Rudy's Shag Fund

Rudy Giuliani has had a tough week. One of the big hits to his campaign has been the revelation that he billed tens of thousands of dollars for security and other expenditures to little-known New York City agencies in an effort to keep his affair with then-paramour, now-wife a secret. (See my post A Giuliani Two-fer from 28 November.) He's responded this week by saying that it was a common practice throughout his mayorship and perfectly legal. However, it seems to only have occurred on trips for these trysts, not on other trips of a less "conjugal" nature. What is more, New York City officials have come out of the woodwork to say that Rudy is lying and that this is not how things would -- or should -- correctly be one in The Big Apple. Among them is NYC's police chief. Take a look.

30 November 2007

More Giuliani = Terrorism

More information is emerging on just how extensive the ties are between presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and members of the government of Qatar, people who are known to have strong ties to al Qaeda. In the article linked above, a former CIA agent says the following of Rudy and the millions that he's made off of his Qatar contracts.

"We have a guy who could be president who's taking money from the same accounts that harbored terrorists," said Baer, the former CIA agent. "The general consensus is that [Sheikh Abdullah Bin Khalid al-Thani] protected Khalid Sheik Mohammed and that they tipped him off and he's still the interior minister.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Most of Rudy's links are with Sheikh Abdullah Bin Khalid al-Thani, who acted as his protector in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, a fact that has been long known... even during the years that Rudy was -- and is -- linked to al-Thani.

30 November 2007

Edit: I first noted this story in my post A Giuliani Two-fer from 28 November, which featured a link to the story-breaking article on this issue.

FISA Sentate Showdown

From Working Assets:

The bill to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) continues to advance in the Senate, and now it has reached another critical juncture. Because the issue is so urgent -- the legislation will likely be voted on during the week of December 3rd -- we're sending faxes to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking him to act now to protect Americans' privacy rights.

In past weeks, the U.S. Senate has debated several specific provisions of the legislation. The Intelligence Committee passed a version that would grant retroactive amnesty to big telecom companies who colluded in Bush's illegal program to spy on Americans.

In response to citizen outcry, the Judiciary Committee passed a version that did not include the amnesty provisions. Now, Majority Leader Reid will decide which version gets put up for a final vote by the whole Senate. He has the power as Majority Leader to stand up for civil liberties and protect the constitutional privacy rights of all Americans -- or he could cave in to the White House's demands to let its telco cronies off the hook. [My bold.]

We must not become a nation that willingly, silently sacrifices our freedoms. They are the very foundation of our nation. Working assets has set up an easy-to-use form to tell Senator Reid not to include telecom immunity in the FISA bill. I urge you to make your wishes known today.

30 November 2007

He-said, She-said Journalism

As I've expressed before, conventional journalism in this country has lost its way. Instead of digging for facts to establish the veracity of a person's statement -- especially when it relates to a political position or topic -- journalists today will simply trot out another person from "the other side" to either provide an alternative viewpoint or to deny the original statement as being true. In other words, it becomes a game of he-said, she-said. This may -- or may not -- be proper journalistic procedure when the topic is one of political, religious, or other theory, but is never correct when the topic is a statement of fact. When this is the case, sure the reporter should get the story of/from the "other side" as well and report on it. Then, however, it is incumbent upon that reporter to actually dig for the facts and report which side is telling the truth.

We can see this malaise in our journalism today in recent stories regarding the right-wing smear campaign linking Barack Obama to supposedly anti-American Islamic persons/ideologies. (No less a paper than The Washington Post was at the root of that debacle, which is completely factually false.) So, too, have we seen that the vast majority of the mainstream media have given Rudy Giuliani a pass when he continually, repeatedly invokes incorrect statistics to paint a completely incorrect picture of his time as mayor of New York City. He and his campaign are built on a house of lying cards. (Ironically, the New York Times, which heretofore has been as big an enabler of Guiliani's cult of personality as any media outlet, has finally started targeting his false claims.)

Ultimately, our mainstream media has become an enabler for our corrupt political systems. As Glenn Greenwald put it for Salon.com:

It isn't actually that complicated. When a government official or candidate makes a factually false statement, the role of the reporter is not merely to pass it on, nor is it simply to note that "some" dispute the false statement. The role of the reporter is to state the actual facts, which means stating clearly when someone lies or otherwise makes a false statement.

It's staggering that this most elementary principle of journalism is not merely violated by so many of our establishment journalists, but is explicitly rejected by them. That's the principal reason why our political discourse is so infected with outright falsehoods. The media has largely abdicated their primary responsibility of stating basic facts.

Just as we need to work to right our political systems, by holding our government officials accountable for their corruption, we must hold our journalists accountable for the abandonment of their responsibilities to our society as well. True democracy can only be achieved through knowledge and truth being spread collectively throughout a society.

30 November 2007

4th Amendment End-Around

The Bush Administration is using telecommunications corporations in an effort to obtain information on American citizens without warrants, searches for information that would "otherwise" be against the Fourth Amendment if tackled directly by the government. Their argument for why they believe this is Constitutional fails on its face. If it is allowed to stand, the Fourth Amendment in this context will cease to have any meaning, providing no protection for us in our modern electronic world.

You can get the story here.

29 November 2007

Matthew Shepard Act at Risk

After months of work and its initial passage in both the House and the Senate, Senators on the far right are trying to derail the Matthew Shepard Act, preventing it from even getting to the President for signature or veto. (I first wrote about the Matthew Shepard Act here.) The HRC has set up an easy-to-use web form to express your support for the act in this crucial time. I urge you to make use of it and support the Constitutional -- and human -- rights of all Americans. The form can be found here.

28 November 2007

A Giuliani Two-fer

Two interesting articles out today about Rudy. The first details how he (illegally) used New York City money while mayor to both enable and cover up his affair with then-fling, now-wife Judith Nathan. The second details Rudy's hefty financial dealings with those who have (or had) direct ties with those who pulled off the events of 9/11 against the US. Now, it is pretty much common knowledge that Rudy is an amoral scumbag, so the former shouldn't really shock anyone. The latter, on the other hand, seems especially damning since Rudy is running on a 9/11-all-the-time platform. At least Rudy is an equal-opportunity scumbag.

28 November 2007

Lott Checks Out to Cash In

Yesterday, long-time Mississippi Senator Trent Lott resigned from the US senate. Now, don't get me wrong. Any government without Trent Lott is already better off. However, it bears mentioning exactly why Lott left government "service."

A recently enacted law prohibits Senators who become lobbyists from lobbying their former colleagues for two years after leaving office unless they file as a lobbyist prior to an election year. As tepid a protection law as this is, it means that Lott would have been out a considerable amount of cash -- he will be in great demand as a lobbyist after all -- had he remained in the Senate, not just until his current term expires, but past January 19 of next year.

As repugnant as DC politicians-turned-lobbyists are in general, Lott is even worse. You may remember that during his last run for the Senate, he ran on a Hurricane Katrina platform, telling the citizens of Mississippi that he was only running again to see them through this hard time. He didn't want to run, but he just had to help rebuild the state. Blah, blah, blah. In case you've missed it, the only things being rebuilt in Mississippi are casinos, new and expensive condos, and oil/shipping centers. The people themselves have been royally and truly screwed.

Goodbye Trent Lott... bought-and-paid-for politician, racist, and all-around prick. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

27 November 2007

McClellan's Publisher Takes a Mulligan

Yesterday, in a post titled Bush Knew of Plame Outing, I told of a new book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. An early excerpt from the book made it look very much like McClellan was implicating Bush in the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. As you might imagine, this was big news. Now, however, the publisher is backing away from this "claim." Yes, it tried to play the media and it won, but now the heat may just be too hot.

The truth, at least in so far as what is written in the book, is that McClellan may actually be trying to absolve the President himself in Plame-gate, saying that while the President did mislead him, he did so unknowingly. In other words, "he was a clueless as I was."

What McClellan will say about the other four men outlined in yesterday's release is currently unknown.

21 November 2007

Iraq: How Low Can We Go?

Once again proving that with the American military, it is so often true that two wrongs do make a right comes this from Spencer Ackerman at TPM.

Just in time for the holidays, there's a special place in Hell just waiting to be filled by some as-yet-unknown Pentagon bureaucrat. Apparently, thousands of wounded soldiers who served in Iraq are being asked to return part of their enlistment bonuses -- because their injuries prevented them from completing their tour.

After you return from throwing up, you can read more here.

20 November 2007

Bush Knew of Plame Outing

In his forthcoming book, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan reveals that five of the top figures in the White House knew at the time that Administration officials were responsible for the -- illegal -- outing of covert CIA agent Valarie Plame. The five include the President, the Vice President, the Chief of Staff (Andrew Card), and presidential advisers Carl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby. McClellan also makes it clear that it was Administration policy to mislead the American people on exactly what happened, going so far as to outright lie. In response to this bit of information from her predecessor, current White House Press Secretary Dana "Deer in the Headlights" Perino issued a "no comment."

20 November 2007

Buried Under Catalogs?

The holidays are fast approaching and that generally means that American households get buried under an even larger pile of shopping catalogs sent through the mail. Our household is just like this. We also follow the pattern of how the rest of America reacts to these catalogs. About 90-95% are not even opened, going straight into the recycle bin. (Most communities allow catalogs, along with magazines, to be recycled with newspaper, so please don't throw them away!) Of the remaining 5-10%, only 1.5% result in a purchase! That's right, companies are willing to spend so much on these catalogs -- and destroy so many trees in the process -- for only a 1.5% purchase return.

Now, however, there is an easy way for you and your family to stop the madness. The nonprofit CatalogChoice.org allows you to take your name off of mailing lists. It is fast and easy. Follow these three steps and you are on your way.

1. Rip off the address page of the catalog and recycle the rest.
2. Go to www.catalogchoice.org
3. Follow the simple steps of typing your name & customer numbers when asked for each catalog.

They will do all of the heavy lifting for you and trees -- not to mention your sanity -- will be saved.

19 November 2007

FCC: Screwing America!

The FCC -- actually only the Republican majority on the FCC -- is trying to screw America. It is set to make a monumental change in the way that information is distributed to the American people through our media. It is doing so over the objection of members of Congress and with little advanced warning to the American people.

The rule change that is being proposed would allow -- for the first time in American history -- newspapers and television stations within the same community to be owned by the same entity. In other words, The Denver Post could purchase the local ABC affiliate in Denver or vice versa.

We are already a nation that is far too reliant on information coming to us from far too news sources. Our telecommunications and media laws and regulations have already been weakened far too broadly and deeply. The vast majority of our news comes to us filtered through the eyes of the corporate lense, and corporate interests are just that... corporate, not public.

As citizens, and while we are still able, we must shout down form the mountain tops our steadfast refusal to have this putrescent change in our media rules enacted. To this end, I urge you to contact each of the members of the Federal Communications Commission. Send them a simple e-mail, CC'd to each member, indicating that America has seen enough consolidation of our news media and that we value as a democracy the undiluted voice of the truth more than the lining of corporate pockets.

You can find the e-mail addresses to the members of the FCC here. I would suggest an e-mail similar to the following.

To: Kevin J. Martin, FCC Chairman and all FCC Commissioners

It has come to my attention that the FCC soon plans to rewrite long-standing rules of news media ownership to allow an entity to own both a newspaper and a television station in one operating market. I stand firmly against such a move. The ownership of our news media is already far too focused in the hands of too few corporations. For a democracy to be truly healthy, its people must have access to the news of the day from as many and as varied sources as possible. This rule would advance us farther down the path away from this ideal.

I urge you not to undertake this measure. Thank you for your time.

John Q. Public
Anytown, NY

Act today... there truly isn't much time left.

For more information on this issue, see the following site at PBS. To see who owns the media outlets in your own communities, see this link.

19 November 2007

Senate Energy Bill

According to Working Assets, the current energy bill in the Senate, which originally had provisions for promoting clean energy and tougher fuel economy standards for vehicles, is in jeopardy. Working Assets writes the following:

According to our sources, the leaders in the Senate are negotiating a compromise energy bill. This compromise would sell out clean energy for wind and solar and include huge subsidies for ethanol and nuclear power. In exchange, we would get the promise of modest increases in automobile fuel efficiency standards, if environmentalists in the Senate can get a majority to stand up and hold the line.

This is unacceptable. And given the Senate's track record in the last few weeks, we have little confidence that the leadership will not cave to the Bush administration yet again.

Tell your senators (and we'll send a cc fax to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) to oppose any compromise bill that:

• does not include standards or goals for the percentage of our energy portfolio that comes from renewable sources (renewable portfolio standards, or RPS) and does not include a critical tax incentive for producers of wind and solar power.

• provides for practically unlimited loan guarantees for private companies to build new nuclear power plants, with taxpayers on the hook for the risks involved.

• advances the Bush agenda with massive subsidies for corn-based ethanol -- which takes almost as much energy to produce as it yields, and drives up food prices in the process.

• placates oil companies and automakers with a weak fuel efficiency standard when heroic measures are needed to stop global warming.

The Senate needs to know that we are watching. Your messages can make a big difference right now. If our representatives in Congress hear from us in large numbers over the next few days, we may be able to convince them to vote against the leadership's back room deal.

You can find the form to make known your view on this legislation here.

10 November 2007

Why Kerik Matters

Greg Sargent reports today on his "Horse's Mouth" blog exactly why Rudy Giuliani's support of now-indicted Bernie Kerik undermines his entire campaign for the presidency. There are a host of reasons why Rudy is a joke, but Sargent is spot-on here.

9 November 2007

Giuliani & Pat Robertson

Unless you live under a rock, you are aware of the fact that one of the craziest people alive, Pat Robertson, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president. Such an endorsement should preclude anyone from that or any other position of power... even county dog catcher. This is especially true in Rudy's case, however, for he has staken his claim -- falsely -- on 9/11 and his "expert leadership and knowledge" is such that another such day will be averted only by him.

Robertson, you may remember, is on record as proclaiming that the events of 9/11 were America's fault for its "Godlessness." Our sinful gay-loving, abortion-permitting culture, if you will, was at the root of his belief that we got what we deserved. His views haven't changed and indeed remain today on his web site. Now, one would think that the then-mayor of the city most heavily involved in the events of 9/11 would object to such a mindset, no? Instead, when brought to his attention by the press, Rudy just laughed them off and indicated that Robertson had been misinterpreted. Remember, these views are still posted on Robertson's own web site. I'd say that Rudy doesn't think that we are can read. Of course, since the press isn't doing its job, maybe he wouldn't be far from the truth! (The press is always soft on Rudy, btw.) What is more is that there is history in Rudy's past that would indicate that he'd decline the endorsement.

Soon after 9/11 Rudy very publicly turned down $10M from a Saudi Prince, Alwaleed bin Talal, after the prince offered the aid money to the people of New York with the words that America "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack." Greg Sargent at TPM notes that [i]n response, Rudy rejected the money because of the prince's suggestion that the U.S. was in any way remotely responsible for the disaster, saying:

"I entirely reject that statement," Giuliani said. "There is no moral equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people."

Again, Sargent: The rejection of the Saudi prince's $10 million is a big point of pride for Rudy, something he currently brings up as proof of his anti-terrorism zeal.

Why then, would Rudy repudiate this foreign prince for admonishing the US for some of its policies when he embraces a man who outright blamed the attacks on us? Well, its classic Rudy. It was easy for him to play tough when the $10M was for other people, even the people he was entrusted to serve. Robertson's endorsement, on the other hand, directly benefits him politically. Rudy is nothing if not "me first, me only." As Sagrent put it...

There are two morals to this tale. The first: Rudy will turn away $10 million in relief for other people from someone who sort of blamed America for 9/11 if it gives him a chance to do a bit of garden variety political grandstanding and get big tabloid headlines. But he'll overlook such comments if it will allow him to help himself politically, as the Robertson endorsement does.

The second moral: If an Arab sort of blames America for 9/11, it's despicable. If a Christian fundamentalist/extremist does it, it's not a problem at all.

What is even more surprising is that Rudy has recently blasted one of his rivals for the Republican nomination for president, Ron Paul, for saying something similar to what that Saudi prince said. (See Rudy's words here.) Paul has said that we need to look at our policies and how they affect the world around us. While in no way excusing the events of 9/11 -- who could?!? -- he is saying that we as a nation must realize that we don't live in a bubble and that our actions do have consequences, consequences that include hardening the beliefs of nutball zealots. Again, this boils down to political expediency for Rudy. Castigate Paul, bear hug Robertson. Once again, for Rudy it is only "me first, me only."

8 November 2007

ENDA Passes the House

For the past several months, I've been calling on you to write both you Senators and Congressmen in support of ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Thank you to those of you who followed through on this request. As a result of the calls for support by fair-minded Americans everywhere, ENDA has passed the House. As written, the bill will only offer employment protections to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Protections for those who are transgendered were stripped from the legislation. One day, I am confident that those protection will rightly exist.

Now, we must look to the Senate for enacting these protections. Thereafter, President Bush will surely be a hurdle, but the fight must be brought to him. Justice demands it.

8 November 2007

More Rudy, More Torture

James Lambert over at TPM has the following information from a former Giuliani aide regarding Rudy and torture.

Rudy Giuliani has been embellishing his record on torture and "intensive questioning," says former New York City director of emergency management and frequent Giuliani critic Jerry Hauer in a conversation with the Huffington Post.

"If Rudy is suggesting in any way that they used torture or aggressive interrogation in New York City then he is absolutely unfit to be president," Hauer said, "because torture in a local jurisdiction is, first of all, illegal. Secondly, it is inhumane. It is not something that is done at the local level."

In an interview over the weekend, Rudy implied that he employed "intensive questioning" as Mayor in order to fight the mafia. Hauer is rejecting those claims outright, saying: "That would have been absolutely disgraceful and a downright violation of everybody's constitutional liberties... even when they caught the terrorists that were going to blow up the subways [in August 1997], obviously there was interrogation but I never heard of anything involving aggressive techniques."

Rudy has truly left the building.

6 November 2007

Last Minute Mukasey Info

Lawyers for the only former "ghost detainee" still in US custody want the Senate to hear what has happened to their client while in the hands of the CIA before the vote on whether Michael Mukasey will become our next Attorney General. This seems most relevant since Mukasey won't admit that the technique known as "waterboarding" is torture (see previous blog entries, including 2 November 2007). You can find an entire article on this by Spencer Ackerman over at TPM. Here are excerpts.

There isn't much time before tomorrow's vote on attorney general-designee and torture agnostic Michael Mukasey. But lawyers from the only former CIA "ghost detainee" still in U.S. custody want the Senate to know what the consequences of a torture regimen are before they give Mukasey their stamp of approval. In a letter written November 1st, they requested a meeting with key Senators, but the letter was only cleared today for release by U.S. authorities.

Two lawyers for the Center for Constitutional Rights, Gita Gutierrez and J. Wells Dixon, recently returned from a two-week meeting with their client, Majid Khan, at Guantanamo Bay, where he's been detained since last September. Before he was taken to Guantanamo, Khan spent three years in an off-the-books detention facility run by or in cooperation with the CIA. Neither the Red Cross nor anyone outside a select few U.S. national security officials knew Khan's whereabouts. Since President Bush's 2006 decision to transfer 14 so-called "black site" detainees to Guantanamo, Khan is the first ghost detainee to meet with an attorney.

...

A letter drafted by the two attorneys on November 1st -- containing absolutely no information about interrogation techniques -- to six U.S. Senators was just cleared for release today by Justice Department and CIA officials. In it, Gutierrez and Dixon plea for a closed-door meeting with Pat Leahy (D-VT), Arlen Specter (R-PA), John McCain (R-AZ), Jim Webb (D-VA) and Khan's home-state senators, Democrats Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin. The letter -- which you can read here -- implores the Senators to meet with the attorneys and "consider our client's experiences in CIA secret detention while exercising your own constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities."

Those responsibilities take on a new salience with Mukasey's nomination. While CCR isn't getting its hopes up that Senators will pencil in a last-minute meeting with Gutierrez -- who's still in Washington reviewing her notes at a secure facility in town -- it does want to make sure that lawmakers hear what's been done to Khan, even if they can't describe the interrogation regimen to their constituents. "We want to meet with them no matter what, but we do want to meet before the Mukasey vote, because it applies to that issue," says a CCR attorney. "But it also applies to issues of secret detentions and interrogations" that go beyond Mukasey.

Dixon will be in Washington tomorrow morning in preparation for a possible meeting.

5 November 2007

Giuliani: World Leader!

One of Rudy Giuliani's favorite pastimes in the campaign is to paint himself as being -- much -- larger than he really is. More plainly, he has tried to transform his role as mayor of New York into being the equivalent of being the president, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the Director of FEMA, the Secretary of Defense, and the President of the Girls Scouts of America... all rolled into one. The saddest part is that lots of Americans believe this load of bull and that the mainstream media is going right along with it. (Sad, but not surprising.) Josh Marshall at TPM has a wonderful, short overview of this today at TPM. It uses a new Giuliani campaign flier for New Hampshire as its starting point. The piece is titled Commander-in-Chief NYC and can be found here. The flier can be seen here.

5 November 2007

Giuliani and the Mob

The NY Times has an interesting article today on the ties between Rudi Giuliani and Bernard Kerik. Kerik, you may recall, was a former New Jersey jail warden and one-time front-runner for the post of Director of Homeland Security. He is also a mobster or, to be more accurate, is a high-level lacky for the mob. The ties between the former mayor of New York and Kerik are strong. Indeed, it was Giuliani who recommended Kerik -- remember, the mobster -- to the Bush Administration for the directorship. There are a million reasons why Giuliani has no reason even to run for president, much less win. This seems like a good one though. The article is titled Loyal to Kerik, Giuliani Missed Warning Signs. This article was reported by Russ Buettner, Michael Powell, and William K. Rashbaum and was written by Mr. Powell.

3 November 2007

Edit: MSNBC.com also now has a link to this article. You can find it here.

John Dean on Mukasey

Former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean released a statement today, as two Democratic Senators took leave of their senses and gave a pass to torture carried out on behalf of the citizens of the the US, regarding the nomination -- and now likely confirmation -- of Judge Mukasey as the next Attorney General. Dean knows a bit about presidential abuse of power, of course, and is hardly some "mad lefty." The statement was released through TPM.

A Last Thought Before the Senate Judiciary Committee Confirms Judge Mukasey

By John W. Dean

As the Senate Democrats complete another sad concession to President Bush, and confirms a nominee who refuses to declare “water-boarding” torture, allow me to offer a brief historical reminder: the Senate Judiciary Committee has conspicuously forgotten that there are direct situational and historical parallels with Judge Mukasey’s nomination to be Attorney General and that of President Richard Nixon nominating Elliot Richardson to be Attorney General during Watergate.

Nixon’s Attorney General had been removed (and was later prosecuted for lying to Congress) – a situation not unlike Alberto Gonzales’s leaving the job under such a cloud. Nixon was under deep suspicion of covering up the true facts relating to the bungled break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate, not to mention widespread rumors that he had engaged in abuses of power and corrupt campaign practices. Today, Bush is under even deeper suspicion for activities far more serious than anything Nixon engaged in for there is evidence Bush has abused the laws of war, violated treaties, and ordered (or approved) the use of torture and political renditions, which are war crimes.

Since Judge Mukasey’s situation is not unlike that facing Elliot Richardson when he was appointed Attorney General during Watergate, why should not the Senate Judiciary Committee similarly make it a quid pro quo for his confirmation that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes? Richardson was only confirmed when he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor, which, of course, he did. And when Nixon fired that prosecutor, Archibald Cox, it lead to his impeachment.

Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.

If the Democrats in the Senate refuse to demand any such requirement, it will be act that should send chills down the spine of every thinking American.

2 November 2007

November Impeachment Reminder

In August, I called for the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. At that time, I asked you to join me in writing letters to several members of the House of Representatives. I noted that I would continue to send such letters until such time as my call was heeded or these men left office. I have made good on my claim by again sending my letters. This is simply a reminder in the hope that you will do the same. For information on the entire matter, as well as sample letters and recipient contact information, see my original blog post here.

1 November 2007