As Glenn Greenwald ( www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/18/mukasey/print.html ) and others have made clear, under then-existing FISA law the Bush Administration could have eavesdropped on the pre-9/11 call and didn't really need any more draconian spying programs. (Mukasey has since tried to tapdance away from having misled Congress.)
The whole object of the Bush Administration, in this and every other matter, has been to amass total control of information and intelligence in the White House, cutting out the courts (in this case, specifically the FISA Court) and Congress. They want full freedom to operate outside the law, with nobody -- no judges, no legislators, no media reporters -- looking over their shoulders at what they might be up to, and telling them what they can or cannot do. It's possible that at least one aim of the domestic-spying programs is to learn from secret phone-taps and emails what their political enemies are thinking.
THINGS ON AND OFF THE TABLE
OK, so Cheney, Bush, Rice, Mukasey, Addington (and no doubt others not quite as prominent) are dirty, involved in activities beyond and outside the law. In other words, they have engaged, and are still engaged, in high crimes and misdemeanors. What's to be done? (www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1485/135 )
There's more than enough documented evidence to justify, at the very least, an impeachment hearing in the House. Potentially, if the committee voted to go forward, there could well be enough support to convict in the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans worried about their electoral chances in 2008.
But nothing can happen unless or until the majority Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate make the collective decision to begin the impeachment process with hearings in the House Judiciary Committee.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers are sticking to their guns that impeachment is "off the table."
THEIR REASONS FOR AVOIDING ACTION
Let's examine the main reasons why the Congressional Democratic leaders refuse to budge from this policy, and how they might be made to change their minds. Their arguments appear to rest on four basic premises:
1. Breaking the impeachment cycle. The Democrats moved to impeach Republican President Richard Nixon (who resigned before the Senate could try him), then the Republicans impeached Democratic President Bill Clinton and tried him in the Senate (not for treason or malfeasance in office but for lying about a sexual dalliance. He was acquitted). Putting Cheney and Bush on trial in the Senate, according to this reasoning, might be seen as tit-for-tat partisan vengeance.
In this argument, the impeachment option is being over-used for political reasons and risks becoming cyclical each time one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House.
A Democrat may win the Presidency in 2008. Unless the impeachment cycle is broken now, this reasoning goes, a future Democratic President might become the object of a vendetta by forces of the Republican rightwing, anxious for some payback.
2. Impeachment would hamper getting essential Congressional business done. The Democratic leadership says that preparing and conducting impeachment hearings would use up all the political oxygen and energy in Congress, making it virtually impossible to deal legislatively with important matters.
The question is whether the Democrats are having any success right now dealing with these important legislative matters. Looking at the situation realistically, it's obvious that not much essential business is being conducted, let alone completed.
The Republicans filibuster, or threaten to, at which point the Dems back off their legislation; if a bill by the Democratic majority does manage to sneak through, Bush either vetoes it or issues a "signing statement" saying he won't obey the new law. Virtually all matters of import are being postponed until after the new President is installed next January.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
Whyspend our time protesting in DC to be ignored? Unless we get in the streets outside our rep.s personal residences- who is going to care?
We need to mobilize locally- & demand national action. Few of us could go to Washington- but many of us- can go to our city halls or state legislatures- or local Congressional offices.
Tell the government that we're fed up with war, torture, corruption, & special interest funding our elections & our media.
Strikes have brought civil rights in the U.S. & around the world. Help make our voices louder than the mainstream media & corporate dollars.
9/11/08 to ? HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES!!
Otherwise Bush & Co will get away with it.
In our system of check & balances- the judiciary has failed & the newly elected congress has failed, & so it has fallen to the American people to set things right!
The Congress saw fit to hold impeachment hearings for Clinton's sexual behavior and lies. Now following a false-flag attack on 911 and the following invasions in the middle east, built on total lies; the almost destruction of our Constitution, and civil liberities. The forthcoming collapse of our economy; with fuel prices skyrocketing, along with food; not to mention massive job losses and home foreclosures etc etc. It's just one lie on top of another, and our bought off Congress and corporate MSM are silent. The day of a General Strike and revoult may be our only hope.
by
ronheri (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 126 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:03:38 PM
The charges are well known, the evidence sits in a "cold case" file stamped "DO NOT DISTURB" on the top shelf all the way in the corner of "should have..." John Conyers (think "Why I Should Have Impeached Nixon") back offices somewhere "out of sight and out of mind" (pure conjecture of course).
Conyers carefully continues to document everything for the consideration of the next democratic president and he has hinted to some that he will NOT schedule an impeachment hearing until President elect Obama is sworn safely into office.
In the meantime, while waiting for his sick fantasy to come true, he will deliberately let the clock run out on the 110th Democratic Congress. It's "no sweat off his back". He'll show up for work, have a few meetings, make a few impeachment and contempt threats, put in his time to get his pay, but don't anyone ever dare say that he's not doing his official duty.
After all, he raised his right hand over 40 times to honor and defend the Constitution, and he should know, better than anyone, how to get the job done.
Apparently, Conyers has now alleviated his personal political yearnings and thoughtful donkey deliberations to number one on his priority list. For him it's more than just simply doing his constitutional duties. Now everything has to be picutre perfect for him to stand up for his nation and be counted as a real bona fide true patriot.
By the time he gets ready to stand up he won't be asked to bother.
by
Gene Cappa (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 150 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 4:10:26 PM
I excorciated Pelosi for playing Footsies with GW under the lunch table, which lead to her promising to take impeachment OFF the table, others said, don't worry, she's just lulling him into a false sense of security until they get their act together.
WEll, we see where this BS toe-twiddling has gotten us now!
Remove Pelosi/ Impeach Bush/Cheney NOW!
(I like the sticker I saw: Impeach Bush, Torture Cheney!)
by
Bia Winter (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 239 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 6:57:34 AM
I have written to every member of the House Judiciary Committee (Democratic and Republican) who has not gone on record supporting impeachment hearings asking some of the exact questions you raise. Their answer "dead silence". In my view, the only real answer is to remove every last one of them from office and keep replacing Representatives until people are found (regardless of party) who understand their top job is to ensure ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT.
We are talking Impeachment HEARINGS. Hearings are to investigate potential wrong doing. If US Representatives don't have any questions in their minds about POTENTIAL WRONG DOING of this administration by now, they have no business being in Washington DC representing anyone. They have to be brain dead not to know any of the issues or reasons the public has called for Impeachment hearings. The lack of action, the excuses for doing nothing are in fact inexcusable. No US Representative who supports that inaction has any business representing the people of this country, period. I think we can find better individuals than that to Represent us. I think there are lots of people who would actually work to earn the $165,200/yr + fringes the members of the House of Representatives are paid.
The concern about our political parties is probably correct. We have a dichotomy of thinking in this country -- Republicans want less government, Democrats want more government. Seems few just wants BETTER government. Shouldn't that be the universal aim of every Congressional Member? Size has to do with need and function, not desire or want. We need sufficient numbers in the public to stand up and say enough is enough. Vote the bums out who don't get it. Support people who believe in "good government" of the people, by the people and for the people instead of -- of, by and for special interests. If we would hammer and hammer away at that, send donations to those individuals deserving of our support (regardless of party affiliation) we will have better Government in Washington and things would work lots better. LET'S DO THAT! I don't feel the Representatives in Congress are interested in listening anymore. I don't honestly feel they think they owe most of us any explanations or answers for anything they do. Their attitude is "what the heck do I care what you think?" Only if many band together can we replace that kind of attitude and thinking with a new vision of how Government should work.
by
Peter Wedlund (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 154 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 9:38:23 AM
