home

Iran-Contra: A History Lesson on Defunding

Many folks seem to not have a good grounding on defunding and the lessons that the Iran-contra scandal provides for how defunding works. This post reviews Iran-Contra and how Congress' decision to defund the Contras triggered the Reagan Administration's illegal actions.

The Iran-Contra scandal relates to illegal Reagan Administration efforts to fund the contras in Nicaragua after the Congress passed legislation defunding Us efforts to support them:

The Reagan administration's most serious foreign policy problem surfaced near the end of the president's second term. In 1987 Americans learned that the administration had secretly sold arms to Iran in an attempt to win freedom for American hostages held in Lebanon by radical organizations controlled by Iran's Khomeini government. Investigation also revealed that funds from the arms sales had been diverted to the Nicaraguan contras during a period when Congress had prohibited such military aid.

(Emphasis supplied.) The question related to defunding that this raises is why would the Reagan Administration have to direct the secret sale of missiles to Iran (and seek donations from private indiviudals, the Sultan of Brunei, Saudi Arabia and missiles from Israel) to fund the contras if defunding legislation (the Boland Amendment) was not effective to cut off US government funding to the contras? The answer is obvious - because the defunding measure WAS effective. More.

Lawrence Walsh reported that:

There were several funding sources for the contras' weapons purchases from the covert-action Enterprise formed by North, Secord and Hakim:

(1) donations from foreign countries;

(2) contributions from wealthy Americans sympathetic to President Reagan's contra support policies; and

(3) the diversion of proceeds from the sale of arms to Iran.

Ultimately, all of these funds fell under the control of North, and through him, Secord and Hakim.

North used political fundraisers Carl R. Channell and Richard R. Miller to raise millions of dollars from wealthy Americans, illegally using a tax-exempt organization to do so. These funds, along with the private contributions, were run through a network of corporations and Swiss bank accounts put at North's disposal by Secord and Hakim, through which transactions were concealed and laundered. In late 1985 through 1986 the Enterprise became centrally involved in the arms sales to Iran. As a result of both the Iran and contra operations, more than $47 million flowed through Enterprise accounts.

Professional fundraisers Channell and Miller pleaded guilty in the spring of 1987 to conspiracy to defraud the Government by illegal use of a tax-exempt foundation to raise contributions for the purchase of lethal supplies for the contras. They named North as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Secord pleaded guilty in November 1989 to a felony, admitting that he falsely denied to Congress that North had personally benefited from the Enterprise. Hakim pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor count of supplementing the salary of North. Lake Resources Inc., the company controlled by Hakim to launder the Enterprise's money flow, pleaded guilty to the corporate felony of theft of Government property in diverting the proceeds from the arms sales to the contras and for other unauthorized purposes. Thomas G. Clines was convicted in September 1990 of four tax-related felonies for failing to report all of his income from the Enterprise.

Agency Support of the Operations

Following the convictions of those who were most central to the Iran/contra operations, Independent Counsel's investigation focused on the supporting roles played by Government officials in other agencies and the supervisory roles of the NSC principals. The investigation showed that Administration officials who claimed initially that they had little knowledge about the Iran arms sales or the illegal contra-resupply operation North directed were much better informed than they professed to be. . . .

The White House and Office of the Vice President
As the White House section of this report describes in detail, the investigation found no credible evidence that President Reagan violated any criminal statute. The OIC could not prove that Reagan authorized or was aware of the diversion or that he had knowledge of the extent of North's control of the contra-resupply network. Nevertheless, he set the stage for the illegal activities of others by encouraging and, in general terms, ordering support of the contras during the October 1984 to October 1986 period when funds for the contras were cut off by the Boland Amendment, and in authorizing the sale of arms to Iran, in contravention of the U.S. embargo on such sales. The President's disregard for civil laws enacted to limit presidential actions abroad -- specifically the Boland Amendment, the Arms Export Control Act and congressional-notification requirements in covert-action laws -- created a climate in which some of the Government officers assigned to implement his policies felt emboldened to circumvent such laws.

President Reagan's directive to McFarlane to keep the contras alive ``body and soul'' during the Boland cut-off period was viewed by North, who was charged by McFarlane to carry out the directive, as an invitation to break the law. Similarly, President Reagan's decision in 1985 to authorize the sale of arms to Iran from Israeli stocks, despite warnings by Weinberger and Shultz that such transfers might violate the law, opened the way for Poindexter's subsequent decision to authorize the diversion. Poindexter told Congress that while he made the decision on his own and did not tell the President, he believed the President would have approved. North testified that he believed the President authorized it.

. . . The Role of CIA Officials

Director Casey's unswerving support of President Reagan's contra policies and of the Iran arms sales encouraged some CIA officials to go beyond legal restrictions in both operations. Casey was instrumental in pairing North with Secord as a contra-support team when the Boland Amendment in October 1984 forced the CIA to refrain from direct or indirect aid. He also supported the North-Secord combination in the Iran arms sales, despite deep reservations about Secord within the CIA hierarchy.

Casey's position on the contras prompted the chief of the CIA's Central American Task Force, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., to ``dovetail'' CIA activities with those of North's contra-resupply network, in violation of Boland restrictions. Casey's support for the NSC to direct the Iran arms sales and to use arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar and Secord in the operation, forced the CIA's Directorate of Operations to work with people it distrusted.

Following the Hasenfus shootdown in early October 1986, George and Fiers lied to Congress about U.S. Government involvement in contra resupply, to, as Fiers put it, ``keep the spotlight off the White House.'' When the Iran arms sales became public in November 1986, three of Casey's key officers -- George, Clarridge and Fiers -- followed Casey's lead in misleading Congress.

Four CIA officials were charged with criminal offenses -- George, the deputy director for operations and the third highest-ranking CIA official; Clarridge, chief of the European Division; Fiers; and Fernandez. George was convicted of two felony counts of false statements and perjury before Congress. Fiers pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. The four counts of obstruction and false statements against Fernandez were dismissed when the Bush Administration refused to declassify information needed for his defense. Clarridge was awaiting trial on seven counts of perjury and false statements when he, George and Fiers were pardoned by President Bush.

State Department Officials

In 1990 and 1991, Independent Counsel received new documentary evidence in the form of handwritten notes suggesting that Secretary Shultz's congressional testimony painted a misleading and incorrect picture of his knowledge of the Iran arms sales. The subsequent investigation focused on whether Shultz or other Department officials deliberately misled or withheld information from congressional or OIC investigators.

. . . The most revealing of these [Shultz assistant's] notes were not provided to any Iran/contra investigation until 1990 and 1991. The notes show that -- contrary to his early testimony that he was not aware of details of the 1985 arms transfers -- Shultz knew that the shipments were planned and that they were delivered. Also in conflict with his congressional testimony was evidence that Shultz was aware of the 1986 shipments.
. . . Independent Counsel's initial focus on the State Department had centered on Assistant Secretary Elliott Abrams' insistence to Congress and to the OIC that he was not aware of North's direction of the extensive contra-resupply network in 1985 and 1986. As assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Abrams chaired the Restricted Inter-Agency Group, or RIG, which coordinated U.S. policy in Central America. Although the OIC was skeptical about Abrams' testimony, there was insufficient evidence to proceed against him until additional documentary evidence inculpating him was discovered in 1990 and 1991, and until Fiers, who represented the CIA on the RIG, pleaded guilty in July 1991 to withholding information from Congress. Fiers provided evidence to support North's earlier testimony that Abrams was knowledgeable about North's contra-supply network. Abrams pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two counts of withholding information from Congress about secret Government efforts to support the contras, and about his solicitation of $10 million to aid the contras from the Sultan of Brunei.

Secretary Weinberger and Defense Department Officials

Contrary to their testimony to the presidentially appointed Tower Commission and the Select Iran/contra Committees of Congress, Independent Counsel determined that Secretary Weinberger and his closest aides were consistently informed of proposed and actual arms shipments to Iran during 1985 and 1986. The key evidence was handwritten notes of Weinberger, which he deliberately withheld from Congress and the OIC until they were discovered by Independent Counsel in late 1991. The Weinberger daily diary notes and notes of significant White House and other meetings contained highly relevant, contemporaneous information that resolved many questions left unanswered in early investigations.

The notes demonstrated that Weinberger's early testimony -- that he had only vague and generalized information about Iran arms sales in 1985 -- was false, and that he in fact had detailed information on the proposed arms sales and the actual deliveries. The notes also revealed that Gen. Colin Powell, Weinberger's senior military aide, and Richard L. Armitage, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, also had detailed knowledge of the 1985 shipments from Israeli stocks.

Armitage and Powell had testified that they did not learn of the November 1985 HAWK missile shipment until 1986.

Weinberger's notes provided detailed accounts of high-level Administration meetings in November 1986 in which the President's senior advisers were provided with false accounts of the Iran arms sales to protect the President and themselves from the consequences of the possibly illegal 1985 shipments from Israeli stocks.

Weinberger's notes provided key evidence supporting the charges against him, including perjury and false statements in connection with his testimony regarding the arms sales, his denial of the existence of notes and his denial of knowledge of Saudi Arabia's multi-million dollar contribution to the contras. He was pardoned less than two weeks before trial by President Bush on December 24, 1992.
. . .

Observations and Conclusions

This report concludes with Independent Counsel's observations and conclusions. He observes that the governmental problems presented by Iran/contra are not those of rogue operations, but rather those of Executive Branch efforts to evade congressional oversight. As this report documents, the competing roles of the attorney general -- adviser to the President and top law-enforcement officer -- come into irreconcilable conflict in the case of high-level Executive Branch wrongdoing. Independent Counsel concludes that congressional oversight alone cannot correct the deficiencies that result when an attorney general abandons the law-enforcement responsibilities of that office and undertakes, instead, to protect the President.

. . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Consider the covert involvement of high government officials and the extremely complicated ruses developed to carry out this scheme to fund the Contras through NON-governmental sources.

And then consider the relatively paltry amounts of funding this produced, 47 million dollars. I must question how anyone in their right mind thinks the Bush Administration could possibly do this to the tune of 10 billion dollars a MONTH!

What the Iran-Contra scandal proves with regard to defunding is that it is absolutely effective for ending the Iraq Debacle. Those with other agendas will choose to ignore these obvious conclusion. But any reasonable and honest person must concede the point.

< Why Inherent Contempt II | NYTimes Editorial Discusses Inherent Contempt >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Beyond the arms sales, the Saudis, and Brunei (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:04:48 PM EST
    the Contras relied on protected cocaine smuggling.

    See the Kerry Committee Report.

    And how'd all that work out (none / 0) (#1)
    by baba durag on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 08:19:24 PM EST
    The major players all escaped justice, and their philosophies now enable our current regime.  And now they've had practice at obstructing.

    I concur with your plan for defunding.  But a panacea it is not.  It will be a hard fought battle to enact, and enforce.

    that is not at all the point (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 08:22:57 PM EST
    The point is the Iraq debacle is NOT susceptible to such a scheme to keep it going after defunding.

    I have no idea what you mean by panacea. The Boland Amendment worked! No more government funds went to the Contras during the period.

    Of course, the Boland Amendment was repealed in 1986.

    that is why the Sandinistas lost. And they lost the election.

    Your point is lost on me.

    Parent

    Desperation! (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by talex on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:33:40 PM EST
    To compare I-C to Iraq is beyond apples and oranges - it is delusional desperation!

    The two are not even comparable. Oh sure congress cut off funding for I-C but that was just money supporting foreign entities. It was not a war authorized by congress where hundreds of thousands of army, marines, navy and air force have been involved - and still are.

    It was not an action that put our troops in jeopardy when it was defunded as defunding Iraq would.

    It was not an action where we had to figure out how to get a few hundred thousand people out of a hostile region along with regular military equipment and half of the nations national guards equipment.

    I have now read two ridiculous posts on defunding today. This one and kagro's who was exploring how to defund by looking at the rules of 'regular' DOD money. Iraq is not being funded by regular DOD money. That is why we have passed 3/4 of a trillion dollars in supplementals.

    You have really gone off the deep end here in comparing Iraq and Iran Contra. It is hard to imagine that you can't discern the obvious differences between the two and how they have no logical similarities in regards to defunding. But either you are incapable or you are getting desperate to prop up your faux solution that is talked about very little other than here. Talk about Bush being in a bubble!

    Gee let's see - Bush cut-off funds for school lunches for poor kids. That worked! That must mean we can cut-off funds for Iraq too.

    After all cutting-off funds is cutting-off funds and just because there is no logical relationship between the two is irrelevant.

    Hell Bush even cut-off some funds for the national park services! There is the ticket...

    Defund A Tree - Defund Iraq!

    Parent

    The talex comedy hour! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:49:31 PM EST
    3 comments to go (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:43:44 PM EST
    Hey You Know (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by talex on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:49:39 PM EST
    do me a favor. I'm on my way out the door for a late dinner and then some good live Jazz with a beautiful young lady.

    Seeing how my last two comments that I won't be using don't do well when exposed to light...

    Put then where the sun don't shine.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Two comments to go (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:53:28 PM EST
    Your ladyfriend can use them.

    Parent
    Heh. I see your point now (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    in letting talex continue to make 4 comments a day.

    Parent
    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    Of course, the Boland Amendment was repealed in 1986.

    that is why the Sandinistas lost. And they lost the election.

    Which was a very good thing.

    Parent

    I think so (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 12:56:07 PM EST
    My point is they did it anyway (none / 0) (#3)
    by baba durag on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 08:26:40 PM EST
    Defunding just made them get creative.

    Just pointing out the lawlessness of the Republicans in general, and Bush et al in particular, means that defunding will be the first act in a war between the leg. and exec. (and us).

    I'm feeling very HST today, in concert with the Aspen Times edition.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 08:28:39 PM EST
    We'll see, or not see, as the case may be.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#6)
    by baba durag on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 08:30:45 PM EST
    I'm just thinking through what their responses might be.

    Parent
    Not arguing with you, bud (none / 0) (#4)
    by baba durag on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 08:27:21 PM EST
    Just sayin' my piece.

    Parent
    do you believe (none / 0) (#7)
    by ksh on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:51:37 PM EST
    that other endeavors, such as investigations, contempt proceedings (I've yet to read your piece on inherent contempt), and impeachment would detract from de-funding?

    I agree with your point that de-funding is needed, and that it would take some awfully rich Saudis to get bush and cheney around defunding  (that's a bit of a joke, since I don't think there are Saudis rich enough to carry on this war and even then, how would Bush explain the presence of the troops after funding was cut off unless we have more mercenaries there than has been admitted).

    I am for contempt proceedings (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:55:20 PM EST
    See my recent posts on the subject.

    I believe impeachment is a distraction for the progressive base, not for anyone else.

    IF we insteqd concentrated our efforts on defunding we could have some impact, but to meander off to impeachment is to waste, dilute and discredit our efforts.

    what I most object to is impeachniks, a speices of impeachment proponent that is dishonest about defunding in order to promote impeachment.

    But the Congress is not distracted by it, they ignore it.

    there will be no impeachment hearings.

    Parent

    not that it matters... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by selise on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:53:58 AM EST
    not that it matters what i think... but i'm for defunding, inherent comtempt and impeachment.

    Parent
    that may be (none / 0) (#9)
    by ksh on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:04:10 PM EST
    you could be very right....there's a recent diary on dkos claiming Conyers said he just needs three reps for impeachment, but I would be more surprised if it happened that if it didn't.

    I'm just not a believer that both can't be done.  That's to say if Kagro asserted that we shouldn't defund because it takes away from impeachment, I would disagree.  If you said the opposite, I'd disagree too.  

    But more than writing something to the effect of "we need all our energy to defund," I'd really be interested in hearing the nuts and bolts of why you think they ARE exclusive.  

    Parent

    They are not exclusive for Congress (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:08:42 PM EST
    But practically so.

    Impeachment would consume all.

    but the bottom line is to what end impeachment if you can not remove them from office?

    Can I suggest you listen to some questions I posed to Digby during her Internet radio appearance with clammyc and thereisnospoon?

    Politcal Nexus is the site.

    Parent

    yes, I'll listen (none / 0) (#18)
    by ksh on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:51:36 AM EST
    I don't know yet if you touched on it with Digby, but I'll also look at legislative activity during the Clinton impeachment.  Although the republicans are energetic little bastards....

    Parent
    Well, my real concern ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 12:00:32 AM EST
    My real concern is Bush leaving troops in Iraq without funding. Unlike Reagan, Bush is a religious extremist, and unlike Reagan he isn't merely misguided, but rather doesn't give a damn about our soldiers.

    I remember a time when a lot of us figured that Bush would have to bring back the draft or withdraw from Iraq. We were wrong, because it means nothing to Bush to call up the National Guard and send those same people back again and again and again, militarily underequipped and already sometimes made to beg the locals for food.

    Iran/Contra and defunding. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Armstrong on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:23:59 AM EST
    I respectfully beg to differ with you, BTDemocrat.  Defunding the war will have as much effect on this administration as congressional hearings and subpeonas....they aren't going to cooperate...regardless.   The Reagan Administration maintained a pleasant fascade of decorum and legality....they were concerned  when their scheme was exposed.  This criminal bunch is in-your-face unconcerned with legality...and the Unitary Executive will have a newly minted presidential power to assert  that will trump anything move that Congress can make.  

    When the NYTimes exposed the illegal NSA wiretapping, they expressly said Bush was going to continue to violate the law, because  it was necessary.  Being exposed violating the Rule of Law is of no threat to the Cheney/Brushes Junta.  No big deal.  As Nixon said, "If the President does it, it's not illegal."

    The signing statements, attached to most legislation, is the Junta's way of saying that they'll only abide by the part of the law they agree with...the rest is a violation of some presidential prerogative and therefore unconstitutional.

    Until they are faced by a resolute and truly angry Congress, wielding Inherent Contempt and an Impeachment Inquiry,  they will barely notice.  

    These Bastards are at WAR with the Rule of Law and the Constitution.  Our 218 years old system of governance is under attack.   Collegiality and civility is DEAD.  The Democrats must discover their spine and grow a pair.   The Junta plays by the Cheney/Rove/Delay/Gingrich rules....Democrats are abiding by rules that no longer apply.  

    America is under assault...no longer business as usual....We  must FIGHT...RUTHLESSLY.  Any filibuster must be "Mr. Smith goes to Washington"...the old way - make them keep the floor...24/7...no breaks...no respite...and no August vacation...our troops don't get August off and the Congress does?  This is a continuing Constitutional crisis and must be delt with before it's too late.  

    I'm not certain the War Lords will ever leave office voluntarily; they certainly won't turn over the keys of power to someone who isn't one of "them." To a Democrat?  you must be kidding.  Listen to right-winger talk radio sometime.  We, the non-Bushie, non-Republicans are the Enemy.  Fascism has raised its ugly head and intends to control America.  

    As Sinclair Lewis said, "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a fleg and carrying a cross."  Will we ever get our country back?

    I feel you Armstrong (none / 0) (#22)
    by Electa on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    These Bastards are at WAR with the Rule of Law and the Constitution.  Our 218 years old system of governance is under attack.   Collegiality and civility is DEAD.  The Democrats must discover their spine and grow a pair.   The Junta plays by the Cheney/Rove/Delay/Gingrich rules....Democrats are abiding by rules that no longer apply.  

    America is under assault...no longer business as usual....We  must FIGHT...RUTHLESSLY.  Any filibuster must be "Mr. Smith goes to Washington"...the old way - make them keep the floor...24/7...no breaks...no respite...and no August vacation...our troops don't get August off and the Congress does?  This is a continuing Constitutional crisis and must be delt with before it's too late.  

    I'm not certain the War Lords will ever leave office voluntarily; they certainly won't turn over the keys of power to someone who isn't one of "them." To a Democrat?  you must be kidding.  Listen to right-winger talk radio sometime.  We, the non-Bushie, non-Republicans are the Enemy.  Fascism has raised its ugly head and intends to control America.

    Will America find herself fighting the second leg of a Civil War that never ended in some folks minds?  They never stopped fighting the Civil War and the Christian Soldiers stand ready to pick up arms against the infidels.

    Parent

    NOT funding (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:14:23 AM EST
    does not require Bush's cooperation.

    Due respect, you do not understand the idea.

    Parent

    Well now I'm damned glad I was (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:31:13 AM EST
    babysitting.  Iran-Contra has now become a reason to not seek defunding?   A reason to be very very afraid of fighting the honest decent only successful anti Iraq War fight to be fought?  And I shopped for this fight, I shopped hard for it because if I'm going to fight in this war I mean to have some sort of chance of winning.  Time and energy are precious commodities in my life.  This is getting to almost be as bad as having an abusive partner who uses threats of possible worldly inflicted horrors upon you if you break up with them. Stay in line DEFUNDERS, you risk everything even THINKING about something as nuclear as defunding....NUCLEAR WINTER! I think God IS a woman and she was very kind to me this evening and checked me out of here before that one came to the table on a plate very over cooked.

    I Knew the Title (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:57:14 PM EST
    Of the your thread rang a bell....

    It reminded me of the Lessons Learned discussion:

    Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal "lessons learned" discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: "One, you can't trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can't trust the uniformed military, and four, it's got to be run out of the Vice-President's office"--a reference to Cheney's role, the former senior intelligence official said.

    Laura Rozen

    Defunding... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Armstrong on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 04:40:40 PM EST
    BTDem....
    Pardon me for not making myself clear.  I have no disagreement with defunding as part of a larger battle with the Cheney/Bush Junta, but doubt that it will have the desired chastening effect....

    I'm sadly concerned that the period between today and 1/5/08 is fraught with dangers to Democracy in America. Defunding is an incremental step towards ending the Iraq War, but that is not the entire problem.  Cheney/Bush have an aberrant, heretical view of the role of the chief executive....authoritarian and crypto-fascist.  Either the Unitary Executive Theory is dispatched from our system of governance, or it becomes the system....and Congress, and democracy become superfluous vestiges of America's faded glory.  There is serious reason to suspect that the scheduled election of 2008 may be in jeopardy, due to some convenient and suspect  national security crisis.  

    I'm now 64....I fought in the nation's war of my youth, not because of political fervor, but because I love my country. As a life-long current events junky - for the last 51 years - I've never feared for my country.   Until 12/12/2000, I had explicite faith in America.  Now a crop of physical cowards are in control of the the Presidency and are spreading their malignancy thoughout the Executive Branch.  This isn't simply an errant President, it's a focused movement intending to over power America and change it to their own design.

    I hope that we can all agree that Congress must respond with the weapons designed by the Framers to deal with these unAmerican monarchical impulses...and quickly.  This, in my view, is the most critical moment in our history since the Civil War. What is America to become?  Will 70% of  Americans allow that other 30%... who are vassals to an authoritarian cult...to rule us? And change us?

    My point, then, is that the situation is too dire to use incremental steps - only - to fight back.  An Impeachment Inquiry has an educational function that the nation needs...and might have a sobering effect on the deluded Cheney/Bush Junta.