Minihan's World

Is Obama a war criminal yet?

Arlington VA 9 March 2011

The Washington Times, in its editorial pages today, posed the question, and it raises interesting issues.  The Dems were hot to call Goerge W Bush to account, and a number suggested he might be a war criminal for his actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as his continued detentions at Gitmo.  At the time, there were real concerns that he (Bush) might be grabbed in some foreign country, like Spain, that think they can prosecute anyone for anything throughout the world.

Not we have Barack Hussein Obama who has rescinded his previous orders to close Gitmo, decided to return to the flawed commissions, and might even just keep those at the detention facility forever without any formal charges--most of which would be thrown out by the real courts anyway over torture and delays in prosecution.  He calls this protecting us from terrorism. Add to this his order that native-bron American citizens can be killed overseas by the CIA because they are 'suspected' of terror activities, and you have a real mess.  What comes next?

The politics that pervades America today is slowly dragging us down into the sewers that breed contempt and aversion to law.  Obama's Justice Department is, at the least, worse than the Ashcroft regime and can't find good, ethical lawyers to staff its senior positions.  Stay tuned--it is bound to get worse at this administration gets closer to the next election.

Stacking the Deck: The Justice Department

The rising crescendo of criticism of the current Attorney-General is making it harder to manage the Department as more resources are diverted to the blooming set of Democratic fishing expeditions.

Yesterday, in apparent anticipation of the testimony next week of Attorney-general Gonzalez, the House Judiciary Committee issued its first subpoena on the records concerning the firing of the eight US Attornies, claiming that it needed more information.  What is really needed to do was ratchet up the rhetoric so that the AG is on the defensive as he testifies on the removal of eight political appointments--with no tenure rights to their jobs.

Meanwhile, Iglesius of Arizona has now decided that he was 'fired' because of his reserve duty--instead of his inability to be an effective US Attorney.  If nothing else works, then try to be shielded by a law not designed to protect those whose only real qualification for a job is a political contribution, and a law degree.

The next thing you know, they will be blaming the Imus stupidity on the White House.

The Emerging Political Bureaucracy

Here comes the next step in the eventual Democratic plan to impeach the current president.

Political appointees have traditionally served at the "pleasure of the President."  At the onset of the Clinton admin istration, and again following his re-election, US Attornies, as with other political appointees, were expected to submit their resignations, giving the President a free hand in fashioning his administration.  Clinton alone removed over 120 during his term.  There was no major noise from the Republican-controlled House or Senate, and very little noise from the Democrat Senators and Congressmen.  That was then, however.

Now, the Democrats are in change of the Congress, and, when a few sniveling US Attornies get replaced, as is traditional, both the House and Senate are up in arms--calling it 'political interference' in the affairs of the Justice Department.  As usual, it is really another veiled attempt at getting to Karl Rove.

The LA TImes reported the Senate committee vote this morning, with a good article on what is happening.  One particularly cogent comment was from Senator Jeff Sessions of (R)Alabama.  "The president feels strongly that hauling his top aides" before Congress "is not … appropriate.  It ( the conflict ) really is a separation of powers issue," Sessions said there is plenty of time later -- after the eight U.S. attorneys and Justice Department officials have testified under oath -- to authorize subpoenas for White House aides.  That certainly seems to be a reasonable approach.

Surprisingly, the Boston Herald, usually willing to quote extensively on any thing Teddy Kennedy has to say, was more balanced in its morning editions, discussing both Presidential Spokesman Tony Snow's comments, along with those of both sides of the aisle in the Senate.

In the Herald, John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee promised, “Trust me, we are not going to move in a reckless or angry or temperamental way at all.”   Believe that and I have bridge for you to buy.  Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiicary Comittee was even mnoire candid in his comments, saying, “I do not take lightly a take-it-or-leave-it so-called offer from the White House, I believe in the prerogatives of the United States Senate.”  Those prerogatives, of course, include potential impeachment.

Apparently, the honeymoon with the Democrats is now really over.  We're back to crippling political battles that have crushed this nation, and its government, for too many years.

The New Congress: Partners or Partisans?

The Cincinnati Enquirer had an interesting article this morning on the leadership of the next session of the House of Representatives, and a good quote from the Speaker-presumptive, Nancy Pelosi on her 'ethical Congress' next year.  What she says is really laughable, considering her next steps.  She intends apparently to '"lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history."  Then, with onkly a breath or two to spare, came out in favor of John Murtha (D-PA) for Majority Leader.  Other notables included Alcee Hastings (D-FL), trhe previously disgraced former judge who, after impeachmentand removal from the bench, ran, and was elected, to a house seat.

The Boston Globe reports on the election results and the desire of the Democratic leadership for a centrist philosophy, one which will probably include a few digs at the President and his cabinet., through extensive investigations, supported by innumerable subpeonas covering every aspect of the six-year old Bush Administration.  This is an article to read is you want to ubnderstand the pitfalls that can befall the fragile new majority in both the House and the Senate.

The real questions here will be the responses of the administration to oversight.  Will they drag their feet on producing documents, much like the Clinton staff did, and risk impeachment hearings?  Only time will tell.

Will oversight start the Impeachment ball rolling?

An article scheduled to appear on November 24th in the Executive Intelligence Review, a potential scenario emerges that makes much sense.  Most House Democrats right nowagree that 'impeachment is off the table', but will that change as the new series of oversight hearings in the various committees brings forth further stonewalling by the President and his minions?  There is some logical thought to that possibility.

While I don't necessarily agree with the political philosophy of Lyndon LaRouche, many of the words in this particular article, 'Oversight hearings can lead strainght to Impeachment' has a solid ring to it.

In other news, Cindy Sheehan seems to be the biggest pusher for impeachment proceedings.  her latest missive was in the Bay News on November 18th (read the article here), and, as expected, she frames the possibility in terms of justice for the servicements who have died in the current set of wars.  Mrs. Sheehan has created Impeach for Change as her sounding board for impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.  it will include a marcvh to Washington in January, 2007.

The Huffington Post today has a lead article by Russell Shaw on potential impeachment that is worth reading. His comments were incisive in their moderation.   "Listen, the urge for revenge goes deep. You feel it. A Scorpio engrammed for revenge- I feel it. We were lied to, the Iraq War is unjust. And as we've seen on so many bumper stickers, "nobody died when Clinton lied."

But let the impeachment urge just be lust for now.

What we need to do in Congress the next two years is to not tie up the national discourse on who cooked the books about WMD, nibble at the edges, trying to pass the type of incremental health care and other reforms that help the American public without being transformative enough to earn a sure Presidential veto. And be a profound voice for downsizing in Iraq much sooner rather than later."

The debate is beginning to range from the serious to the ridiculous, but there is debate going on that may rise to enough noise that some investigation will be required.  Among the more humerous is that going on in Muscogee, Oklahoma, where their Muscogee Phoenix   reports, "This is the point of what our impeachment investigation of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is all about here in Oklahoma. Not only do we think they have been guilty of crimes, but we think we can prove it with the grand jury investigation, and one of the punishments we will be asking the prosecutors to pursue is reimbursement of the costs to the United States from their misdeeds.

One instance would be the no-bid contracts to Halliburton and the expenses of the Iraq war, which were knowingly started by both men without a declaration of war from Congress. They knowingly did the aggression using the assets of the United States in a war that was started and conducted under false pretenses."

The next few months should be very interesting indeed.

Senate Democrat demands CIA Detainee Documents

US News is reporting  an Associated Press story today that Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is demanding the White House release to the Senate Judiciary Committee documents recently revealed through an ACLU Lawsuit on unlawful detainees of prisoners.

Leahy, who is scheduled to be the new Judiciary Chairman in January, wants two documents, one of which relates to authorization by Bush of foreign detainee prisons, and also one on interrogation methods that can be used against high-level prisoners.  The Justice Department spokeman, Brian Roehrkasse, has responded that Justice will answer the demands, and has already invoked the possibility of executive privilege.

Watch the requests mount over the next several weeks, as the Democrats assume power, and start to build a case of obstruction and illegal acts against the president. 

The complete story can be found here.

Impeachment Watch

I've created a new news category to start chronicling the event likely to see the Democrats try to impeach President Bush.  i believe they will try, just as theRepublicans did with Clinton.  So.  Watch these pages as the saga unfolds in the newly-Democrat Congress and Senate.