Come on, Dems, impeach the President already, why wait?

1. Whose Table? -- by Bill C. Davis

When Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean declare that impeachment is off the table one has to ask, at what table are they sitting? Do they see the Bush administration as chairman of a board on which they serve? Is this an investor stockholder meeting that is being given arbitrary goodfella parameters?

When speaker Pelosi speaks about the "incompetence" of the president she is being polite and misleading. Neither she nor Howard Dean know in depth or in truth what created the decisions that have all our hands drenched in blood. They need to find out how the decision to invade Iraq happened and then decide what is on or off this odd, polished table at which we find ourselves having to sit quietly.

The arsonist who caused the most recent fires in California was tracked down as the fires were being fought. So too the culprits for this war need to be found, questioned and at least be relieved of their positions. And as James Baker reports his findings and makes his suggestions, someone from the newly elected congress might suggest that all war profits be returned to the US treasury. That would put a few scratch marks on the table.

The population of the United States also needs to do a kind of examination of conscience. 76% of Americans were for the war in Iraq in April 2003. While in Richmond, Virginia recently I saw a stunning piece of graffiti written in red - "Atone. Impeach. Now." It implies citizen culpability and power. We let this happen and we, through this newly elected congress, have a chance to atone. But taking the most powerful remedy off the table, makes the table a set decoration, and the people sitting at it actors mouthing words and playing pre-digested scenes.

These seemingly fraternal and "bi-partisan" assurances are insults not only to the voters but to the integrity of the American logistics of representative government. If a president dupes congress, and uses the military as hitmen for reasons that were never and still are not clear, then he needs to be asked serious questions. And if his answers reveal high crimes, then the constitution provides for that.

In fact, at this shiny, slippery table it's the constitution that should be engrained as the centerpiece. For awhile and for many dark and troubling reasons the president has kept it off and now the new speaker has decided to keep it off. But the question remains and needs to be asked again and again - at whose table do they think they're sitting?

(Bill C. Davis is a playwright. www.billcdavis.com)


2. Calling Nancy Pelosi: The People's Case for Impeaching Bush -- by Elizabeth Holtzman/The Washington Spectator

(Editor's note: With their party back in power for the first time since 1994, some senior House Democrats who will be rising to committee chairmanships are already planning to conduct investigations into wrongdoings of the Bush administration in everything thing from fraud and abuse in Iraq War contracting to illegal domestic surveillance and detainee interrogations. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders, however, are signaling that any investigations will be kept on a tight leash. They fear that scrutiny of the administration will make Democrats appear excessively partisan and cost the party votes in 2008. As for the possible impeachment of President George W. Bush, Pelosi has explicitly declared it to be "off the table."

Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman is one wise legal thinker who says that, whether or not it would be a political liability for the Democrats, impeaching Bush is their constitutional duty. Holtzman served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. Holtzman's full brief on this subject can be found in The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens (Nation Books), which she co- wrote with Cynthia L. Cooper.)

Impeachment is an essential tool for preserving democracy. The framers of our Constitution, determined to provide protections against grave abuses of power by a president, created the impeachment process as a special procedure for citizens. Through their representatives, citizens would be able to remove a president run amok.

Our founders created a new form of government that was designed to preserve liberty by breaking up power among three co-equal branches of government and instituting a system of checks and balances. But they worried deeply about presidential misconduct. Left unchallenged, it could be "fatal to the Republic," said James Madison. The new democracy needed the ability to remove a president, if necessary.

Impeachment is the first step of a two-step process that can result in the removal of a president from office. The House of Representatives first decides whether to charge the president with impeachable offenses. If a majority of the House votes to impeach, articles of impeachment, which contain the charges, are forwarded to the Senate. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over a trial in the Senate, and if two-thirds of the senators vote for conviction, the president is removed from office.

THE FOUNDERS SET A HIGH BAR

The grounds for removal of a president are stated in the Constitution in a phrase of only eight words: "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Understanding the meaning of this spare language is helped by looking at the original debates on the Constitution. In adopting the impeachment provision, the framers identified treason and bribery as two key reasons for the removal of a president. Treason was defined in the Constitution as providing "aid and comfort" to enemies or "levying war" against the United States. Bribery is a well- established concept that hasn't changed much over time.

But the framers believed that these grounds were not sufficient. A president should also be removed for other "great and dangerous offenses" or the "attempts to subvert the Constitution," in the words of George Mason, a delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention. The grounds were expanded to include "high crimes and misdemeanors"-an archaic phrase that the framers borrowed from British terminology dating back to the fourteenth century. It was defined as "an injury to the state or system of government."

Alexander Hamilton explained in No. 65 of the Federalist Papers that impeachment reached "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may . . . be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself." In essence, "high crimes and misdemeanors" describe a political crime, a serious and grave abuse of power or an abuse of public trust.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not limited to actual crimes. We debated this in the Judiciary Committee during Watergate and reached a firm conclusion. While commission of a crime may be grounds for impeachment, the phrase also covers conduct that is not a violation of the criminal code.

The key is whether the conduct is a grave abuse of power or a subversion of the Constitution. Some presidential misdeeds we encountered in the Nixon impeachment had a basis in the criminal law; others did not. On the flip side, not all violations of the criminal code are political crimes that rise to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

THE ABC'S OF BUSH'S JOB

Under the Constitution, the president has three central obligations.

First, the president must "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States." This is part of the oath of office, which is itself mandated by the Constitution.

Second, the president must "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," also part of the oath of office. In other words, the president is required to respect the role of the Congress and the courts, as well as the fundamental liberties reserved to the citizens.

And third, the president is required "to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," an affirmative duty imposed directly by the Constitution. This presidential obligation carries great weight. Involved are two responsibilities, similar but separate: first, the president is required to "take care," or to be highly attentive, and, second, the president must see that the laws are "faithfully executed," or that the laws are fully followed. Combined, these impose a very strict burden on the president to ensure the proper implementation of the nation's laws.

A president cannot be impeached lightly. The framers rejected the notion of presidential impeachment for "maladministration." The term was, at one point, inserted in the impeachment provision but then replaced by "high crimes and misdemeanors." The framers thought maladministration was too vague and worried that it might put the president at the mercy of an overreaching Congress.

What is expected is that the president will uphold the Constitution and the laws and fulfill the oath of office. Carefully applying the law is a requirement for holding office. The president may not avoid, subvert, or undermine the law. Nothing excuses the president from fulfilling his constitutional obligationsnot incompetence or ignorance or lack of interest. The failure or the inability of a president to fulfill these obligations, for whatever reason, causes serious harm to democracy. Impeachment is the constitutional remedy to protect the future health of the nation.

THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES

President George W. Bush has engaged in acts that violate his obligations as president on a range of issues. These impeachable offenses include:

Deceiving Congress and the people in taking the country to war in Iraq.

Directing an illegal domestic wiretapping program and other surveillance of Americans.

Permitting and condoning the use of torture or cruel treatment of detainees.

Showing reckless indifference to human life in the face of Hurricane Katrina, in inadequately equipping U.S. soldiers, and in insufficiently planning for the occupation of Iraq.

Covering up his war deceptions with the leak of misleading classified information, an act that became entangled with the outing of a CIA agent, a possible crime.

1. For Deceptions in Taking the Country into War in Iraq:
War, in the view of the framers of the Constitution, would create one of the greatest temptations for a president to abuse power. Edmund Randolph, a member of the Constitutional Convention, noted, "The Executive will have great opportunities for abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands."

President Bush used false premises to drive the country to war, insisting that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons and linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The consequences have been enormous, and there is no end point to the duration or to lives lost in Iraq.

Taking our country into war based on false information is a misuse of presidential war-making power. Deceit nullifies the right and obligation of Congress to understand the issues at stake and to decide whether to support the war. The right of the American people to participate in the decision is cast aside. The actions "subvert the Constitution," under founder George Mason's definition of impeachable offenses.

James Iredell, a Justice on the first Supreme Court and a participant in the North Carolina ratification debates on the Constitution, commented that "the President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate." In responding to a complaint that the Senate would be too cozy with the president to vote for impeachment, Iredell disagreed, insisting that the Senate would not react kindly if a president "concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country."

Unless a clear message is sent, there is no way to ensure that the use of deceptions to lead the country to war will not be repeated by this president or another.

2. For Violating the Law on Wiretapping:
President Bush admitted that he has not complied with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and is engaging in domestic surveillance without seeking court orders. He said he plans to continue this conduct, even though his actions may invade the privacy and constitutional rights of thousands of American citizens. The president's refusal to obey the wiretapping statute, which carries a criminal penalty, violates his duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. It contravenes his oath of office, which requires him to obey the laws, and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Over the years, the president has publicly misrepresented the wiretapping programs, stating that no surveillance was being undertaken without a court order. President Nixon's repeated lying to the public formed the basis of one of the grounds for impeachment against him. President Bush's deceptions may form the grounds for impeachment, as well.

A second secret domestic-surveillance program, exposed in May 2006, is engaged in collecting and tracking the telephone calls of millions of Americans under the guise of foreign-intelligence surveillance. This program, begun without the approval of Congress or the courts, poses many potential violations of the law, and as details are uncovered, further grounds for impeachment also may be identified.

President Bush has attempted to justify his illegal surveillance as falling within his power as commander in chief. The president's failure to recognize that he is bound by a constitutional system in which he is only one of three players and his abuse of his role as commander in chief threaten our democracy to its core, and are grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

3. For Permitting and Condoning the Mistreatment of U.S. Detainees:
Congress has enacted laws prohibiting the mistreatment or torture of prisoners in U.S. hands. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a crime to violate the ban in the Geneva Conventions regarding torture and cruel or degrading treatment. Ratified by the United States in 1955, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land, as is the Convention against Torture. The U.S. government has long adhered to the laws and treaties that prevent mistreatment of prisoners.

President Bush unilaterally changed U.S. practice and policy by a 2002 memo rejecting the application of the Geneva Conventions and enabling U.S. personnel to conduct brutal interrogations without fear of prosecution. In so doing, the president voided a U.S. law and permitted others to break it. The president may not violate treaties or interpret them in ways designed to nullify their essential purpose.

In addition, when evidence emerged of abusive treatment of persons in U.S. military detention facilities, the president had a duty to institute a thorough investigation of everyone in the chain of command, from top to bottom. He has not done so. This responsibility is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions. The president is also required to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, including the War Crimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act. President Bush failed to ensure a full investigation and to see that the responsible parties, including higher-ups, were held accountable. These failures are impeachable offenses.

When Congress reaffirmed its opposition to torture and cruel or degrading treatment of detainees in a statute passed in 2005, the president added a statement when he signed the bill, signaling that he intended to violate it. Impeachment is the only way to prevent a president from continuing to disregard his obligations to enforce the law, not to break it.

4. For Reckless Indifference to Human Life during Hurricane Katrina:
President Bush showed a reckless indifference to human life in failing to marshal emergency resources in response to Katrina. This type of gross negligence is also apparent in his decision to invade Iraq without providing protective equipment to soldiers and without having an adequate post-invasion plan. If the president's actions were simple negligence, they might not amount to impeachable offenses. During the debates at the Constitutional Convention, one of the grounds initially raised for impeachment was "neglect of duty." At the convention, the Committee on Detail changed that language to "treason and bribery," which was in turn expanded by adding the term "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The framers were undoubtedly familiar with the history of that British term. At least two noteworthy impeachments for neglect had occurred in Britain: one involved the neglect of the commissioner of the Navy to prepare adequately against an invasion; the other related to neglect by an admiral who had failed to safeguard the seas. In a classic nineteenth-century text on constitutional interpretation, Thomas M. Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court states that impeachment can result from "inexcusable neglects of duty, which are dangerous and criminal because of the immense interests involved and the greatness of the trust which has not been kept."

Bush's actions during Katrina and in regard to Iraq are "inexcusable neglects." When Hurricane Katrina threatened New Orleans, President Bush was personally informed of an impending catastrophe, but did not take the necessary actions to protect human lives. Under law, he alone was empowered to mobilize additional federal resources. He did not take care that the laws were faithfully executed.

In addition, the president's failure to provide sufficient body armor and protective equipment for our troops in Iraq or to develop a proper plan for the occupation of Iraq after the invasion are violations of his obligation to "take care." U.S. soldiers and the American people trusted the president to exercise special care in making thorough preparations.

The president neglected his duty over matters of vast consequence and in situations where the trust placed in him was great. This conjunction of his failure to take care and his reckless indifference to human life provides the basis for impeachment.

5. For Leaking Classified Information:
After the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush authorized a top White House aide to leak passages of a classified document to key reporters. The leak came in response to criticism that the president had deceived the country about Iraq's nuclear weapons capability in his State of the Union address. The criticism was accurate, but the leak had the effect of distorting the truth.

The leak was intertwined with the "outing" of a covert CIA agent married to the Bush critic. Declassifying information to mislead the public and cover up presidential deceptions about war making is an abuse of power. If the facts, as yet unknown, show that President Bush had any role in releasing the identity of the CIA agent, a potential violation of federal law, that would be an impeachable offense.

President Bush has committed a great many grave and dangerous offenses, and subverted the Constitution. The evidence is clear and strong. Congress cannot shirk its responsibility to protect the nation from tyranny. This is what the founders of this country intended when they added presidential impeachment to the Constitution.


3. Are Democrats Turning A Blind Eye to Civil Liberty? -- y Paul Craig Roberts

Unless November's new blood improves the Democratic Party's civil liberties pedigree, the Democrats will have failed even before they are sworn in next January.

In its disregard for truth, public opinion, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution, and statutory law, the Bush administration has been more of a regime than an administration. The Bush/Cheney executive branch has operated independently of all the constraints that provide accountability and prevent despotism.

The Bush regime was able to evade these restraints because Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and because Republicans wielded 9/11 as a weapon to forestall political opposition.

With signing statements and other unilateral declarations of presidential authority, the Bush regime asserted executive branch powers beyond the reach of Congress and the judiciary.

The Bush regime perpetrated a coup d'état against the Bill of Rights and the jurisdictions of Congress and the courts. Unless Democrats roll back this coup, Americans have seen the last of their civil liberties.

Judging by Democrats' statements in the flush of their electoral victory, Democrats have little, if any, awareness of this critical fact. Democrats are anxious to get on with their agendas and have shown no recognition that the first order of business is to repeal the legislation that permits torture, warrantless detention, and domestic spying.

If Bush threatens to veto the resurrection of U.S. civil liberty, the Democrats can impeach Bush as a tyrant as well as for pushing America into an illegal and catastrophic war on the basis of lies and deception.

Bush is the most impeachable president in American history. However, the incoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has declared impeachment to be "off the table." Obviously, this means that Bush will not be held accountable and that the Bill of Rights is a casualty of the vague, undefined, and propagandistic "war on terror."

Do Pelosi and the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to remain a free people? Instead of bemoaning the damage Bush has done to civil liberty, Democrats are up in arms over one child in five being raised in poverty. The more important question is whether children are being raised as a free people protected by civil liberties from arbitrary government power.

Do Democrats share the delusion of Bush supporters that it is only Middle Eastern terrorists who are deprived of the protection of the U.S. Constitution? One can understand the reluctance of Americans to extend constitutional protection to terrorists who are trying to kill Americans. However, without these protections, there is no way of ascertaining who is a terrorist.

Currently, a "terrorist" is anyone given that designation by any of a large number of unaccountable government officials and military officers. No evidence has to be provided in order to detain a designated suspect. Moreover, designated suspects can be convicted in military tribunals on the basis of secret evidence not made available to them or to any legal representation that they might be able to secure. In other words, you are guilty if charged.

As the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla makes clear, these Gestapo police-state proceedings apply to Americans. Padilla was declared to be an "enemy combatant." He was held in a U.S. prison for three and one-half years with no charges and no warrant. He was kept in isolated confinement, tortured, and denied legal representation.

In order to avoid U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case, the Bush regime filed charges after stealing three and one-half years of Padilla's life. However, the charges have no relationship to the Bush regime's original allegations that Padilla, an Hispanic-American, was an al-Qaeda operative who was going to set off a radioactive dirty bomb in an American city. The U.S. government no longer designates Padilla as an "enemy combatant." The dirty bomb charge has disappeared, and U.S. Federal District Judge Marcia Cooke has criticized the government's indictment as vague with sketchy evidence "weak on facts."

The reason that the Bush regime wants to detain people indefinitely without evidence is that it has no evidence. The reason the Bush regime passed torture legislation is in order to produce the missing evidence by torturing a suspect into self-incrimination. "Evidence" procured by torture has been illegal in civilized societies for centuries. But the Bush regime has resurrected the medieval rack and substituted it for the Bill of Rights.

If Democrats cannot bring themselves to rectify the inhumane and barbaric practices that now pass for U.S. justice, then they, too, have failed the American people.


4. Ten Reasons Congress Must Investigate Bush Administration Crimes -- by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith

Few elections in history have provided so clear a mandate. As the New York Times put it, Democrats were “largely elected on the promise to act as a strong check on [Bush’s] administration.” [1] But the first response of the new Congressional leadership has been to proclaim a new era of civility and seek accommodation with the very people who need to be held accountable for war crimes and subversion of the Constitution.

Democratic strategists who argue for this kind of bipartisanship maintain that the American people want their political leaders to address the problems of the future, not pursue recriminations about the past. They therefore oppose the kind of penetrating investigation that a White House strategist told Time would lead to a “cataclysmic fight to the death” [2] if Democrats start issuing subpoenas. If such “peace at any price” Democrats prevail, the result will be a catastrophe not only for the Democratic party but for American democracy.

Establishing accountability will require a thorough investigation of the actions of the Bush administration and, if they have included crimes or abuses, ensuring that these are properly addressed by Congress and the courts. The purpose of such action is not to play “gotcha” based on hearsay and newspaper clippings.
Investigation, exposure, and even prosecution or select committee proceedings, should they become necessary, are primarily means for reestablishing the rule of law. But such investigations may be blocked by the Democratic leadership unless American citizens and progressive Democrats in particular demand them. Here are ten reasons why they should:

1. The US faces a constitutional crisis that goes far beyond either partisan politics or isolated acts of wrongdoing. The Bush administration has tried to replace the constitutional rule of law with the power of the Executive branch to disregard both the laws established by the Legislative branch and the judgments of the Judicial branch. It has cloaked this power grab with a mantle of secrecy. Only by demonstrating the power of Congress to know what the Executive branch does can even the possibility of constitutional checks and balances be restored. The prerequisite for oversight is the right to know. Unless Congress successfully asserts that right, the Executive’s usurpation of power will be permanent and unlimited.

2. The Democrats are in danger of walking into a death trap the Bush administration and the Republican leadership are setting for them. The Democrats won the election on ending the Iraq war and holding the President accountable. In the current courtship they are being invited to come up onto the bridge of the Titanic and share responsibility for the catastrophe. If they do that, they will end up at the 2008 election with a disillusioned public (especially their own base) who give them equal blame for the war and its catastrophic consequences. As the Nationl recently editorialized, “Democrats must not forget the voters' message. If they collaborate in allowing continued bloodletting in Iraq, they will pay the price themselves in future elections.” [3 ]

3. Defending the Constitution by investigating breaches in the rule of law will allow Democrats to appeal to new bases of support among independents and others concerned about the rule of law. It provides a way of reaching out without selling out. The potential for such a broad and powerful coalition is exemplified by a recent statement by the Constitution Project -- which includes both liberals and conservatives like David Keene, Chair of the American Conservative Union -- that hails the election result as "an opportunity to restore checks and balances." It says, "The president has asserted that he has virtually unrestrained authority and that Congress and the courts have none. Congress must exercise, and the president must respect, its constitutional obligation to legislate and conduct oversight on issues like NSA wiretapping, military commissions, the detention and treatment of 'enemy combatants,' habeas corpus, and the power to declare war." If the Republicans were able to win by running on the Bible, Democrats can do far better by running on the Constitution and restoring the rule of law.

4. Bush still holds most of the institutional cards on foreign policy, especially given his claims that the President can exercise authority without Congressional constraint. Short of an unlikely cutoff of funds, he can continue to conduct foreign policy and command the military as he chooses. Congress has few direct levers to impose Democratic proposals for new diplomatic initiatives or troop redeployments. It does not even have effective institutional means to stop further Bush administration adventures, such as an attack on Iran. The key to establishing power over foreign and military policy is to so discredit the Administration in the eyes of the public that neither Republican politicians nor the military, the intelligence agencies, the foreign policy establishment, or the corporate elite will allow it to continue on its catastrophic course. And that requires not friendly negotiations with the White House to find a formula for bipartisan packaging of policy decisions Bush has already made, but a devastating exposure of the criminality, corruption, stupidity, and false premises of those who are making the decisions.

5. A Democratic Congress that fails to assert its prerogatives against the President will soon find itself losing the initiative in the face of the President’s capacity to frame issues. While investigations are sometime portrayed as purely negative acts, by putting the Administration on the defensive they may actually lay the groundwork for constructive Democratic proposals.

6. A majority of the American people and an overwhelming proportion of grassroots Democrats want the President impeached. A mobilization for impeachment was kicked off last weekend with speeches by Elizabeth Holtzman, Cindy Sheehan, and others. Serious investigation of Bush administration malfeasance is probably the only way that Democratic leaders reluctant to pursue impeachment can avoid themselves becoming the target of this constituency. Indeed, impeachment advocates can be encouraged to direct some of their energy to supporting such investigations on the grounds that exposure of high crimes and misdemeanors might be the only way to put impeachment “on the table.”

7. Exposing the truth about America’s actions in the world over the past years, and holding those responsible for it accountable, is the prerequisite to setting relations with the world on a new, more constructive basis. As Philippe Sands, professor at University College London and a leading international human rights lawyer, puts it, “If the United States is to re-engage effectively with the rest of the world they have to resurrect accountability for their high officials.”

8. The US government under the Bush administration has systematically and flagrantly violated national and international law. If the perpetrators of these crimes are given permanent impunity with the collusion of Congress, future law-breakers will assume that they can commit similar crimes with impunity. Whether or not Bush administration officials can be subject to criminal prosecution or impeachment, the exposure of their acts can subject them to the kind of public repudiation they deserve. That can begin setting us back on a track toward international law that restrains crimes by the leaders of all nations, however great or small. For as Antoine Bernard, executive director of the International Federation of Human Rights, has said, “The key to peace and democracy building world-wide is accountability for international crimes.”

9. Hearings and investigations are crucial means to establishing institutional and cultural barriers to future crimes. At the close of the Vietnam war, the Church Committee established significant limits on executive authority, such as a strengthened Freedom of Information Act and a ban on assassination of foreign leaders. These were originally passed over the objection of then presidential aide Dick Cheney, and he devoted his Vice-Presidency to dismantling them. Investigation of such Executive abuses is the prerequisite for restoring public access to government information and developing new oversight mechanisms to enforce bans on torture, wiretapping, aggression, executive secrecy, and other illegal and unconstitutional executive activity.

10. Setting the public record straight about what has happened over the past six years is essential for reestablishing discourse based on reality that can be tested by evidence and argument, rather than on fantasy propagated by national leaders and amplified by their media sycophants. A respect for truth pursued through honest dialogue based on evidence and argument will be essential not only for beginning to heal the wounds created by Bush’s illegal war of aggression, but for addressing problems like global warming that a fantasy-based public discourse has evaded.

52% of Americans believe that investigating the origins of the Iraq war is a high priority and 58% want Congress to pursue contracting fraud in Iraq. [4] But that will not automatically translate into action by Congress. Convincing the Democratic leadership to support investigations will require sustained pressure from outside groups. This pressure needs to build early—before the new legislative session begins—so the Leadership perceives efforts to squash committee action as politically hazardous.

Fortunately, progressive activists are elegantly positioned to mobilize such pressure. They were the troops on the ground for virtually every victorious Democrat. They can set up district meetings with Members, organize phone banks for support calls, submit op-eds and letters to the editors, and organize town meetings on accountability. The time to start is now.

Notes:
[1] RobinToner, “A Loud Message for Bush,” New York Times, ll/8/06.
[2] Karen Tumulty and Mike Allen, “It’s Lonely at the Top,” Time Magazine, October 29, 2006.
[3] Posted 11/9/06.
[4] Marcus Marby, “Are the Faithful Losing Their Faith?” Newsweek, Oct 21, 2006.

(Jeremy Brecher is a historian whose books include Strike!, Globalization from Below , and, co-edited with Brendan Smith and Jill Cutler, In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond (Metropolitan/Holt). He has received five regional Emmy Awards for his documentary film work. He is a co-founder of WarCrimesWatch.org . more...
Brendan Smith is a legal analyst whose books include Strike! Globalization From Below and, with Brendan Smith and Jill Cutler, of In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond (Metropolitan). He is current co-director of Global Labor Strategies and UCLA Law School's Globalization and Labor Standards Project, and has worked previously for Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and a broad range of unions and grassroots groups. His commentary has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The Nation, CBS News.com, YahooNews and the Baltimore Sun. Contact him at smithb28@gmail.com)