Home Contact Us

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached...see article

Posted By: Democrat on 2005-10-12
In Reply to:

Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached
by David Swanson

http://www.opednews.com

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 8-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Those who agreed with the statement were also more passionate: 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

The results of this poll are truly astonishing, said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House.

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.

Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).

Support for Impeachment Surged Since June

The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June. (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos.

	Ipsos 10/8-9	Zogby 6/27-29	Net Change
Support Impeachment	50%	42%	+8%
Oppose Impeachment	44%	50%	+6%
Impeachment Margin	+6%	-8%	+14%

After the June poll, pollster John Zogby told the Washington Post that support for impeachment was much higher than I expected. At the time, impeachment supporters trailed opponents by 8%. Now supporters outnumber opponents by 6%, a remarkable shift of 14%.

Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq

Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment. Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of I don't know responses. However, this may understate the percentage of Americans who favor Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his slow response to Hurricane Katrina, his policy on torture, soaring gasoline prices, or other concerns.

Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration deliberately misled the public before the war, and 57% say the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.

Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story

The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24.

The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/impeach).

We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll, said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org. But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress. Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war. The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war. We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.' What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush.

The passion of impeachment supporters is directly responsible for the Ipsos poll. After the Zogby poll in June, activists led by Democrats.com urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question in their upcoming polls. But none of the polling organizations were willing to do so for free, so on September 30, AfterDowningStreet.org posted a request for donations to fund paid polls (http://afterdowningstreet.org/polling). As of October 10, 330 individuals had contributed $8,919 in small donations averaging $27 each.

AfterDowningStreet.org has commissioned a second poll which is expected soon, and will continue to urge all polling organizations to include the impeachment question in their regular polls. If they do not, AfterDowningStreet.org will continue to commission regular impeachment polls.

Footnotes:

1. AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that was created on May 26, 2005, following the publication of the Downing Street Memos in London's Sunday Times on May 1. The coalition is urging Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.

2.Here are the complete tables from the Ipsos poll, plus the definitions of regions used by Ipsos and the U.S. Census Bureau.

3. Zogby asked: If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable ~~by impeaching him~~ through impeachment.

4. Pollsters have offered various reasons for refusing to poll on impeachment. For example, Gallup said it would do so if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media.

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Ask Media to Cover Public's Views on Impeachment

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://www.davidswanson.org

DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached...see article - Democrat
- Impeach the President! - Do it Now!
  - Who cares if he has family values and loves this country! - Impeach him I say
  - President Bush - President Bush advocate
    - I guess your'e in the 39% - then, huh? see msg.
      - Oops...you're---self-correcting - no message
        Any chance, there would be a point in this post> - Democrat
        Yes, actually, I was just - correcting the above post --- see msg
        Excuse me, I misread your post. Sorry...nm - Democrat
        No problem. :-) - no message
    - Being faithful to his family - qualifies him to be president?
  - Ditto. - Democrat
    - Really? - You agree?
      - No not really. I was trying to be sarcastic like the troll, sm - Democrat
        You're kidding - Right?
        Are there any good books on *the radical terrorist mind*? sm - Democrat
        Yes - There sure are
        You win. I'm not going back and forth with a drama queen...no more. - Democrat
        Honey - You win the drama queen award
        Your *information* was filled with insults...sm - Democrat
        We should just go back to - Lilly
        I'm guessing they speak from personal experience. - Lilly

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation.sm

Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support New 9/11 Investigation.

Link to article on web page that represents survivors and victims families.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060522022041421

Here is an article about the poll workers. sm
It is from the Boston Globe. They only give a brief description. There was more discussion on it in one of the grassroots forums.

Apparently,the poll workers did have permission to be there, and the NH GOP told them to stand their ground.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2008/01/obama_and_paul.html

A response to Ron Paul's article by one of those angry Americans.sm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/fassanella1.html

Poll MSNBC 87% in favor of impeachment for Bush.sm

Really popular guy - 283,513 polled 87% said yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Thanks, Americans who are finally waking up from the Bush kool-aid

Apathy Conquered, Thanks To Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan will go down in history as the woman who, in a determined yet soft-spoken, dignified manner, stoked the fires of debate and made them hotter.
Uneasiness often results in mere apathy.
But to bring similar factions together to speak with one voice requires an icon to lead, and Sheehan has become that
With both sides of the Iraq issue now embroiled in debate, the United States cannot help but benefit, for overall, it is the people who are taking sides and ordering their political employees to act, not the other way around.
For too long, Americans have withered into complacency, which is a breeding ground for imperialism.
They now realize that one person can make a difference.
They are speaking on the sidewalks; they are speaking in coffeehouses. They are discussing politics in their homes.
They are identifying problems that, prior to the bold and courageous actions of Cindy Sheehan, they felt they could not change.
They now know differently.
They want their President, their Congressmen, and their Senators to come clean.
They want to know why gasoline prices continue to skyrocket.
They want to know why President Bush lied about going to war with Iraq.
They want to know why the Federal government continues to eat away at the dignity of the Constitution.
They want to know why the environment is being shortchanged.
They want to know why lawmakers are spending the Social Security trust fund.
They want to know why the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.
They are tired of being lied to.
They know, thanks to Cindy Sheehan, that the time has come for America to get back on track and for light to again shine on the so-called American dream.
Now that more than 60 percent of the American people want an end to the war in Iraq, what will our leaders in Washington do? Abide by the will of their employers or continue to hawk our rights to their own special interests?
That is where we are.
Where we go depends upon you.

Home

Copyright �2005 The Lone Star Iconoclast

U.S. Spies on Americans who disagree with Bush policies

I guess this explains who Bush's real enemies are, and it has nothing to do with terrorism (unless you're the innocent American being targeted).

Posted on Fri, Jan. 20, 2006

U.S. accused of spying on those who disagree with Bush policies

BY WILLIAM E. GIBSON
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

WASHINGTON - While the White House defended domestic surveillance as a safeguard against terrorism, a Florida peace activist and several Democrats in Congress accused the Bush administration on Friday of spying on Americans who disagree with President Bush's policies.

Richard Hersh, of Boca Raton, Fla., director of Truth Project Inc. of Palm Beach County, told an ad hoc panel of House Democrats that his group and others in South Florida have been infiltrated and spied upon despite having no connections to terrorists.

Agents rummaged through the trash, snooped into e-mails, packed Web sites and listened in on phone conversations, Hersh charged. We know that address books and activist meeting lists have disappeared.

The Truth Project gained national attention when NBC News reported last month that it was described as a credible threat in a database of suspicious activity compiled by the Pentagon's Talon program. The listing cited the group's gathering a year ago at a Quaker meeting house in Lake Worth, Fla., to talk about ways to counter military recruitment at high schools.

Talon is separate from the controversial domestic-surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency. Bush has acknowledged signing orders that allow the NSA to eavesdrop without the usual court warrants, prompting an outcry from many in Congress.

Bush plans to tour the NSA on Wednesday as part of a campaign to defend his handling of the program.

This is a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday. It is limited and targeted to al-Qaida communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention.

The Defense Department's Talon program collects data from a wide variety of sources, including military personnel and private citizens, Pentagon spokesman Greg Hicks said.

They are unfiltered dots of information about perceived threats, Hicks said. An analyst will look at that information. And what we are trying to do is connect the dots before the next major attack.

To Hersh and some members of Congress, the warrant-less surveillance and Talon are all a part of domestic-spying operations that threaten civil liberties of average Americans and put dissenters under a cloud of suspicion.

Neither you nor anybody in that (Quaker) church had anything to do with terrorism, said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. The fact is, the Truth Project may have a philosophy that is adverse to the political philosophy and goals of the president of the United States. And as a result of that different philosophy, the president and the secretary of defense ordered that your group be spied upon.

There should not be a single American who today remains confident that it couldn't happen to them.

� 2006 KRT Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.bradenton.com

Bush Administration is Spying on TENS OF MILLIONS of Americans

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans � most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: The NSA record collection program

It's the largest database ever assembled in the world, said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is to create a database of every call ever made within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made � across town or across the country � to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop � without warrants � on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. In other words, Bush explained, one end of the communication must be outside the United States.

As a result, domestic call records � those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders � were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide, he said. However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law.

The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. There is no domestic surveillance without court approval, said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists. All government-sponsored intelligence activities are carefully reviewed and monitored, Perino said. She also noted that all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States.

The government is collecting external data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting internals, a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for social network analysis, the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.

Carriers uniquely positioned

AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.

The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services � primarily long-distance and wireless � to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.

Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for No Such Agency.

In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named Shamrock, led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping.

Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.

Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of data mining � sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.

Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining, said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.

The caveat, he said, is that personal identifiers � such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses � can't be included as part of the search. That requires an additional level of probable cause, he said.

The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.

The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.

Ma Bell's bedrock principle � protection of the customer � guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. No court order, no customer information � period. That's how it was for decades, he said.

The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of violation. In practice, that means a single violation could cover one customer or 1 million.

In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.

Companies approached

The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.

The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their call-detail records, a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.

The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.

With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.

AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law.

In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority.

Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy.

Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation.

In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers.

Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: I wouldn't rule it out. His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.

Similarities in programs

The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.

One company differs

One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order � or approval under FISA � to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.

Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information � known as product in intelligence circles � with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them, one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.

Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.

Contributing: John Diamond

Bush asks Americans for charitable contributions to help Hallib..oops..to rebuild Iraq

It's working, too!! So far, American citizens have donated a whopping $39.00!!

New twist on aid for Iraq: U.S. seeks donations

By Cam Simpson Washington BureauSun Sep 18, 9:40 AM ET

From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.

But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.

Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq.

Contributors have no way of knowing who's getting the money or precisely where it's headed because the government says it must keep the details secret for security reasons.

But taxpayers already finance the projects for which the administration is seeking charitable donations, such as providing water pumps for farmers. And officials say any contributions they receive will increase the scope of those efforts rather than relieve existing taxpayer burdens.

The campaign is raising eyebrows in the international development and not-for-profit communities, where there are questions about its timing--given needs at home--and whether it will set the government in competition with international not-for-profits.

On a more basic level, experts wonder whether Americans will make charitable donations to a government foreign aid program and whether the contentious environment surrounding Iraq will make a tough pitch even tougher.

I'm a little skeptical, and the timing certainly isn't the best, said James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California. It's going to be a hard sell.

Cost of rebuilding skyrockets

The U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government's primary distributor of foreign aid, said Friday, Charitable contributions play an important role in enriching and extending U.S. government efforts.

The effort is just the newest twist in the administration's struggle to rebuild Iraq. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, first predicted it would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion. The tab has since risen to more than $30 billion, with congressional Republicans and Democrats sharply critical of the high cost and slow pace of progress.

In addition, the new campaign comes amid increasing concerns that some of the administration's major projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partially completed because of rising costs, especially for security. Some officials fear money may run out before key projects are completed.

Natsios announced the campaign in a speech Sept. 9. In a press release issued the same day, USAID said its new Web site will help American citizens learn more about official U.S. assistance for Iraq and make contributions to high-impact development projects.

Although USAID has received private donations from corporations in the past, this might be the first time it has geared a charity pitch for U.S. foreign aid dollars to citizens.

Initially, the Web site, called Iraqpartnership.org, is offering potential contributors a choice of eight projects, each seeking $10,000 or less. They include purchasing computers for centers designed to assist Iraqi entrepreneurs, buying furniture and supplies for Iraqi elementary and high schools, paying for the production of posters to promote awareness of disabilities and rights issues, and buying water pumps for farmers.

There is also a general Iraq country fund, offering donors another high-impact giving opportunity without making them have to specify a project.

All of the projects are from USAID's existing portfolio of reconstruction programs in Iraq, according to the agency.

Security issues obscure details

Heather Layman, a USAID spokeswoman, said the efforts are being carried out by five private organizations working on Iraq reconstruction with USAID funding. The site does not provide details about the groups involved or the project locations because of security issues in Iraq.

The government says all contributions are tax-deductible.

William Reese, the president and CEO of the International Youth Foundation, said USAID officials did not discuss the campaign with a special advisory committee that he serves on and formerly headed.

That committee, made up primarily of representatives from non-profit groups working overseas, is supposed to help provide the underpinning for cooperation between the public and private sectors in U.S. foreign assistance programs, according to USAID.

Reese said some not-for-profit groups may see the effort as competition, but he predicted few would be concerned because of a more basic issue: While Americans are generous, he said, I don't think your average Joe is going to write a check to the U.S. government.

Carol Lancaster, a foreign aid expert and associate professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, also questioned the premise of the program.

Places that are seen as public agencies or clones of public agencies don't get private donations, said Lancaster, a former deputy administrator at USAID. People generally believe, `It's government, so government should pay for it.'

Nassarie Carew, a spokeswoman for InterAction, an umbrella group of more than 160 non-profits working overseas, said her organization also was not aware of the effort. Its CEO, Mohammad Akhter, serves on the USAID advisory panel. Carew declined to comment until the group had a chance to survey its members.

Layman, the USAID spokeswoman, called the Web site a passive solicitation, saying potential donors would likely find it only if they were looking for a way to support Iraq's redevelopment.

She also said some people who might have donated to projects in Iraq will now choose to put money toward Katrina relief, but that others will still want to help in Iraq.

She said Iraqi-Americans specifically had asked USAID to help them find an avenue for contributions.

Raising charitable contributions for overseas projects can be a challenge even when the U.S. government is not at the center of the pitch. And Iraq is one of the government's more controversial foreign policy ventures in decades.

DevelopmentSpace Foundation Inc., the group that set up the Web site for USAID, operates its own, separate Web site seeking charitable donations for small-scale projects in developing countries.

Since its founding in 2001, that effort has raised a total of about $2 million, said Allison Koch, a foundation spokeswoman.

The organization keeps a 10 percent commission for contributions and has received most of its operating funds through major grants from several other foundations. USAID also gave it a grant of $1.5 million.

So far, $39 donated

Although in its infancy, the Iraqpartnership.org Web site had generated contributions totaling $39 as of Friday night.

According to the Giving USA Foundation, which tracks annual charitable donations by Americans, international giving accounted for 2.1 percent of all charity in the U.S. last year.

Ferris, the director of the USC philanthropy center, said that's because people want to donate to causes closer to home.

Except for the fact that the aim of foreign aid is to bolster U.S. foreign policy objectives overseas, Ferris said the new USAID campaign seems like a natural extension of the growing trend toward public-private partnerships.

There is this blurring of the lines, he said. A lot of things once paid for by the public are now paid through private sources.

----------

csimpson@tribune.com

article from baltimore sun..time for bush to go
From The Baltimore Sun: After Katrina fiasco, time for
Bush to go

After Katrina fiasco, time for Bush to go

By Gordon Adams

September 8, 2005

WASHINGTON - The disastrous federal response to
Katrina exposes a record of incompetence, misjudgment
and ideological blinders that should lead to serious
doubts that the Bush administration should be allowed
to continue in office.

When taxpayers have raised, borrowed and spent $40
billion to $50 billion a year for the past four years
for homeland security but the officials at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency cannot find their own
hands in broad daylight for four days while New
Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast swelter, drown
and die, it is time for them to go.

When funding for water works and levees in the gulf
region is repeatedly cut by an administration that
seems determined to undermine the public
responsibility for infrastructure in America, despite
clear warnings that the infrastructure could not
survive a major storm, it seems clear someone is
playing politics with the public trust.

When rescue and medical squads are sitting in Manassas
and elsewhere in northern Virginia and foreign
assistance waits at airports because the government
can't figure out how to insure the workers, how to use
the assistance or which jurisdiction should be in
charge, it is time for the administration to leave
town.

When President Bush stays on vacation and attends
social functions for two days in the face of disaster
before finally understanding that people are starving,
crying out and dying, it is time for him to go.

When FEMA officials cannot figure out that there are
thousands stranded at the New Orleans convention
center - where people died and were starving - and
fussed ineffectively about the same problems in the
Superdome, they should be fired, not praised, as the
president praised FEMA Director Michael Brown in New
Orleans last week.

When Mr. Bush states publicly that nobody could
anticipate a breach of the levee while New Orleans
journalists, Scientific American, National Geographic,
academic researchers and Louisiana politicians had
been doing precisely that for decades, right up
through last year and even as Hurricane Katrina passed
over, he should be laughed out of town as an impostor.

When repeated studies of New Orleans make it clear
that tens of thousands of people would be unable to
evacuate the city in case of a flood, lacking both
money and transportation, but FEMA makes no effort
before the storm to commandeer buses and move them to
safety, it is time for someone to be given his walking
papers.

When the president makes Sen. Trent Lott's house in
Pascagoula, Miss., the poster child for rebuilding
while hundreds of thousands are bereft of housing,
jobs, electricity and security, he betrays a careless
insensitivity that should banish him from office.

When the president of the United States points the
finger away from the lame response of his
administration to Katrina and tries to finger local
officials in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, La., as the
culprits, he betrays the unwillingness of this
administration to speak truth and hold itself
accountable. As in the case of the miserable execution
of policy in Iraq, Mr. Bush and Karl Rove always have
some excuse for failure other than their own
misjudgments.

We have a president who is apparently ill-informed,
lackadaisical and narrow-minded, surrounded by oil
baron cronies, religious fundamentalist crazies and
right-wing extremists and ideologues. He has appointed
officials who give incompetence new meaning, who
replace the positive role of government with expensive
baloney.

They rode into office in a highly contested election,
spouting a message of bipartisanship but determined to
undermine the federal government in every way but
defense (and, after 9/11, one presumed, homeland
security). One with Grover Norquist, they were
determined to shrink Washington until it was small
enough to drown in a bathtub. Katrina has stripped
the veil from this mean-spirited strategy, exposing
the greed, mindlessness and sheer profiteering behind
it.

It is time to hold them accountable - this ugly,
troglodyte crowd of Capital Beltway insiders, rich
lawyers, ideologues, incompetents and their
strap-hangers should be tarred, feathered and ridden
gracefully and mindfully out of Washington and
returned to their caves, clubs in hand.

Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at
the Elliott School of International Affairs at George
Washington University, was senior White House budget
official for national security in the Clinton
administration

Impeached
Impeached for presenting false information, which he knew was false, about Iraq. Now the spin from the republicans is that is the past, lets move on. ?? I can remember a few years back, when the country was doing real fine, and something that was in the past, i.e., a personal private matter, nothing to do with govt, was rehashed by the republicans and they actually tried to impeach a president for a private matter. Well, having an affair and not wanting to tell about it, as affairs are private matters, versus lies to the American people and consequently 1,744+ American lives killed to me Bushs lies are much more important and serious. Give me a lover of women in the WH rather than a warmonger murderer. With the evidence coming forward now, Downing Street Memos, and hearings being held in Congress, the people finally opening their eyes and not wanting any more deaths, Bush will be taken to task. Took a few years for the republicans to try to impeach the last president, it will take a bit of time but it will happen. Bush will have to answer for his lies. *Come on all you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again..Bush got us into a terrible jam, way down yonder in Iraqi-land. Put down your books, pick up a gun, we are gonna have a whole lot of fun. One, two, three..what the freak are we fighting for?

He was impeached....
he just wasn't convicted, as the liberals keep pointing out. I have to say though, if you impeached him for cheating on his wife you would have to impeach a LOT of Presidents. My problem was that he committed a felony while a sitting President, that any other person would go to jail for...and these folks still defend it. Gives you an idea of where their "values" are.

Impeached?....(sm)
For what? Lying to the UN? Breaking the law by using torture? Trying to rewrite the constitution? ....uh oh....my bad....that was Bush, wasn't it? LOL.

Get real, I read the entire article. Bush had NOTHING to do with it!
My gosh, the lengths you will go to. Shame on you! Obviously, German would not give him up, as Democrat says. Next you will post that Bush is responsible for orginal sin. And you would believe it, too!

Very interesting article about Bush's secrets, lies and

to keep his papers, and his father's papers secret and privileged.

Martin Garbus: Impeachment is Now Real

Martin Garbus

Wed Dec 28, 1:41 PM ET

An hour after the New York Times described Bush�s illegal surveillance program, I wrote on the Huffington Post that Bush had committed a crime, a �High Crime,� and should be impeached.

Was there then enough evidence to justify the beginning of an attempt to impeach the President?

No.

Did the President have a good defense that he relied on Gonzalez, Ashcroft and the best lawyers in the country (in the Solicitor General�s and Department of Justice�s offices)?

Yes.

Would any significant number of Americans of Congressmen then support such a process?

No.

Given all that, would the turmoil and consequential turmoil have justified the start of that brutal process?

No.

But that has all changed.

Because we shall soon see the consequences of those warrantless searches, the consequences of the government�s five years of secrecy, and even the citizens of the �Red States� will be outraged. Firstly, the warrantless taps will infect hundreds of �terrorist� and criminal cases throughout the country. Not only future cases, but past and present cases, even if there were convictions or plea bargains after the survellance started.

The defendants in �terrorist� and other infected criminal cases, the Court must find, must get access to everything, or very close to everything to make sure they were never improperly surveilled.

The Bush Administration, in these cases will refuse, as did the Nixon administration, to divulge information on national security grounds. Many alleged critical cases must then be dismissed. It will include Organized Crime and drug cases.

The entire criminal process will be brought to a standstill. Cases that should take six months to a year, will take three times as long, as motions go up and down the appellate ladder � as federal judges trial disagree with each other. Appellate Courts will disagree on issues so novel and so important that the Supreme Court will look at them.

Secondly, there will be an endless amounts of civil suits, that we can see will result in substantial damage awards. Commentators claimed there cannot be suits because no one has standing to challenge the surveillance. They are wrong. They do not remember the history of the Palmer Raids in the 1920�s, the surveillance in the Sixties and Seventies. The future will show both the enormous information the new technology has gathered but also the dishonest minimization of the extent of the surveillance.

That minimization is standard operating procedure for governments, whether they be run by Democrats or Republicans.

Thirdly, and most importantly, it is safe to preduct there will be coverups. This administration is not known for its candor.

The coverup starts by trying to get away with the vauge and meaningless defenses. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that.

When that doesn�t work, the coverup will be based on a foundation of small lies. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that.

We do not yet know what the FISA judges already fear � that they have been not just ignored by the executive but misused. The public shall also learn about the FISA judges� misuse of the FISA courts and their warrants. The courts were created to permit eavesdropping and electronic surveillance, not physical break-ins.

But the facts will show that the Bush administration, with the knowledge, and at times, the consent of, the FISA judges, conducted illegal physical break-ins - break-ins that to this day, the involved person, is unaware of.

Were the results of these �terrorist� break-ins then given to criminal authorities to start unrelated prosecutions? Of course.

The American public will also learn what this Administration has thus far successfully hidden. When Bush came into office, he signed an Exeutive Order making all of his, and his father�s, papers privileged. The order, extending 12 years out, also says if the President is incapacitated, then a third person can execute the privilege. This means anybody � a wife, a family lawyer, a child. The order also says the Vice President�s papers are privileged. It is an extraordinary Executive Order � this has never been anything like this. No one ever suggested a Vice President has executive privilege. If we do not find out what they are hiding, we will see witholding on a scale never before seen. He will no longer be able to use 9/11 and the war on terror as an excuse. It will confirm the fact that illegality and secrecy existed long before 9/11, that it started as soon as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield got into office. It will show deliberate attempts to avoid any judicial or legislative oversight of the illegal use of executive privilege.

Impeachment procedures will come not because of wrongdoing but because of the discovery of lies.

Both Nixon and Cliton faced impeachments because they lied.

It was inconceivable before the Nixon and Clinton impeachment procedures began that there could be, or would be a country or Senate that would be responsive to it.

In the Nixon case, it spiraled from a petty break-in � in Clinton�s case from a petty sexual act.

But what Bush has done, and will do, to protect himself is not petty. It goes to the heart of the government. He already has a history of misleading the public on the searches conducted thus far. As he and his colleagues seek to minimize the vast amount of data collection, the lies will necessarily expand to cover the wrongdoing. Bush can be brought down.

Copyright � 2005 HuffingtonPost.com. All rights reserved. The information contained in Huffington Post commentary may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without prior written authority of huffingtonpost.com.

Teacher Probed Over Bush Remarks (see article)

I'm glad we didn't have any whiners in our political science class in high school. Our teacher was one that provoked thought, and this was during Clinton's presidency. I think that's the whole point as unless you are a Bush loyalist who thinks any comment not praising him is against the law.

Teacher Probed Over Bush Remarks

AURORA, Colo., March 3, 2006

Overland High School students demonstrate March 2, 2006, in Aurora, Colo., to protest the school district's decision to put geography teacher Jay Bennish on administrative leave. (AP Photo/Aurora Daily Sun)

Fast Fact

A student recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish's class during a Feb. 1st discussion about President Bush's State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal.

(CBS/AP) About 150 students at a suburban Denver high school walked out of class to protest a decision to put a teacher on administrative leave while the school investigates remarks he allegedly made in class about President Bush, including a comment that some people compare Mr. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

The protest came Thursday as administrators began investigating whether Overland High School teacher Jay Bennish violated a policy requiring balancing viewpoints in the classroom, Cherry Creek School District spokeswoman Tustin Amole said.

It was peaceful. The students yelled, but there was no fighting, Amole said. Most of them did return to class.

The suspension, says Amole, is a paid leave and is not a punitive situation... It just gives us the opportunity to talk to him, to talk to students.

Overland High student Stacy Caruso says Bennish hasn't done anything wrong. In the classroom, says Caruso, everyone has their right to speak their opinion and he's not forcing any opinions on anyone.

Another student, Derek Belloni, tells CBS News Station KCNC-TV reporter Rick Sallinger that Bennish is out of line.

He's supposed to be teaching geography, says Belloni, and yet he's pushing a liberal agenda trying to convert kids to his side of the spectrum.

A telephone number listed for Bennish, who has been teaching social studies and American history at Overland since 2000, had been disconnected.

Sophomore Sean Allen recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish's class during a Feb. 1 discussion about President Bush's State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal, Amole said.

After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view, she said.

The student who made the tape agrees.

I've been his class four weeks, says Allen, and I've never heard another side.

Deborah Fallin, spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association, which represents about 37,000 union teachers, said it will not represent Bennish because he is not a member.

He's terribly upset about the fact that he can't teach right now, says David Lane, an attorney who is now representing Bennish. He's so upset and I am now his lawyer and we will be going to federal court.

ARTICLE-BUSH PARDONS OSAMA BIN LADEN

Forgot to post the link for all you "naysayers" ...... MAN - Before you get on your high-horse, READ, READ, READ -- It's all over the internet. I meant to say, that Bush is friends with members of Osama Bin Laden's "family."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/breaking-bush-pardons-osa_b_159272.html

ARTICLE BELOW:

WASHINGTON, DC: In a stunning late-hour development, President George W. Bush has granted Osama bin Laden a pardon for the murder of more than 2,700 Americans in the fall of 2001.

"This kinda came out of nowhere," said a White House aide who requested anonymity. "I wouldn't have put bin Laden on the short list myself. On the other hand, maybe this is the president's way of finding closure. Because ... y'know ... he wasn't actually able to kill bin Laden, or capture him, or even keep him from making all those (expletive) videos. I mean, jeez, let's face it: Osama bin Laden is basically a one-man Netflix of cave movies."

The aide paused, then went on to say, "Can you believe this dude (Bush) was actually president for eight (expletive) years? What were we thinking? Seriously, what the (expletive) were we thinking?"

The aide began weeping quietly. "May God have mercy on me for my role in the unfathomable travesty that was the Bush administration."

Conservative columnist William Kristol insisted the pardon made sense.

"George W. Bush is a brilliant strategist. I'm sure he has a good reason for this pardon. I'll figure it out."

Kristol sucked his thumb for a few minutes, lost in thought. He was then distracted by a brightly colored piece of string.

A passerby, told of the bin Laden pardon, offered a possible explanation:

"Maybe Bush is trying to smoke him out. Wasn't that the plan?"