Buck Naked Politics

Who Will The Pardoner Pardon?

by Damozel | Apparently, the power to issue presidential pardons is one more way Bush and his pals can make a bad job look even worse.  At The Politico, Josh Gerstein reminds us of Bill Clinton twelfth-hour pardoning frenzy and does a bit of speculation about what Bush might do.

Bush is...facing pressure from conservative allies, who see pardons of former Bush administration officials and some others as a more realistic possibility. At the top of their lists: Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, still under investigation for his role in a series of U.S. attorney firings. (via Memeorandum)

Yet More Evidence of Bush Administration Lies: Cheney Admits that His Talking Points Helped Bring About the Outing of Valerie Plame? (With Music Video)

by Damozel | Deb reported yesterday on Henry Waxman's courage and intrepidity in trying---in vain, but trying---to hold the Bush administration accountable for something. Both he and John Conyers, his Senate counterpart did their all.  I suppose it never occurred to past presidents that if you just said, "Oh yeah?  Make me!" to Congress and the courts, there wouldn't be a whole lot they could actually do about it.  Well, at least not with a Democratic Congress composed by and large of invertebrates.

Department of ValeDICKtions: Dick Cheney---Going Out with a Growl, Not a Whimper

 by the Guys from the Annex| We're all caught up in holiday activities at the moment, but who could resist all these cherishable final moments of the Cheney Administration?   Certainly not us.   It's just the right time for the Anti-Claus!

As Jon Stewart has so rightly said, we don't know Dick.  Yes, he's still a douchebag wrapped in an enigma and dipped in a  mystery! And---in the immortal words of the Turtles, c. 1960-something---the more we see, the more we see there is to see! 

 by the Guys from the Annex| We're all caught up in holiday activities at the moment, but who could resist all these cherishable final moments of the Cheney Administration?   Certainly not us.   It's just the right time for the Anti-Claus!

As Jon Stewart has so rightly said, we don't know Dick.  Yes, he's still a douchebag wrapped in an enigma and dipped in a  mystery! And---in the immortal words of the Turtles, c. 1960-something---the more we see, the more we see there is to see! 

Should Cheney Face Trial?

Via The New York Times,

"Jack Balkin of Yale, left, and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago debate whether members of the Bush administration should face trial."

Grace in Victory Goes Only so Far: Impeachment Should go Back on the Table

by Deb Cupples |   I know: in less than three months, we'll be seeing the back of President George Bush. Tuesday put most Americans in a good (and hopeful) mood, given the historic victory of Barack Obama and the booting out of Congress some previously rock-solid Republican fixtures. 

We've had a night and a full day to celebrate.  Now it's time to get back to work: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should put impeachment on the table, and the House should schedule a vote.  Next week would be nice.

Impeachment is not about revenge or retaliation.  It's about accountability, deterrence, and the restoration of Americans' faith in our government.

Is Impeachment Coming? Probe Begins re Falsified Documents Justifying Iraq War

by Deb Cupples |  Rewind five years or so.  Remember the multiple rationales marketed by the Bush Adminsitration (and by many unquestioning media outlets) meant to persuade us taxpayers that our nation should invade Iraq?

The first claim, as I recall, was Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.  Next was Iraq bought uranium.  Then came Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks.  Just days before a gaggle of gullible journalists were "embedded" with our  Iraq-bound troops, the battle cry became "Free the Iraqi people."

Back then, I thought: the man doth insist too much.  If Bush had one valid reason for invading Iraq, why was his team trying to hard-sell us ordinary folks with more "reasons"? Back then, my mother thought I was merely being hyper-cynical.

Yesterday, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers sent letters to potential witnesses, thereby officially launching the probe into whether Bush Administration officials had falsified documents meant to help (falsely) justify our nation's invasion of Iraq.

McClellan to Obama: Don't Investigate/Prosecute War Criminals or Torturers

Posted by Damozel |  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[W]hen asked what advice he would give to a President Barack Obama or Democratic Congress on the matter of handling former Bush officials, McClellan speaks now of the perils of probing the past.

House Committee to Investigate Forged Evidence re: Iraq

by Deb Cupples |   Based on recorded and transcribed interviews, Pulitizer-Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind's new book ("The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism") alleges that the Bush Administration "created and promoted forged documents" about Iraq before the U.S.'s invasion of that nation.

Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced that he has instructed Committee staff to review Suskind's allegations.  After the jump is a list of specific allegations to be investigated:

Pelosi's Book Has a Bad First Week

by Deb Cupples |   House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a newly published book (Know Your Power), and sales are reportedly very low, says the Drudge Report.  Incidentally, I don't like quoting Mr. Drudge -- given his intensely questionable reliability, but he linked to credible sources on this story (like Nielsen Bookscan), so I figured I'd be safe.

Drudge wrote that Doubleday had launched Pelosi's book with "a full media push."

Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's newly published book will start selling a bit better if she starts acting more like a Democrat. 

Pelosi's Shifting Rationales for Blocking Impeachment of Bush

by Damozel | I've been off for a few days, so I didn't cover this.  Fortunately, legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who knows more than I do, did, as did Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars.  Let's start with Turley.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued her search...for a plausible rationale for personally blocking any impeachment investigation of President Bush. The latest explanation can in an interview with Time Magazine. It seems that she would not allow an investigation because Bush would never have supplied incriminating evidence against himself. It seems that House investigators rely on the accused to build an impeachment case.

Seymour Hersh: Dick Cheney's Plan for Provoking War with Iran

Did administration officials actually meet to work out how they could go about provoking a war with Iran?  Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh says that they did.

In Hersh’s most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The “meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. ‘The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,’” according to one of Hersh’s sources. (Think Progress)

Democrats Call for Contempt Charges Against Rove

by Teh Nutroots | The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to hold him in contempt.  (NYT) I find it extraordinary that everyone, including all Republicans, doesn't hold him in contempt.  Why do Republicans insist on shielding wrongdoers within the Bush administration?(NYT)  Lying to Congress got Bill Clinton impeached in the House. 

But defying Congress?  That's apparently fine, even for people who aren't the president.  'The White House has invoked executive privilege in asserting that current and former top officials cannot be forced to testify before Congress, because the president’s right to confidential advice from his trusted aides would then be compromised.' (NYT) 

Congress Considers The Culpability of the Bush Administration for Murder and War Crimes (with Videos)

by Damozel | As you know, Congress is finally sitting down to consider the many offenses of the Bush Administration. H/T to Crooks and Liars for bringing these speeches (and a related discussion in the mainstream media) together for me..

Via John Amato at Crooks and Liars: hear Manson-family prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi---author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder---set out his case for a criminal referral to the DoJ.  It's quite riveting. 

Pelosi Slams Bush: is She Gearing up to Support Impeachment?

by Deb Cupples |   In response to President Bush's criticism of Congress (for not yet having passed any spending bills), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN:

"God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject...  For him to be challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again -- at the end of the day, Congress will have passed its responsibility to pass legislation."

Mrs. Pelosi has criticized the President's actions before, but she rarely criticized him in such a personal way.  I can't help wondering what's on her mind. 

Is she gearing up to support impeachment of President Bush -- despite her having taken impeachment "off the table" last year?

Is the House Finally Ready to Consider Impeachment?

by Deb Cupples |   Two days ago, the House voted to send Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s latest impeachment effort (H.R. 1345) to the House Judiciary Committee (CQ).  Merely impeaching President Bush would not remove him from office: removal would require a conviction by two-thirds of the Senate members present. (Constitution, Article I, sections 2 & 3) 

Given the Senate's current make up, it seems unlikely that the Senate actually would convict President Bush, but the House has the numbers to impeach him. 

Even without a conviction, mere impeachment would be worthwhile if only to send messages 1) to future presidents with power-abuse problems, and 2) to future school children who will learn about our nation's character and values by studying American history. 

That and impeachment would let the world's other (largely horrified) nations know that America is not as fundamentally horrifying as the Bush Administration has made us seem.

Today, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers announced that the committee will hold a hearing on July 25 about the "the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses. "  That seems like a solid move forward on impeachment.  Conyers states:

Dennis Kucinich Presents Articles of Impeachment to Congress

by Damozel |  You know, there was actually a time when I opposed impeachment of President Bush.  My reasons were pragmatic:  the impeachment of Bush would mean a Cheney presidency, or a Rice presidency, and I couldn't see how either would represent an improvement.   I also had a concern about some sort of wag-the-dog reaction in the direction of Iran.

But never mind that: as my colleague, D Cupples, has pointed out, there's really a moral imperative to impeach Bush and Cheney.  Dennis Kucinich has tried before to take steps against Bush and Cheney, though without getting a result.  As we all know, most---though by no means all--- Congressional Dems are invertebrates.

Bush's Approval Ratings: Worst of Anyone's Since the Invention of the Gallup

Posted by Damozel | Meanwhile, did you know that Bush is still president?  It's true.  And his approval ratings, which we'd previously thought were about as low as they could go, have now seeped through the bedrock.  Once the president with the highest approval ratings in the history of the Gallup polls, he is now the president with the worst.  Hey, but at least he's the best at being the worst!

Bush Confirms Torture Policy (Part 2) to the Sound of Crickets Chirping

Posted by Damozel | Why isn't this story all over the news?  Why are we talking about anything else? It's the very same weekend when Bush blandly confirmed that oh yeah, he knew all about it?  Why aren't he and Cheney and the whole crew about to be impeached?   Have the wheels of justice really rusted to a complete stop?  Are we really so cynical that we're past being shocked or thinking there's anything we can do about this? 

Not all of us.  Digby writes:

I thought I was long past the point of being shocked at anything the Bush administration did. They suspended the constitution after 9/11 and set forth a series of legal opinions that said the president can do anything he deems necessary to "protect the country." Once you truly absorb that fact, it's hard to be emotionally affected by anything else you learn.