Here is a report on impeachment from a new
member of the LA chapter of VFP.
VFP National Office
I'm a new member of Veterans for Peace, responding to your call for a
report from an attendee at the Sept. 13 "public conversation" on
presidential impeachment at the University of California, Los Angeles,
featuring former White House counsel John W. Dean and former
Congresswoman and Judiciary Committee member Elizabeth Holtzman. Both
were central figures in the impeachment proceedings against President
Richard Nixon in 1974.
Dean and Holtzman each have recently written books addressing this
subject: Dean, Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown, April 2004), and
Holtzman, The Impeachment of George W. Bush (Nation Books, September
2006). The views they expressed in Los Angeles on Sept. 13 are well
summarized in interviews conducted on Sept. 12 by Truthdig managing
editor Blair Golson, at
John Dean, Impeachment
and
Elizabeth Holtzman, Impeachment.
Holtzman asserted that there is no question of George W. Bush's having
committed a number of "high crimes and misdemeanors," each of which
for calls for impeachment -- not so much as matters of criminality,
but as abuses of power: intentionally deceiving the public [with
regard to Iraq]; deliberately ignoring the law [wiretapping]; failure
to comply with a treaty [the Geneva conventions]; abdication of
responsibilities of the office [Katrina]. Holtzman feels our
"constitutional democracy is at stake." The only question for her is
whether the public has the will to undertake the proceedings. This
must be clearly demonstrated to Congress (regardless of which party is
in control) before it will act. Dean is more cautious, stating that
the grounds for impeachment are strong only where there has been
direct and harmful action, such as taking the country to war in a
deliberate deception, which he acknowledges was the case with Iraq.
Holtzman noted that the press today shows little inclination to
aggressively explore the issues, as it did in 1973-74. Dean feels the
public today is still not nearly as aware of the presidential abuses
of power as it was then, when a special prosecutor (Archibald Cox) was
already at work, dramatically revealing a succession of shocking
misdeeds. (A September 2006 CNN poll showed 69% of Americans still
opposed to impeaching Bush.) And in the case of Nixon, in contrast to
the later proceedings against President Clinton, the primary
motivation was one of principle, not politics. Legislators, as well
as the top officials at the Justice Department, respected the law and
followed their individual consciences, rather than blindly submitting
to the leadership as they are prone to do today.
Dean argued that a new, Democrat-controlled House of Representatives
would "have a duty to tell Americans what the Bush administration has
been up to the past six years," but it "would be forced to start from
scratch, hiring investigators and legal staff, and then commencing an
investigation against a presidency that has made stonewalling into an
art form." And for it to do so, facing the likelihood that a new but
still Republican-controlled Senate would not vote for conviction,
could be harmful to the nation. Another political debacle like the
Clinton investigation could severely weaken the stature of the
Constitution's impeachment clauses.
Dean does not entirely rule out impeachment, even in that likely
situation, and he expressed faith in the good judgment of potential
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to conduct a thorough and
responsible inquiry. But he left the impression that he would hope
instead for a resignation, or even be content to await the 2008
election -- to spare the country the agony and distraction of what
might become a protracted and all-consuming political battle, and to
preserve the integrity of the Constitution. As he said in the Sept.
12 Truthdig interview, "Democracy, and our constitutional machinery,
is quite sturdy, but they cannot withstand endless incautious
political abuses."
Ed Fisher
Los Angeles
And you may want to read and pass on the following to anyone you might know that has a need to know about this, especially if they haven't been contacted by the military or DoD. Subject lines of wht this covers are highlighted, visit links for complete information and important links.
DEADLINE FOR FILING CLAIMS FOR PROTECTIVE GEAR IS 3 OCT 2006
Posted By Major Robert Hanafin
From the Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) Chapter Listserv.
To any member of Veterans for America (VFA) with family members, friends, or who themselves qualify for protective gear reimbursement from the Pentagon, PLEASE TAKE NOTE and pass this information on to other Iraq War Veterans or their family members. Many of us meet folks who have purchased protective equipment for themselves or their loved ones in the past.
Protective Gear Reimbursement Program
What equipment qualifies for reimbursement?
Who’s a proper claimant?
How and to whom should a claim be filed?
How is the amount of reimbursement determined?
Is there a deadline for filing claims?
How is payment made?
Where can I get additional information or ask questions?
If you get a security warning ignore and click on the selection to go to the PDF file anyway.
THESE WILL NOT BE NATIONAL SECURITY WARININGS BUT YOUR INTERNAL COMPUTER SECURITY WARNINGS OR ALERTS SO THEY CAN BE IGNORED.
Robert L. Hanafin Specialist Five, U.S. Army (69-76)
Major, USAF (77-94) Retired Army - Dad
No comments:
Post a Comment