States." (Patrick Buchanan; Where the Right Went Wrong; Thomas Dunne Books; 2004; page 44)
In the Clinton years, the neoconservatives continued to advocate for the US to take agressive military actions in the Middle East.This included the signing of a proposal in 1998, that President Clinton remove Saddam from power, as part of a Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
Also, Feith, Perle and David Wurmser became advisors to Israel, and recommended an invasion of Lebanon that would set the stage for actions against Syria and Iran. The plan was called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. They advocated using the pretext of a threat of WMD to cover the real purpose of preemptive invasions. (Bamford; 260-264)
These positions are consistent with a list that John Dean included in his book "Worse Than watergate" to describe neoconservative beliefs and tactics. The list came from Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul. It contains the following:
-- They believe in preemptive war and the naked use of military force to achieve any desired ends.
-- They are very willing to use force to impose American ideals.
-- They openly endorse the idea of an American empire, and .... call for imperialism.
--They are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by force, while unconditionally supporting Israel.
--They believe the ends justify the means in politics.
-- They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
-- They believe certain facts should only be known by the political elite, and withheld from the general public. (page 103)
It is worth noting that Joseph Wilson identified the neoconservative cells within the Bush administration as being those that both lied our nation into war in Iraq, and who participated in the operation to damage him and his wife. (See pages431-435 of "The Politics of Truth.") By no small coincidence, many of the same cast of characters is found in the neocon-AIPAC spy scandal, in which US military secrets involving Iran were provided to Israeli intelligence.
It is also worth noting that by the summer of 2004, when many of the fiscal and social conservatives in the republican party were beginning to recognize the damage the neoconservatives had done to this country, William Kristol told the New York Times of a new strategy. "If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me, too. I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan .... If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives." He described the concept of a neoliberal as "neoconservative who has been mugged by reality in Iraq."
As democrats and progressives watch the violence in Iraq, we should take note of how certain forces try to frame the issues. We don't want to be mugged by neoliberals.

The Crimes of Dick Cheney

Part One
"For a nation that cannot hold its commander-in-chief responsible is something other than a democracy."
-- John Dean
The above quote is from John Dean's article "The Truth About Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's Statement to the Grand Jury Claiming the President Authorized a Leak of Classified Information," in FindLaw.com, April 7, 2006. This was one of Mr. Dean's best essays on the abuses of executive power that define what is known as "the Plame scandal." His wonderful article followed the release of the Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, or Document 80 in Case 1:05-cr-00394. (This and related court documents can be found in the research forum at the Democratic Underground.)
Patrick Fitzgerald's document confirmed what many people interested in the Plame scandal had long suspected: that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney were far more involved in the operation to destroy Ambassador Joseph Wilson than the administration had let on. It detailed Libby's testimony to the grand jury, in which he outlined his version of how the President and Vice President had declassified parts of a NIE to counter Wilson's exposing the Niger yellow cake fiction.
From the April 5 release of Document 80, to the May 12 release of Documents 105-1 and 105-2, which included VP Cheney's notations on his copy of Wilson's July 6, '03 New York Times op-ed, attention was being focused on the role Dick Cheney clearly played in the Plame scandal. In the two months since, numberous attempts have been made to distract attention from this most important issue. I think it is important that we re-visit the information that John Dean had said were most important.
Dean notes that Libby's testimony -- which he called a "bombshell" -- needed to be properly understood. It was neither proof that the president had authorized the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, nor proof that the president or vice president had absolute authority to declassify on a whim:
"At a minimum," he wrote, "the filing indicates that the President and Vice President departed radically, and disturbingly, from long-set procedures with respect to classified documents -- and that the Vice President, in particular, exceeded his declassification authority. And it may indicate that they, too, ought to be targets of the grand jury."
In pages 20-25 of Document 80, Mr. Fitzgerald details the relevance of the NIE to the case against Libby. He tells of how Cheney viewed Wilson's op-ed as an attack on his credibility, and how selective use of the NIE would bolster Cheney's case, and discredit Wilson. These are the pages that Dean focuses his attention on. He notes two significant problems for the administration in Libby's testimony: First, Dean notes, "Libby 'testified that the Vice President LATER advised him the President authorized' Libby to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. (Emphasis added.)"; and second, he notes Addington, "Cheney's counsel (now Chief of Staff) 'opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document AMOUNTED TO a declassification of the document.' (Emphasis added.)"
We know that only Bush, Cheney, Addington, and Libby were aware of this selective classification. Document 80 tells of Libby's efforts to conceal this from Steve Hadley and others, who were working towards later declassifying selective parts of the NIE in the traditional sense. More, as I quoted two days ago, Knight Ridder Newspapers on April 7 noted that, "Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated." And the April 9 Washington Post stated that "the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before."
Dean writes that, "The secrecy surely suggests a cover-up. ...Whatever authority Bush may or may not have had, however, it is crystal clear that Vice President Cheney did not have any authority to unilaterally and selectively declassify the NIE." Dean writes this, despite the fact that VP Cheney had recently made the claim to Brit Hume, on a Fox News interview, that he had the authority to declassify national security information. We know that VP Cheney has based his positions on the advice of his now Chief of Staff, Mr. Addington. And we know from the recent US Supreme Court decision, in which President Bush relied upon Addington's advice that he enjoyed unrestricted power, that Cheney is sometimes very wrong. Let's take a closer look at some sources which John Dean believes citizens should be aware of.

Part Two
"The future will depend on what we do in the present."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Representative Henry A. Waxman, the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Government Reform, was concerned that VP Cheney had attempted to exercise executive authority that he was not entitled to. Thus, Rep. Waxman requested that Harold Relyea, a Specialist in American National Government from the Congressional Research Service, give an opinion on if a vice presdent had the power that Dick Cheney claimed he had.
On March 10, Mr. Relyea sent a 3-page memorandum to Rep. Waxman. It includes this: "The Vice President appears to have some limited declassification authority. However, it appears that the Vice President is not otherwise authorized to disclose or direct or to approve the disclosure of security classified information to persons not authorized to receive it."
Rep. Waxman then wrote a letter to President Bush on April 6, expressing his concerns "grave new questions about whether you, the Vice President, and your top advisors have engaged in a systematic abuse of the national security classification process for political purposes. News accounts suggest that the White House both (1) leaked classified intelligence information to further its faulty case for war and (2) improperly concealed information regarding your personal knowledge of serious doubts about this intelligence."
Again, we know from Murray Waas's fantastic 7-3 article "Bush Directed Cheney to Counter War Critic" that President Bush told Mr. Fitzgerald that he had "directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson...." Libby leaked this information to journalists before it was officially declassified on 7-18-03. And, not only is it evident that the timing shows Cheney directing Libby before Bush granted his permission, but that "Bush told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes."
Rep. Waxman also notes that Stephen Hadley had been concerned "that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002," that documented concerns in the intelligence community over the "evidence" the administration claimed proved Saddam had WMD programs. He quotes concerns that Karl Rove expressed that "Bush's re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had personally warned" that the WMD stories had been challenged. Rep. Waxman also quotes both Condoleezza Rice and Dan Bartlett purposefully lying to the media about what Bush knew on this topic.
Rep. Waxman points out that these allegations indicate that White House officials may have violated Executive Order 12958 by "keeping the President's Summary classified and withholding it from the public." He notes that "Any attempt to keep information classified for purely political purposes is not only against the law, but contrary to our democratic tradition of open government. The executive order is explicit on this point, stating categorically that "[i]n no case shall information be classified in order to .... conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administration error; [or] prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency'."
The White House, of course, ignores Rep. Waxman's requests for a response to this or other letters he and John Conyers have sent on related issues. As citizens of this country, we have choices. We can choose to complain, or look the other way. Or we can exercise our rights, as defined in the Bill of Rights, and demand that the government respond to our concerns.
We can work to elect a democratic House asnd Senate. We can take the steps necessary to provide Rep. Waxman with subpoena powers. Then he'll get an answer to the important questions he asks. The future surely depends upon what we do today.
John Dean has often reminded us that this case is "worse than Watergate." We would do well to remember that a large part of the investigation of the Watergate scandal centered on Section 371. of Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 19 -- Conspiracy. That section reads in part, "Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States: If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy..."
That describes -- at the very least -- the activities of Scooter Libby and Vice President Dick Cheney. We need to do our best to make sure that President Bush does not pardon Libby, and that we elect a congress that will begin the investigation of impeachable offenses by VP Cheney.

No Pardon for Libby

"Study a question from all sides, and you will be sure to discover where error has crept in."
-- Kahlil Gibran

Part One: The Waas Article
On July 3, the National Journal published an interesting article by Murray Waas, titled "Bush Directed Cheney to Counter War Critic." The article tells how people close to President Bush and Vice President Cheney describe conversations between those two, as well as what Bush told Patrick Fitzgerald in their June, 2004 conversation about the Plame scandal.
The article confirms previous reports that both Bush and Cheney had been involved in the decision to declassify a NIE in order to defend the administration from allegations made by Ambassador Joseph Wilson. And it actually takes an important step forward in identifying a goal od discrediting Wilson.
Waas quotes one "senior government official familiar with the discussions between Bush and Cheney" as saying Bush told Cheney to "Get it out" or "Let's get this out." That, as Waas noted, is very similar to Libby's testimony to the grand jury that Cheney told him that their goal was to "get all the facts out."
We know, of course, that Cheney and Libby were not interested in getting "all the facts" about the Niger yellow cake forgeries out to the public. Doing so would have discredited the administration in general, and the OVP specifically. Instead, they had another agenda.
Waas notes that while "other White House officials were working through a formal interagency declassification process to make public" information about Iraqi weapons programs, Cheney and Libby were making plans for Scooter to talk to reporters on the sly. He writes that it is "unclear why Cheney and Libby were apparently acting without the knowledge of other senior government officials," and that Bush was "unaware that Cheney had directed Libby to leak classified information" to reporters.
Bush, according to Waas's source, told Mr. Fitzgerald that "he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. Bush said he had no information that Cheney had disclosed Plame's identity or directed anyone else to do so."
The article raises a number of interesting questions. An obvious one is: did President Bush know that Plame was a covert CIA officer? One assumes that Waas's source would know if Cheney told the president. Equally interesting is to consider who was Waas's source? And why would he or she share this information with Waas at this time?
Part Two: Countdown
On July 5, Keith Olbermann and guest Larry O'Donnell discussed the Waas article on MSNBC's Countdown. The segment was a wonderful example of how the media can be used to either focus on what is important in the article, or how it can be used to spin misinformation. O'Donnell is, of course, a perfect guest for doing just that, as he has been both accurate in breaking news on the case, and in error in predicting the direction the investigation is headed in. For example, in July '05, he was the first to publicly reveal that Karl Rove had been Matt Cooper's source on Plame. But then, in October, he reported on his blog that "we now know that Rove has received a target letter from Patrick Fitzgerald," and he predicted "at least three high level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators."
Olbermann noted in his opening of the segment that, "Niceties aside, the point was not just to rebut Ambassador's Wilson's allegations, but also to discredit him." O'Donnell notes correctly that, "It's all turning on one senior government official." He then promotes that one senior official's agenda by saying, "It is a generally helpful story for Scooter Libby's image in terms of what he was actually doing in talking to reporters."
Olbermann asks Gibran's questions, attempting to identify where the error has crept into Larry's reasoning: "How does it help anybody in the administration to have a line that starts with the president, goes through the vice president, and moves on to Scooter Libby? Would that not be somewhat troublesome, were it to be aired out at the trial of Mr. Libby?"
O'Donnell then delivers the senior official's message: "Well, if this goes to trial. But if what we have here is groundwork for a pardon after the congressional election, say a Christmas pardon, this story would actually be helpful, because this story would put Libby in a position of having been authorized, and, in effect, ordered to get out there, making the administration's case about Joe Wilson's claims ..." Larry continues to let errors creep into his thinking when he adds: "And, you know, there were some very legitimate things that the White House was interested in, in Joe Wilson's op-ed piece. One was the implication, for example, Keith, that the vice president ordered this mission, which the vice president, I think at this stage, very clearly didn't."
Once the error has infected O'Donnell's thinking, he reaches a foolish conclusion: "And then you're left with Libby, who doesn't really have much of a role in this story, except to look like a good and faithful servant who is executing the mission the president wants him to execute .... They wanted to put out another intelligence report that was the opposite of Joe Wilson's report."

Part Three: FindLaw's Errors
It's important to recognize that almost everyone who has covered the Plame scandal has made errors along the way. Larry O'Donnell is certainly not alone in this. Sometimes it is a result of a journalist reporting what a source told them; in October of '05, Waas reported information about what Rove told Bush regarding his role in the leak that was later shown to be inaccurate.
At other times, insightful people have made incorrect predictions. On October 21, '05, in an article on FindLaw, John Dean wrote could not "imagine any of them being indicted, unless they were acting for reasons other than national security. .... I can see this entire investigation coming to a remarkable anti-climax, as Fitzgerald closes down his Washington Office and returns to Chicago. In short, I think this frenzy is about to end -- and it will go no further."
There are others, of course, who purposefully spread misinformation. For example, there was a June 28, 2006 article on FindLaw by one Matthew Segal, that appears to have been coordinated with the OVP attempts to advocate for a presidential pardon of Scooter Libby. While one can disagree with someone like Dean, and still have great respect for him, I find it difficult to have anything but contempt for the preppie Mr. Segal's brown-nosed attempt to ingratiate himself with Cheney and Libby.
The title of his piece is, "Should the President Pardon Scooter Libby? Why Even Administration Critics Should Favor a Pardon." His goal, nor surprisingly, is to "argue that even if you're an Administration critic who thinks this investigation is serious business, you should still favor a presidential pardon for Libby."
Segal instead provides a strong case for the old argument that one in ten attorneys graduated in the bottom 10% of their class. He is either so unfamilar with the case that he should not speak about it, or he purposely is telling lies to promote an agenda. Consider but a few examples ..... starting with his claim that the case "against Libby alleges politically-motivated conduct..." His evidence that the case is political, rather than criminal, is based on quotes from Joseph diGenova and Bill Kristol. Thus, he attempts to convince us that Libby's actions are "at best an effort to discredit Wilson's conclusions and, at worst, simple revenge on Wilson."
That, of course, is very different from what Patrick Fitzgerald told us during his press conference last October. "I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge. This is a very serious charge and compromising national security information is a very serious charge. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, (or) by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime."
Segal's nonsense continues: "By contrast, prosecuting Libby might deliver nothing at all. .... We do know, however, that Libby is probably not the key figure here. Indeed, Libby is not even the key player in his own indictment." That's odd -- all of the pretrial motions and hearings have focused on Scooter Libby. Does Mr. Segal know something we don't? Should he send a "friend of the court" notice to Judge Walton?
"Who is 'Official A'?" he asks. Considering that it is no secret that Karl Rove is Official A, one wonders how this is a mystery to the young attorney. Why, he asks, "have the facts remained hidden?" He suggests "that the story has either been completely overblown in the press," or else the administration hasn't been fully honest. Perhaps he should take Fitzgerald's place? Consider this gem: "And even if other potential witnesses aren't protected by a Libby plea bargain, they aren't likely to say more at a trial than they did to a grand jury, which apparently was not enough to identify 'Official A'."
Segal concludes that "because the investigation has revealed precious few facts and resulted only in the indictment of one possibly minor player," justice would be best served if the president pardoned Libby. He ignores not only what Mr. Fitzgerald has said, but the fact that the federal judges who heard the appeals of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper all agreed that there were serious legal issues involved in the case. None of them believed the case involved politics rather than potential criminal behaviors by major players. Segal's willingness to ignore this is disgusting.

Part Four: Honest Journalism
In a July 6 article in The Guardian UK, Suzanne Goldenberg reported the truth: "The revelation that Mr. Bush instructed Mr. Cheney to personally oversee the campaign to discredit Mr. Wilson arrives at an inconvenient time for a White House vehement in criticising leaks."
And Dan Froomkin's July 5 article "What Bush Told Fitzgerald," in the Washington Post, was also on target. "Publicly, Bush has consistently portrayed himself as not only uninvolved with the leak of Plame's identity, but utterly in the dark about it -- and determined to punish any wrongdoers. But Waas's story suggests that Bush was directly responsible for the sequence of events that resulted in that leak. .... it certainly seems clear by now that Bush knows a lot more about this case -- and his White House's enthusiasm for discrediting its opponents -- than he's let on in public. Isn't it about time Bush stopped pretending ignorance about this story -- and came clean about his own role? Why should that information only be shared with criminal prosecutors?"
Froomkin's wonderful article goes on to quote a Barton Gellman - Dafna Linzer article in the April 9 Washington Post,that noted the information "Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before." More, he quoted Warren Strobel and Ron Hutchenson in the April 7 Knight Ridder Newspapers: "The revelation that President Bush authorized former White House aide I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby to divulge classified information about Iraq fits a pattern of selective leaks of secret intelligence to further the administration's political agenda .... Much of the information that the administration leaked or declassified, however, has proved to be incomplete, exaggerated, incorrect or fabricated."
It's rather difficult to see Bush's role in the scandal as justifying a presidential pardon for Libby. Quite the contrary: it is even more reason for citizens to demand the President honor the letter that Harry Reidand three other senators wrote to Bush in November of '05, requesting that he not deny justice in the case by pardoning Libby.
In fact, it provides strong evidence that the public needs to demand that the Plame scandal be a part of all this year's election debates. We need the House and Senate to begin investigations of the role that VP Dick Cheney played in the Plame scandal -- even if it leads directly to the role that George Bush played. That is why no one should consider talk of a pardon for Libby as anything other than part of a cover-up made necessary by the up-coming trial threatening to expose Dick Cheney as a criminal.

On Impeaching Dick Cheney

{1} "Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
-- James Madison to Thomas Jefferson; The Complete Madison; S.K. Padover; 1953; pg 258.
This week's Supreme Court decision against the Bush administration brought to mind the warnings expressed by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in his classic "The Imperial Presidency." In a book that may be more important today than when he wrote it in 1973, Schlesinger describes how -- and why -- the Founding Fathers included a "separation of powers" in the federal government.
There are, of course, three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The US Constitution outlines the powers that each branch enjoys. There is a built-in system of "checks and balances," which the 51st Federalist Paper states insures the "necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others."
Schlesinger makes clear that the checks and balances are intended to produce a healthy inertia that protects democratic institutions. He quotes Justice Brandeis's saying the goal is "not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power." (Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293; 1926)
Schlesinger's book focuses on how the executive branch has, throughout the nation's history, attempted to use the threat of, and from, war to justify the grabbing of power. This threatens the balance of power in the federal government. He is clear that he is not addressing the "political balance" that can occur if one political party controls the executive and legislative branches of government. Similarly, the political balance includes when a president attempts to influence the judicial branch by the appointment of federal judges.
Rather, his book concentrates on the "constitutional balance" as defined by the US Constitution. The danger is, as Schlesinger documents from a historical perspective, when a president attempts to do away with the checks and balances that define our democracy. He noted that previous presidents from both political parties had tried to acquire powers reserved specifically for the congress. When he wrote the book, Richard Nixon was making a grab for power that absolutely threatened our Constitutional democracy. He was convinced that future presidents would likely continue the trend leading towards a Revolutionary Presidency.
{2} "Cheney and Rumsfeld were, in a sense, part of the permanent, though hidden, national security apparatus of the United States, inhabitants of a world in which presidents may come and go, but America always keeps on fighting."
-- James Mann; Rise of the Vulcans; 2004; page 145.
In the 1950s, under the Eisenhower administration, a highly classified program was created to find a way to allow the federal government to continue to function in the event of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The general program has been know for the past 50 years as "continuity of government," or COG. Little is known from the Eisenhower years, except that the plans included having the executive branch hidden in highly secured bunkers, and the suspension of many civil liberties and possible martial law in the rest of the country. The government was to be run by the executive branch, with direct participation by military/intelligence officers and business leaders.
Curiously, the Eisenhower administration did not inform the in-coming Kennedy administration of the program. (James Bamford; A Pretext for War; 2004; page 70.) The COG program remained unexamined through the Johnson years, until the Nixon administration came to power. John Dean mentions being aware of it during his service to the Nixon administration in "Worse Than Watergate." (See page 120, footnote.)
But it was not until the Reagan years that the program that we find the COG program became a central focus of some of Washington's power brokers, including Cheney and Rumsfeld. Vice president George Bush supervised an effort by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ollie North, and James Woolsey to redefine how the US government would function in the case of a nuclear attack.
Mann wites that "Rumsfeld and Cheney were principal figures in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan administration. Under it, the administration furtively carried out detailed planning exercises to establish a new American 'president' and his staff, outside and beyond the specifications of the U.S. Constitution ..." (page 138) He notes that because the program was "extralegal and extraconstitutional," it was kept secret from the congress. In fact, he quotes one of the participants as saying, "One of the awkward questions we faced was whether to reconstitute Congress after a nuclear attack. It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them." (page 142) Instead, the plan included three teams of "leaders" from the executive branch, military/inteligence, and corporate heads who were "practiced in concrete, thorough, and elaborate detail" on how to run the country without Constitutional balance in times of "national emergency."
The COG program was discontinued during the Clinton administration. However, it came back full-force in the Bush2 administration. In "Plan of Attack," author Bob Woodward does not speak specifically about the COG program. However, on pages 29-30, he makes clear that Cheney was in charge of it: "Bush and Cheney agreed on still another role for the vice president. Given Cheney's background in national security going back to the Ford years .... Bush said at the top of his list of things he wanted Cheney to do was intelligence. .... Bush also asked Cheney to study the nation's vulnerability to terrorism, primarily biological and chemical threats. ... With the president's full knowledge and encouragement, Cheney became the self-appointed examiner of worst-case scenarios. Though it was not formalized, he would look at the darker side, the truly bad and terrifying scenarios. By experience and temperament, it was the ideal assignment for Cheney. He felt they had to be prepared to think about the unthinkable."
{3} "Cheney was the dominant figure on September 11."
-- James Mann; Rise of the Vulcans; 2004; page 296.
There were five good books published in 2004 which describe aspects of the COG program. They include Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies"; James Mann's "Rise of the Vulcans"; James Bamford's "A Pretext for War"; Senator Robert Byrd's "Losing America"; and John Dean's "Worse Than Watergate."
On 9-11, CBS News ran footage of Richard Clarke explaining the concept of "continuity of government." The final edition of the Washington Post reported that "Bush flew immediately to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana where he was expected to consult with top advisers, who had already begun outlining backup plans that go by the gim name of 'continuity of government'." Clarke, who was helping coordinate efforts with Cheney, had been the official who announced the COG operations were being instituted. Rumsfeld contacted Paul Wolfowitz, who left Washington to become part of the official COG operation.
Dean notes that Bush became the first US president "to truly employ a secret government" when, within hours of the 9-11 attacks, he and Cheney activated the COG plans. (page 120-124) It is interesting to note that both the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government have similar plans for continuity if the nation is attacked. However, both branches rely upon the executive to notify them before they put their plans in action. There was no notfication following 9-11 to either the Congress or US Supreme Court.
The Sunday following 9-11, VP Cheney appeared on television, giving what Mann described as an "extraordinarily detailed, coherent account both of the events of that day and of the administration's emerging response...." (page 297) Cheney's appearance stood in stark contrast to President Bush's public statements. Cheney then disappeared into a series of "undisclosed locations," causing many to question if it was because of Karl Rove's concerns that the nation -- and indeed, the world -- viewed Cheney as being in charge, rather than Bush. In fact, VP Cheney was the acting head of the COG program, also known as the "shadow government."
From 9-11 until March 1, 2002, the rest of the country was largely unaware that the "shadow government" had been instituted. But then, the Washington Post ran the front-page headline: "Shadow Government is at Work in Secret; After Attacks, Bush Ordered 100 Officials to Bunkers Away From Capital to Ensure Federal Survival."
In his book, Senator Byrd wrote: "Only hours after the September 11 attacks, the administration installed a 'shadow government' of about a hundred senior executive branch officials to live and work secretly outside Washington at two East Coast locations, reportedly run from the White House. White House chief of staff Andrew Card directs the shadow government from the White House, where he is immune from giving testimony to Congress (have we heard this before?). The shadow government is supposed to assume command of the government in case of a national emergency. Of course, this shadow government consists of one branch only, the executive branch. ....the Congress has not sanctioned the shadow government, nor were members of Congress even made aware of its existence until the story was leaked in March 2002. This shadow government has been described as an 'indefinite precaution,' which can mean anything. While a few newspaper stories appeared in March 2002, very little new information has been reported since then. The shadow government is presumed to continue its operation outside of congressional oversight." (pages 78-79)
{4} "No point is of more importance, than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice? Above al shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice?"
--George Mason's statement to the Constitutional Convention; quoted by Schlesinger in "The Imperial Presidency; page 414.
On MSNBC's "Countdown," Dana Milbank reported that President Bush's advisers had warned him he was at risk of losing the case in the Supreme Court. However, Bush based his position on advice from VP Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington. This should come as no surprise to the American public: as we look at the actions of the Bush-Cheney administration in their "war on terror," we see that they are much more in line with a "shadow government" than with a constitutional executive.
The fact that the Supreme Court would rule against the administration so strongly on issues involving the legal rights of prisoners of war is telling. We also have glaring examples of the suspension of liberties provided to US citizens under the Bill of Rights. The domestic spying campaigns are the most obvious and illegal examples.
Media reports this week have shown that a growing number of citizens recognize that the Congress should be considering investigations that can lead to impeachment. Apparently, some republican leaders are convinced that if democrats make the possible impeachment of George Bush a campaign issue this year, that it will benefit supporters of the president.
Arthur Schlesinger had pointed out that the need to keep the balance of powers in place should not be mistaken for an excuse to damage the presidency. Rather, the goal should be to keep a strong presidency within the context of the Constitution, along with a strong Congress and Judiciary. The obvious example of the damage congress can do to the presidency was found in the republican attacks on Bill Clinton.
I believe that the best thing for the democratic party, and for the nation, would be to make the potential impeachment of VP Dick Cheney a 2006 campaign issue. Cheney represents the greater danger to our Constitutional democracy. I do not pretend that George Bush is simply a clown fronting for the neoconservative "shadow government." But I think that we should deal with Dick Cheney first.