|
|
Tags for This Article:
USA United States Of America (7178) Impeachment (3184) 2008 Elections (2414) Bush Reasons To Dump Impeach (1907) Democrats DNC (703) Congress 110th (549) Pelosi-Nancy (459) Congress Majority Leadership (203) Murtha-John (27)
|
Add to My Group
You’d have to call it progress when impeachment, which for almost a year has been a banned word in the corporate media and the halls of Congress, starts being discussed as a serious matter, even if it is only to say that it shouldn’t be done. In an April 5 article, the Washington Times interviewed several members of Congress, noting along the way that Congressional Democrats report that “constituents are clamoring” for impeachment of the president. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) is quoted as saying he gets “one call after another” calling on him to impeach the president, but he goes on to say impeachment would be “a very divisive thing…and at this point I don’t see that happening.” Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), one of the House’s most liberal members, reportedly calls impeachment pointless and a distraction from the presidential election. Diane Watson (D-CA), another of the most liberal members of Congress, says she gets calls for impeachment from every crowd she speaks to, and says that while she would support impeachment herself, it’s “not a strategy our new leadership would want to start with.” That comment, of course, really gets to the heart of it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has for almost a year been hammering home her opposition to impeachment, saying repeatedly that it is “off the table” and (as she said again last week on NBC’s “Meet the Press”) that “Democrats are not about impeachment.” Pelosi has enforced her will on this issue by not so subtly threatening pro-impeachment members of the Democratic caucus with loss of desired committee assignments or even committee chair postings--likely the reason that a leading impeachment advocate in 2004-6, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), has for months retreated into an embarrassed silence on the issue. Lately, however, there are signs that even Conyers, whose obeisance got him the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee that should have been his by virtue of seniority alone, is chafing a bit at Pelosi’s strictures. Anthony St. Martin, founder of the website PledgetoImpeach.org, reports being told by Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), and by staff members in the offices of both Rep. Watson and Rep. Conyers, that all three of those members of the House would be willing to push for impeachment if they received a petition from voters in their districts representing one percent of the district population (about 6500 signatures). If true, this may then be the strategy for moving things forward. If last fall’s Newsweek poll is correct that over 50 percent of the American public wants the president impeached--and that would be consistent with earlier polls taken before the election that showed similar support for impeachment--it should not be hard to come up with those kinds of numbers on impeachment petitions, especially in districts that elected people like Davis, Watson and Conyers. At the same time, efforts are underway now in at least eight states to push through impeachment resolutions in both houses of state legislatures. One attempt failed in New Mexico because of improper arm-twisting by top national Democrats, and a second was sidetracked in Washington state in the same way, but legislative campaigns continue to move ahead in Vermont, Texas, Wisconsin, Maryland and elsewhere. Should one of these states manage to pass a bi-cameral legislative petition calling on the House to initiate impeachment, under Thomas Jefferson’s “Manuel” for rules of the House, the House of Representatives in Washington would be obligated to hold a hearing on impeachment. Pelosi and other Democratic congressional leaders can be expected to plead that it’s “too late” in the president’s second term to begin impeachment hearings, but this is an absurd argument. Impeachment of the president on some grounds--most notably his willful violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and his abuse of signing statements to invalidate laws passed by the Congress--is so straightforward and the offenses are so self-evident that hearings would hardly be needed. The Judiciary Committee could draw up and vote out bills of impeachment in a flash. Besides, the counter-argument to the lateness dodge is that it would be important to impeach this president even if it were done after the November ’08 election, because not to impeach Bush for his many crimes and abuses of power would be to give them the stamp of Congressional approval, making them the standard of acceptable behavior for all future presidents. Pelosi never gets asked that question by reporters when she talks about impeachment being “off the table.” As for divisive--what does one call appointing an ambassador via a “recess appointment” who has been summarily rejected by the Senate? What does one call sending 25,000 more troops into the Iraq War killing fields after an election that showed the American people to want a quick end to that war? Clearly the Bush administration is divisive. Divisiveness already is the prevailing condition of government in Washington. Impeachment would, in any even, not be divisive; it would be a national cathartic that would bring a majority of Americans back together around the support of our founding charter. There are signs that at least some Democratic members of Congress, after years of acting like lower life forms, are beginning to evolve spines and a belated recognition that there is a need to respond to the views of the public, not just the party elite. If they do begin impeachment proceedings, they may even find some support among Republican members of Congress, who also are looking at facing the voters in 2008 with growing anxiety. http://www.thiscantbehappening.net Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
By the people ... I've been hearing it all my life, "... a government for the people, by the people ...", it's right there in the Constitution. I haven't seen much yet. But I've heard it. A vast majority of Americans have voiced their opinions. We know we've been lied to. We don't like it. We especially don't like it when it costs us fortune, honor and our children. We also don't like it when the so-called higher-ups of the leadership that we have just given that leadership to tells us they're not concerned with holding those accountable for squandering said fortune, honor and the lives of are most precious commodity, our children. Just forget about all that. We have to go on with the business of governing. Believe me, we REALLY don't like this. Matter of fact we'll put you right in with the squanders. So, what is that "business of governing"? Going back to the Constitution, it's "holding to the true principle of the law. " What a beautiful thing "law". Not fully absolute, but firm. Much like a parent governing a child. Allowing the child to grow, within certain guidelines. The law has been broken BIG time. I need not go down the list. Either you bring to justice those that have broken some of the most horrendous crimes against humanity accountable or we don't have an America. There is no United States. There is no law. No shame. No nothing. Impeach? Not only that, the perpetrators should be dragged before the World Court and judged if we are to even begin to regain any measure of honor. by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 1696 comments)
on Friday, April 6, 2007 at 7:08:15 PM
Before deciding to become a homemaker I was a motivational speaker for the long-term healthcare industry. I have been in healthcare for... ever, it seems. I'm a mother of nine (six sons and three daughters), all grown now with children of their own. I love music, but genealogy is my passion. Other things I enjoy include gardening, cooking, canning the food I grow, baking, crocheting, sewing, and much more.
Party boys and party girls... I wrote to my Senator and asked him a simple question: "If your constituants voted for a certain thing (nothing in particular) but your party leaned against that same thing, how would you vote?" His answer was quite simple: "I would vote according to my party." I was truly mortified by his answer. His answer proved to me what I had long feared: That I, as an American, am being discarded by my leaders on all levels. I asked him his views on Conyer's report, and that subject was completely ignored. He did, however, state that he, as a Republican, whole heartedly supports all of the President's desicions and actions. Personally, I find this frightening. I believe we need to join together, stand up, and say "No more!" to party boys and party girls (when they totally disregard the wishes of their constituants in favor of their own political aspirations) who lead our country. I would love to be able to look these people, the President included, in the eye and say, "You're fired." by
Karla Shelton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, April 6, 2007 at 10:36:57 PM
Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.
The Democrats are protecting Bush, not out of cowardice, but because they basically support his objectives, even if they disapprove of his style & his tactical approach. The Democrats are just as much slaves of defense contractors & oil corporations as the R's.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1216 comments)
on Saturday, April 7, 2007 at 10:13:13 AM
A "corporate oligarchy" or a Zionist dictatorship? Don't forget, it wasn't "defense contractors" or "oil company" executives dancing and celebrating in Liberty Park with the burning WTC complex in the background. Rather, it was agents of the Jews-only state. It wasn't "defense contractors" or "oil company" executives driving around in a van that had traces of explosives. It wasn't "defense contractors" or "oil company" executives that, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, fled the U.S. for Israel in such a hurry as to leave coffee and sandwiches on the table. Think for a minute about some of the 9/11 related events: some Zionist agents are arrested after celebrating the attacks...their vehicle appears to contain traces of explosives...they won't talk...and to the extent they do talk, they fail lie detector tests...and they are let go? And three steel framed buildings implode into neat little piles (one of which appearing to have only minor damage beforehand)...and there's no real forensic investigation of the collapses? No, as politically incorrect as it may sound, the Bush dictatorship is merely the long sought Zionist dictatorship; brought about for the sole purpose of remaking the Mid-East into an Israeli expansionism friendly version. With the Soviet Union out of the way, and the U.S. Empire in decline, the Zionists have only a relatively small window of opportunity (time) in which to act, before the U.S. "superpower" declines to the extent that Israel will be forced to negotiate in good faith for a just peace with its neighbors. Thus it's either a wide U.S. war against Israel's "enemies" in the Mid-East, real or imagined, or it's back to "the ovens" for the Jews; there is no in-between. by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments)
on Saturday, April 7, 2007 at 12:55:26 PM
"unintended consequences?" Were an impeachment effort against both Bush and Cheney to succeed, That leaves us with who, as President… Nancy Pelosi! The political upheaval from that, while the election process is in full swing is simply too mind boggling to even contemplate. Instead, if public pressure is to be exerted, it must be directed at Congress – Both at the House and Senate, so that they know that their jobs are at stake – either in 2008, or whenever their next election is scheduled. In the end, voters got exactly what they voted for, and it is up to them to fix it in the years to come. You want the war to end, vote in the primaries for the candidate most likely to follow your demand. The same is true, whatever your stance on immigration, health care, education, and a host of the other issues confronting us. However evil, sociopathic, or just plain stupid, are Bush and Cheney, the massive disruption caused by impeaching both of them is something to be seriously considered before undertaking such an action – especially when there are less destructive alternatives available, if we will but choose to use them. by
Sherwin Steffin (15 articles, 25 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 97 comments)
on Saturday, April 7, 2007 at 5:44:25 PM
Is it better to lose your country than have "disruption"? At this point, the main reason to impeach Bush and Cheney is to try to prevent the destruction of the little bit that's left of a recognizeable America. If the Bush/Cheney terror team isn't stopped, and soon, there may not be any more elections to give voters a chance to remedy anything. The impeachment tool was put into the Constitution for a good reason...if Congress will but choose to use it. by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments)
on Saturday, April 7, 2007 at 7:15:17 PM
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
