McCain

After Super Tuesday's results and yesterday's news that Governor Mitt Romney dropped out of the presidential race, it's clear that Senator John McCain will be the Republican nominee.

And while the election is a long way off, he's running neck and neck with Clinton and Obama in national polls. That's because when people think of McCain, they think of the media portrayal as a "maverick"—they don't think of him as the man who helped George Bush launch the Iraq war.

But a new memo from VoteVets.org shows that when it comes to the war in Iraq, John McCain has been the president's greatest ally from the get-go—and most striking is the fact that his plan for Iraq going forward is the same as Bush's: Stay indefinitely.

Take a moment to read the memo, below—you won't regret it. Then, we're asking folks to get the word out—can you pledge to pass it on to your friends and colleagues? The more people that know about McCain's positions, the better.

TO:	Interested Parties
FROM:	VoteVets.org
RE:	Senator McCain's Real Record on the War in Iraq
DATE:	February 8, 2008

---

Senator John McCain presents himself as a maverick and a critic of the Iraq war. But a close read of his record indicates that his position on the Iraq war has consistently matched President George W. Bush's.

Before The War:

McCain used many of the same arguments as Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and President Bush when advocating going to war with Iraq.

• McCain co-sponsored the Use of Force Authorization that gave President George W. Bush the green light—and a blank check—for going to war with Iraq. [SJ Res 46, 10/3/02]

• McCain argued Saddam was "a threat of the first order." Senator McCain said that a policy of containing Iraq to blunt its weapons of mass destruction program is "unsustainable, ineffective, unworkable and dangerous." McCain: "I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom." [Speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2/13/03]

• McCain echoed Bush and Cheney's rationale for going to war. McCain: "It's going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East." [Fox, Hannity & Colmes, 2/21/03]

• McCain echoed Bush and Cheney's talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time. McCain: "It's clear that the end is very much in sight. ... It won't be long...it'll be a fairly short period of time." [ABC, 4/9/03]

• McCain said winning the war would be "easy." "I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women." [CNN, 9/24/02]

During The War:

Senator McCain praised Donald Rumsfeld as late as May 12, 2004, after the Abu Ghraib scandal.

• Asked if Donald Rumsfeld can continue to be an effective secretary of defense, McCain: "Yes, today I do and I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man." [Hannity and Colmes, 5/12/04]

Senator McCain repeatedly supported President Bush on the Iraq War—voting with him in the Senate, defending his actions and publicly praising his leadership.

• McCain maintains the war was a good idea.

At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in Iraq, said that while weapons of mass destruction were not found, Saddam once had them and "he would have acquired them again." McCain said the mission in Iraq "gave hope to people long oppressed" and it was "necessary, achievable and noble." McCain: "For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush

Senator McCain: "The war, the invasion was not a mistake. [Meet the Press, 1/6/08]

Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, McCain: "It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them." [Republican Debate, 1/24/08]

• McCain defended Bush's rationale for war. Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, "I don't think so." [Fox News, 7/31/03]

• McCain has been President Bush's most ardent Senate supporter on Iraq. According to Michael Shank of the Foreign Policy in Focus think tank, McCain was at times Bush's "most solid support in the Senate" on Iraq. [Foreign Policy in Focus, 1/15/08]

• McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. McCain opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. [S. Amdt. 1275 to H.R. 2658, Vote # 284, 7/16/03]

• McCain praised Bush's leadership on the war. McCain: "I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he's done a great job leading the country..." [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/23/03]

Senator McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war—repeatedly saying it would be over soon.

• January 2003: "But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." [MSNBC, 1/22/03]

• March 2003: "I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short." [NBC, Meet the Press, 3/30/03]

• June 2004: "The terrorists know that this is a very critical time." [CNN, 6/23/04]

• December 2005: "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course." [The Hill, 12/8/05]

• November 2006: "We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/12/06]

Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.

• McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. [S. Amdt.. 2909 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 341, 9/19/07; S Amdt. 2012 to S Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote #241, 7/11/07]

• McCain was one of only 13 senators to vote against adding $430 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [S Amdt. 3642 to HR 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06]

• Senator McCain has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq

• Senator McCain repeatedly voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. [S. Amdt. 3876 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #438, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.. 3875 to S.Amdt.. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote # 437, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.3164 to H.R. 3222, Vote # 362, 10/3/07; S.Amdt. 2898 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #346, 9/21/07; S.Amdt. 2924 to S.Amdt.. 2011 to H.R.1585, Vote #345, 9/21/07; S.Amdt.2 087 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #252, 7/18/07; S.Amdt. 643 to H.R. 1591, Vote #116, 3/27/07; S.Amdt. 4320 to S. 2766, Vote #182, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766, Vote #181, 6/22/06; S.Amdt.. 2519 to S.1042, Vote # 322, 11/15/05]

Senator McCain has consistently demonized Americans who want to find a responsible way to remove troops from Iraq so that we can take the fight to al Qaeda.

• McCain: "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender." [Charlotte Observer, 9/16/07]

• McCain called proponents of a congressional resolution opposing the troop surge in Iraq intellectually dishonest. [Associated Press. 2/4/07]

The Future:

Senator McCain now says he sees no end to the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

• McCain: "[M]ake it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." [Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08]

• McCain on how long troops may remain in Iraq: "A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government." [Associated Press, 1/04/08]

Holtzman on the impeachment of George W. Bush

Send a letter and
sign onto the statement

The National Park Service is being flooded with letters demanding that no new restrictions be placed by the Bush Administration on protest assembly on the National Mall. The Statement in Defense of Free Speech Rights on the National Mall has received an incredible 7,500 signers in its first days. Join the campaign and send your letter or sign onto the statement -- you can do so by clicking here.

The President is Not Above the Law
A Case for Impeachment Now

Although you would not know it from the mass media, the momentum for impeachment continues to grow across the country. We are less than 7,000 votes away from reaching the one million mark for those who have voted at ImpeachBush.org. City councils around the country are on record supporting impeachment. Between now and the end of March, impeachment supporters will be taking to the streets in anti-war protests marking the 5th anniversary of the start of this criminal war.

Members of Congress are feeling the pressure from their constituencies. As you can see below, the impeachment movement is gaining supporters in Congress.

You can support this movement right now, by making a much needed donation. Please click this link to make as generous a contribution as you can either by credit card or for information if you prefer to write a check.

Elizabeth Holtzman, a leading figure in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, has issued the well-publicized argument explaining why the impeachment of George W. Bush is imperative even now. Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee during proceedings toward Nixon's impeachment. She coauthored the 1973 special-prosecutor statute, and cowrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the 2006 book "The Impeachment of George W. Bush."

Judiciary Committee Should Move to Impeach Bush and Cheney
By Elizabeth Holtzman

Since mid-December, members of the House Judiciary Committee Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) have called for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Cheney.

This should not be surprising, given the strength of the case for impeachment. What's surprising is that it took so long for members of this committee, normally tasked with holding impeachment proceedings, to call for them.

They face huge political resistance on Capitol Hill. But they aren't alone. Other Democratic members are joining them. Former senator and Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern recently published an op-ed demanding impeachment proceedings for both Bush and Cheney. Bruce Fein, a Republican who served in the Reagan Justice Department, and many other constitutional scholars also argue for impeachment.

There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution." As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power.

Have Bush and Cheney done that?

Yes. With the vice president's participation, President Bush repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by future presidents.

Bush and Cheney were involved in detainee abuse, flouting federal criminal statutes (the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the anti-torture Act) and the Geneva Conventions. The president removed Geneva protections from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, setting the abuse in motion, and may have even personally authorized them.

The president and vice president also used deception to drive us into the Iraq war, claiming Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, when they knew better. They invoked the specter of a nuclear attack on the United States, alleging Hussein purchased uranium in Niger and wanted aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, when they had every reason to know these claims were phony or at least seriously questioned within the administration. Withholding and distorting facts usurps Congress' constitutional powers to decide on going to war.

Can a commander-in-chief disobey laws on wiretapping or torture to protect the country in wartime?

No. The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Supreme Court ruled Harry S. Truman could not seize steel mills to prevent a strike, even during the Korean War. Nixon's claim of national security as a justification for illegal wiretaps was also rejected in impeachment proceedings against him.

What then is the justification for taking impeachment "off the table"? Congressional leaders don't defend the administration, nor do they contend that its actions are unimpeachable or less serious than Nixon's. Instead they argue there is no time, or that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work, or divide the country. The subtext seems to be fear that impeachment could undermine Democratic election prospects in 2008.

But even these "pragmatic" arguments are wrong. Let's take them one at a time:

Insufficient time. In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February 1974. The committee finished voting on articles of impeachment July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the Constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now that the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress might conduct them even faster than in 1974.

Distraction. During Watergate, the impeachment inquiry didn't prevent Congress from getting its work done. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during impeachment, just as the Senate did during its impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton.

Divisiveness. True, President Clinton's impeachment was a highly partisan process that divided the country - because most Americans didn't support it. They believed his conduct was reprehensible, but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment therefore had negative repercussions for the Republicans who instigated it.

Nixon's impeachment united the American people. The process was bipartisan, demonstrating this wasn't just a Democratic ploy to undo an election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the substantial evidence - all gave the public confidence that justice had been done. This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and preservation of democracy are more important than any president or party.

This value is again asserting itself in grassroots impeachment movements across America. The Vermont Senate, several state Democratic parties, and many municipal governments have adopted resolutions supporting impeachment. More state legislatures would have acted except for pressure from Washington. Many polls show a majority of Americans support impeaching Cheney (a Nov. 13 American Research Group poll says 70 percent of Americans believe he abused his office), and slightly less than a majority support impeaching Bush.

Stonewalling such widespread public sentiment is itself divisive, leading at least half the country to feel their concerns about upholding the Constitution are being ignored. Only a serious airing of evidence in hearings would heal the split.

Undermining election prospects. When the impeachment process began, Nixon had just been reelected in one of the largest landslides in history. Few, if any, worried about whether impeachment was a political winner for Congress or the Democrats. Public opinion simply forced Congress' hand when Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the Judiciary Committee conducted impartial hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress' approval ratings soared. Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.

Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.

---

Please make a donation

We are making great progress, but cannot succeed without your help. Bush is on a crusade to shred the Constitution. Impeachment is necessary not only to punish the high officials who engage in criminal conduct, but also to send a message to all future presidencies. It is not too late to impeach Bush. Please make a generous donation right now to help impeach Bush.

Bush Calls for More Arctic Drilling -- Urge Congress to Act Now!

Bush Calls for More Arctic Drilling - Urge Congress to Act Now!

So far, it's been a pretty bad week for polar bears.

President Bush announced his 2009 budget on Monday, once again calling for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling by 2010. And yesterday the Bush administration started selling off prime polar bear habitat in Alaska for oil drilling - despite mounting evidence that its own scientists have questioned the legality and environmental impact of these sales.

Urge Congress to act immediately to protect the Arctic Refuge from drilling forever!

By now you've probably heard the bleak news: scientists predict America's polar bears could go extinct in 50 years. Melting sea ice due to global warming, trophy hunting, and now renewed efforts to drill for oil in polar bears' vanishing home all threaten these majestic bears.

Protecting the Arctic Refuge has never been so critical. Even with a pending decision on protecting polar bears under the Endangered Species Act, the Arctic Refuge is the most important on-shore denning habitat for our declining polar bears.

Polar bears can’t afford to lose this land to oil drilling ... or wait for the Bush Administration to protect this special place.

Polar bears can't take much more abuse. Urge Congress to act immediately to keep the Bush administration's oily hands off the Arctic Refuge!

Thank you for making a difference today,

Rebecca Young, Care2 a

Your advice is needed.

What's wrong with mine safety czar Richard Stickler?

More than 4,000 mine safety failures in six years.

Send Stickler a note now!

Many of us watched in horror last summer as miners lost their lives in the Crandall Canyon mine collapse in Utah, and before that, the disasters at Sago, Darby and Aracoma mines.

After multiple debacles, you’d think the government would make mine safety a top priority. Think again. Recent reports uncovered a huge failure at the federal agency in charge of mine safety.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) failed to fine more than 4,000 safety & health violations over the last six years for mines that broke regulations.

This is an affront to workers who put their lives at risk every day. Tell the mine safety agency to get its act together:

http://action.americanrightsatwork.org/campaign/stickler_mine_safety

Richard Stickler, the man responsible for mine safety in this country, used to be a coal mining executive. The mines he managed had injury rates that were double the national average. Senators didn’t find him to be very qualified for the job, and twice rejected his nomination. President Bush twice bypassed the Senate to appoint Stickler, despite loud protests from anyone familiar with his egregiously anti-safety record.

We put together some ideas for how Mr. Stickler can actually do his job. Can you please send him a note for us?

http://action.americanrightsatwork.org/campaign/stickler_mine_safety

Here are some ideas for how Mr. Stickler can improve mine safety:

• Enforce new mine safety rules as required by Congress
• Fine companies that break the law – all 4,000 incidents and counting – and prosecute those who don't pay
• Push for more and better safety and health regulations and enforcement
• Giver miners a say in workplace safety by making it easier for them to form unions
• Think like a miner, not a mine executive
• Listen to miners, not the companies, when it comes to developing better safety regulations

Those are pretty reasonable demands of a man who has not done his job for almost two years. You can send your letter – and write your own demands – right here:

http://action.americanrightsatwork.org/campaign/stickler_mine_safety

Thank you for standing up for workers everywhere.

Sincerely,

Liz Cattaneo
American Rights at Work
www.americanrightsatwork.org

P.S. To learn more about mine safety, visit the website of the United Mine Workers of America, and find more ways to take action.

---

Another Day, Another FISA Veto Threat By The Bully In The White House

Yesterday, Bush again put the self interest of himself and his giant
telecom criminal co-conspirators above our national security, by
threatening to veto the FISA update bill unless we gave them all get
out of jail free cards. And if Congress were to bend over yet again,
he would still probably veto it to demand even more changes and/or
defy other major provisions with a signing statement, as he so
outrageously did with the recent defense bill.

We must be just as relentless as the criminals who are working
overtime to gut our constitution. We have had two successful
filibusters so far, and it looks like we're going to need a third.
And we need strong opposition in the House too, for that is our last
bulwark.

No Immunity of Any Kind Action Page:
http://www.usalone.com/no_telecom_immunity2.php (anyone can use this
link, includes local district phone number lookup for all your
members of Congress)

Facebook Version:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum797 (for this
link must be a member of Facebook and logged in)

Please AGAIN call all your members of Congress, toll free at
800-828-0498, 800-614-2803 or 866-340-9281, and submit the action
pages above to back that up with an email message. 1) Tell them NO
immunity, and while you are at it, them 2) no basket warrants or
reverse targeting, 3) no sequestration of illegally harvested
evidence, and Yes to 4) making FISA the exclusive means of
surveillance.

The latest scam they are trying to run down on the American people is
to retroactively lower the liability bar to some kind of flimsy "good
faith" standard, the clear intent of which is to ensure that the
telecoms get off the hook, another snaky end run around the law.
Suppose a bank robber told a judge he had a good faith belief it was
his own money. How far would that one fly? What part of NO immunity
don't they get?

The American people deserve to know how far this is gone. We are not
going to allow one of the most precious amendments in our Bill of
Rights, the protection against unwarranted search, to be swept under
the rug. And even beyond that, informed commentators believe that
creating the Big Brother database of Cheney's dreams would in fact
invite a nightmare of new national security vulnerabilities.

Dennis Kucinich Is Still Standing Strong

And what greater hero do we have than Dennis Kucinich, still standing
strong as ever on every issue that matters. Here is his own
leadership statement opposing telecom immunity

The veto threat by the President is just the latest example of the
use of fear and intimidation -- in the name of "national security" -
to secure legislative authority to violate the Constitutional rights
and protections of American citizens. I strenuously object to any
immunity for telecommunications companies and demand a full
accounting of these companies' involvement to Congress and to the
American public. When corporations cooperate with the government to
strip people of their Constitutional rights, that is a textbook
description of fascism. There must not be any place in America for
this type of conduct.

And yet, even now, powerful corporations are pouring money into
Dennis's district, to try to buy his seat out from under him by
threatening him in his own primary. They are running malicious attack
ads in heavy rotation. Please consider making a donation to Dennis
now, to help him fight back.

Fight Back Dennis Donations:
http://www.usalone.com/fight_back_kucinich2.php

And to thank you for standing with him, Dennis wants to send you his
own special commemorative edition of the pocket Constitution with any
donation of $100 or more. Remember, even if you had already donated
the limit to his courageous presidential run, you can donate as much
as another $2300 to the congressional seat defense. In fact, if you
are so fortunate as to be able to contribute $1000 or more, Dennis
will personally autograph your new pocket constitution for you.

Dennis would not be silenced and neither will we. We need more like
Dennis Kucinich, not less. We need to protect the ones we've got with
everything we've got.

So please, submit the action pages on telecom immunity, call all your
members of Congress again and again, because that is the most
important contribution of all. But if you also have to means to help
Dennis continue to stand up for you, your contribution to him right
now could make the critical difference.

Paid for by the Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm 

WORLD WAR III

STATE OF THE UNION- IMPEACH/REMOVE/ JAIL